120. The CRM observed the absence in this section of the CSAR of substantial discussion on the role of the judiciary and security services in conflict management in Ethiopia, notwithstanding several references. Fuller discussion of these institutions takes place elsewhere in the CSAR. It is worth noting, however, that during the CRM visits across Ethiopia, several observations were made about the progress of the judiciary in expeditiously disposing of cases. Many judges reported having no backlog on their dockets, explaining that computer technology, increased resources, and better training have helped to remove the backlog problem. While hailing this progress, some opposition leaders and members of legal associations cautioned against the potential temptation for judges to rush to judgment on their cases since speed in disposing of cases was fast becoming an indicator of a successful judge. Subtle rivalries among judges in this respect could undermine the cause of justice. The CRM believes that this caution is worth noting. 121. The CRM observed that considerable efforts are being made by federal and regional authorities, and reportedly also by local authorities, including traditional authorities, to address various conflicts amongst the communities and peoples of Ethiopia. Considering all that the CRM heard and read during its nation-wide consultations, the more challenging intra-regional state conflicts are those to be found in cross-border communities, especially among pastoralist communities that straddle both sides of shared borders. It seems to the CRM that grazing land and water points usually constitute scarce resources over which there is conflict. Among the recommendations typically advanced for managing such conflicts is providing clearly demarcated borders between regional states and resolving land claims. Whilst this recommendation might be useful in some cases, there may well be a need to rethink this approach in certain cases since land claims and counter-claims between and amongst local groups are sometimes essentially about access to grazing lands and water points, and not as much an exercise of sovereign authority, per se. In some of these cases, new approaches to the governance of grazing lands and water resources as a shared property resource of cross-border pastoral communities might be necessary. In such cases, appropriate institutional arrangements for governance need to be developed for access and prudent use of these resources as common property by those crossborder groups. Developing appropriate institutional arrangements might require drawing on long-standing and widely-accepted traditional arrangements that pre-date the modern state, or adapting institutional arrangements developed and used among pastoral communities elsewhere. The CRM has little information about institutional innovation for cross-border governance. There was barely a mention of initiatives to rethink approaches to cross-border governance in conflict-prone environments characterised by scarcity of grazing land and water points among pastoralists. - 75 -