RESILIENCE AND RISK IN PASTORALIST AREAS: RECENT TRENDS IN DIVERSIFIED AND ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS SUMMARY OF STUDY FINDINGS

PETER D. LITTLE, EMORY UNIVERSITY

Goals of Presentation Summarize findings of a review of livelihood

diversification and transition in dryland pastoral areas of eastern Africa led by Tufts University Draw some general conclusions from the review that might be applicable widely in eastern Africa, Horn of Africa Discuss some of the program and policy implications of the study’s findings, with a focus on enhancing resilience

1. Background

3 case studies were commissioned: (1) Karamoja, northeastern Uganda (Kristin Bushby and Elizabeth Stites); (2) Borana Zone, southern Ethiopia (Dawit Abebe); and (3) Garissa County, northeastern, Kenya (Hussein Mahmoud). My role was to synthesize study findings, introduce and derive conclusions of study, and add a comparative/conceptual perspective to the work.

1. Background (cont) Questions asked: (1) what are the main types of diversified and alternative livelihoods which

have evolved over time in pastoralist areas; (2) how have options for diversification and alternative livelihoods changed

over time and why, particularly during the last 10-15 years; (3) what are the factors which now provide households with a wide/good

choice of diversification options vs. a choice of narrow/bad diversification options, and what are the risks of bad diversification; and (4) what are the implications in terms of USAID strategies and programs for

resilience-building in the drylands?

1. Background (cont)

Each of the case studies discuss (1) negative or maladapted diversification choices, including activities with high social and environmental costs, and (2) positive or adapted choices with minimal environmental or social costs. Distinguish between so-called “push” or survival and “pull” or opportunity factors (which often are hard to distinguish)

1. Background (cont) Context of Understanding Transitions; Trends in Drylands of eastern Africa: Fragmentation of rangelands Growth in towns—increased urbanization Decreased % of population solely relying on pastoralism (with decreased livestock holdings); increased reliance on non-pastoral/non-farm sources of income Increased inequality and town-based poverty; urbanization/town growth not associated with productive employment creation

2. Analytical/Conceptual framework NEED FRAMEWORK FOR COMPLEX TOPIC McPeak, Little and Doss Framework (2012) based on cash income/asset index (i.e., livestock). Households differentiated by: (1) low cash, low cattle: “left out” of pastoralism; (2) cash high, livestock low: called “moving from” a dependence on pastoralism; (3) high livestock, low cash: “staying with” pastoralism; or (4) high livestock, high cash: “combining” pastoral + income diversif.

2. Conceptual framework (cont) Catley and Akilu (2012) model where households are: (1) “Moving up” with lots of livestock-based income; (2) “Steping out” with both non-pastoral activities and some reliance on livestock; and (3) “Moving out” of pastoralism all together.

Shocks (especially drought and conflict/war) can distort what we perceive above—distinguish adjustments to short-term challenges versus longer-term structural transitions in livelihoods!

2. Conceptual framework (cont) Little et al (2001) model. Once household member(s) decide to diversify what influences/shapes it: (1) conditional variables (e.g., rangeland availability, population density, per capita livestock holdings, climate, and other meta factors); (2) opportunity variables (infrastructure), distance to markets [border] and towns, key resource [river], and related factors); and (3) local response variables (human capital [education], gender, wealth, and age).

y / p (cont) POINT: Not all pastoralist regions afford the same opportunities for

livelihood diversification--differences in market and town access, climate, and other factors, nor do different groups of pastoralists (rich/poor, male/female, and young/old) share the same interests in diversification.

(Tana R., Garissa, photos: H. Mahmoud) Riverine area—irrigation opportunity but also critical for mobile

livestock production.

Scale of town creates opportunities, but also challenges

Garissa—photos: H. Mahmoud

3. Findings WHAT DID WE FIND THAT MATTERS IN EXPLAINING DIVERSIFICATION: History matters--two major droughts—1973-74 and 1979-80- pushed many herders temporarily or permanently out of pastoralism Shock trend increases (push factors) with greater frequency and more

diversification and “moving out” but new opportunities via education, trade, urban growth.

Towns matter—Urbanziation creates both problems and opportunities Education matters— (especially for women)—job creation!

3. Findings (cont) Labor markets matter—big increases in waged/self-employed (non-farm) activities but mainly low remunerative, low waged Commodity markets matter

Ecology/natural resource base matter

Gender, wealth and age matter

3. Findings (cont) Non-adaptive/negative forms of diversification include: Unregulated charcoal making Firewood collecting Land/resource grabbing due to insecure land tenure Rainfed agriculture in key livestock production area Socially negative activities—unregulated alcohol making (but very important for women), raiding, prostitution

All diversification and livelihood changes come with risks (economic, social, health, environmental, other)—Need to minimize them and distinguish short term versus long-term costs and benefits

3. Findings (cont) Positive (adaptive) forms of diversification that improve dryland resilience without damaging the environment and/or conflicting with the predominant livelihood (pastoralism). --activities that support and/or complement livestock production, such as sustainable collection and sale of natural resins, gum arabic; bee keeping, other natural products; --dairy sales and processing; and livestock-related businesses (butcheries, hides and skin processing, feed processing/fodder production, and retail of veterinary inputs).

Photos: D. Abebe Bottom row—Milk market + gum arabic

3. Findings (cont) Other Positive (adaptive) forms of diversification that improve dryland resilience without damaging the environment and/or conflicting with the predominant livelihood (pastoralism). --salaried employment-- positive effects on pastoralist livelihoods and economies through remittances for family expenditures (especially food, education, and health) and for savings and investment (examples in large towns)

--Links to main livelihood/economic activity—livestock production --Land and resource rights (empower local institutions to enforce land contracts, etc)

4. Implications for Development and Resilience in Drylands

(no single ‘magic arrow’ or technology for enhancing resilience in drylands, including diversification) Land Tenure and Land Use Policies Value-added activities around livestock production and trade (e.g., fodder production, meat processing, and local fattening enterprises for trade): Natural product extraction and trade Urban and peri-urban planning and infrastructure in drylands

4. Implications for Development and Resilience in Drylands

Education and skills training Support for women-owned enterprises, employment programs for youth Public Health and nutritional support Governance and empowerment

4. Implications for Development and Resilience in Drylands

Research and Support Education Impacts Crop diversification as a risk management strategy Nutritional support for settled and ex-pastoralists Labor markets and migration patterns Assess different livestock market chains

Acknowledgements I am grateful to the support and contributions of team members and co-authors on this study and report-- Dawit Abebe, Kristin Bushby, Elizabeth Stites, Hussein Mahmoud—and to Andy Catley who designed the study and provided guidance on report preparation. I also appreciate the funding support provided by USAID under the Resilience Learning Project in East Africa. The above individuals and USAID are not responsible for the views expressed in this presentation, which are the responsibility of the presenter.