LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS IN THE BALE MOUNTAINS ECOREGION Fiona Flintan, Worku Chibsa, Dida Wako and Andrew Ridgewell A report for the Bale EcoRegion Sustainable Management Project, SOS Sahel Ethiopia and FARM Africa June 2008 Addis Ababa Photo: A respondent mapping grazing routes in Bale Mountains EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Livestock has been an integral part of the Bale landscape for many centuries. Until relatively recently the livestock system was extensive with small numbers of people and livestock moving in a free and mobile manner. However since the time of Haile Selassie there have been numerous influencing factors that have changed the face of livestock production in Bale. This began with the introduction of land measurement and taxes which encouraged settled agricultural expansion, aggravated by the declaration of grazing lands as ‘no-man’s lands’. At the same time large scale mechanised farms were established in the lower areas, forcing livestock producers into the higher altitude regions. More recently villagisation and resettlement programmes have promoted settlement and an increased population. However, the largest single ‘loss’ of pastoral resources occurred with the establishment of the Bale Mountains National Park (BMNP) in 1970 encompassing an area of 2400km2. This was created without the consent or even the knowledge of local resource users. The historical development of BMNP has been aimed principally, albeit intermittently, at preserving the environment as a ‘wilderness’ area by excluding habitation and customary natural resource management practices. During the former Dergue regime (1974-1991) state authority over the Park was at its strongest resulting in the forced removal of settlements and the effective colonisation of the mountain landscape. Recent legislation allowing the Federal Government to regain control over protected areas from regional authorities and the gazetting of the Park suggest that the current EPRDF government will attempt to regain some of the control lost in the years following 1991. Further the establishment of a new management plan in 2006 and current undertakings to delineate the boundary all suggest that interactions between local peoples and natural resources encompassed by the Park will again be curtailed over the coming years. Further in Ethiopia there is a general bias against pastoralism and its nomadic nature. Sedentarisation of the majority of pastoralists remains an overarching goal of policy makers. Unquestionably people and livestock numbers have increased dramatically within the BMNP since its establishment. However some figures given remain questionable and there is doubt over exact population numbers. Further the impact of livestock on vegetation and wildlife remains unproven, though both negative and positive relationships have been suggested. Additionally there is no information concerning how important livestock is as a livelihood option today, what resources are being used and how, and whether customary practices of livestock management such as the godantu system still exist. As a result the BERSMP (Bale Ecoregion Sustainable Management Project) commissioned this research to develop a clear understanding of where livestock movements occur and the degree to which local communities still relied on livestock and livestock systems as part of their livelihoods and how. A further element of this research would be to highlight what changes have occurred in relation to these aspects and what impact these changes have had. It was believed that as a result of this research the BERSMP with its i partners could identify areas for support and intervention that would contribute to the Project’s objectives. Field work was carried out in the Bale Mountains area. This current study focussed on seven PAs (kebele) in four districts (woreda) – Delo Mena, Goba, Nensebo and Harena Buluk. The sample kebele were selected for the study by the government partners and BERSMP in order to have a selection of PA near to and far from the forest areas that reflected ‘highland’ and ‘lowland’ areas and their differing weather patterns. Participatory techniques of data collection were used including mapping of resources and grazing routes, trend analyses, and proportional piling allowing open discussions with community members together with consideration of problems and challenges. A feedback workshop was held at the end of the research for input from government and NGO partners. Extensive qualitative and quantitative data was collected on each PA (three in Goba woreda, and two in each of Nensebo, Harena Buluk and Delo Mena). This information has been documented in the report by each PA including detailed information on socio- economics of communities; use of grazing, water and mineral sources (hora in the highlands and haya in the lowlands); use of fodder; and access to livestock markets. The research showed that there are wide differences between the different PAs in terms of livelihood systems, wealth and access to assets and resources. However in most cases livestock remained a central pillar of livelihoods and household economies. It would appear that the ‘richer’ PAs were those that had held relatively larger livestock holdings but also diversified their livelihoods to include coffee and crop production, and those that had introduced more intensive livestock systems such as in Nensebo woreda. The main systems of land use and livestock systems found in the different PAs are summarised in Table 8.5 copied overleaf. It was stressed by community members that the value of livestock and livestock products has decreased overtime. In those PAs where livestock was produced more intensively livestock was sold when the price was said to be good, in others livestock only tended to be sold if there was a household problem and cash was needed. Often this would be during the dry season when prices were low. Men and women divide livestock-related tasks between them, with certain periods of the year busier than others particularly for those taking undertaking migrations with livestock. Polygamy is common with wives and their households spread over ecological zones (i.e. lowland and highland) in order to utilise the environment and its productivity to the full. Today livestock herds tend to be more mixed than previously with inclusion of more sheep, goats and camels, and proportionately the number of cattle has decreased. Livestock numbers found in each PA have been calculated through wealth ranking exercises with communities, though these figures may have been underestimated. In all PAs livestock numbers owned by an individual have reduced as a result of human population increase, shrinkage in pasture land and crop encroachment: fewer healthy animals are held by a greater population of people. ii Table 8.5 Summary of Land Use and Livestock Systems in Study PAs PA System of Land Use and Livestock Systems Godantu system. Relatively high numbers of livestock. Livestock grazed around homestead during wet season as land is bare (no crops). Fasil Angeso Move up to plateau and other dry season grazing areas in dry season up until June. Also graze in forest areas. Land considered not good for Goba agriculture but small patches of crops being established. Travel four hours to nearest hora in dry season. Natural fodder fed to animals. Godantu system. Great reduction in open grassland from time of Haile Selassie. May have to travel long distances to dry season grazing and Hilassa PA, water sources. Some livestock owners have established integrated crop and livestock systems feeding livestock crop residues. Diversified Goba livelihoods: mixed livestock, plus land and some have house in town. No access to hora. Natural fodder fed in ‘bad times’ and crop residues. Godantu system. In past known for rich pastures but lack of grazing now, aggravated by redistribution of land to landless youth. Try to graze Ashuta PA, livestock around homestead in wet season avoiding crops, and travel to riverine areas in dry season. Here can graze on state farms for 5 Goba months. Additional feed needed including crop residues. Small number of beehives. No access to hora – has been cultivated. No resources for livestock left in PA – all/most land is cultivated. Settlement of Amharas in 1960s started clearing of forest and Solana PA, establishment of subsistence agriculture. Rely on coffee grown in remaining forest, enset and other crops. Those who have livestock keep Nensebo them in private kalo and feed with supplementary feed and crop residues. No use of hora. Half of PA remains under forest while remainder is owned ‘privately’ with individual kalo for intensive livestock rearing. Land certificates Gerambamo have been provided. In 2006 a redistribution of any remaining land was made providing land for landless youth. Small amount of subsistence Nensebo agriculture. Some rent out surplus land to other livestock holders. Crop residues, banana, oats and enset fed. No hora visited. Godantu system. Large numbers of livestock mainly grazed outside PA in wet and dry seasons in a large number of sites due to high Erba PA population and large numbers of livestock. Some enclosures being established. Also access to forest for coffee growing in relatively large Delo Mena quantities. Some beehives. Relatively successful crop growing. Wide range of natural vegetation provided as fodder. Regular visits to hora. Godantu system. Grazing good in PA, but visited by large numbers of livestock from other PAs during wet season. Increased number of Berak PA camels. Some land being given to investors for large scale agriculture e.g. biofuels. Access to water becoming challenging. Hora and 8 haya Delo Mena found in PA. Wide range of natural vegetation provided as fodder. Godantu system. Close to Harenna forest. Quality/quantity grazing in past, but today little grazing left due to small scale agricultural Sodu Welmal expansion, population increase and resettlement (settlers from Haraghe). Livestock moves up to forest areas in dry season. Those who live Harena Buluk in forest areas or close by move down to lowlands in wet season. Use both hora (in forest areas) and haya in lowlands.