Post on 31-Oct-2014
description
transcript
How Pastoralists Perceive and Respond to Market Opportunities: The Case of the Horn of Africa
Peter D. Little, Emory UniversityConference on “Mainstreaming Livestock Value Chains: Bridging the Research Gap between Household Analysis and Policy Modelling,” International Livestock Research
Institute, Accra, Ghana, November 5-6, 2013.
Objectives of PresentationI. Provide background/context to the question of ‘how
do mobile pastoralists perceive and interact with markets.’
II. Summarize four critical challenges to increasing livestock supplies from pastoralist areas of the Horn of Africa, mostly with data from two projects: Pastoral Risk Management (PARIMA) (1999-2004) and Drought-induced Vulnerability: Pastoralism and Livestock Marketing Chains in southern Ethiopia and Northeastern Kenya (CHAINS) Projects (2012-present). Also discuss some local market adaptations.
• Policy implications of the findings.
I. Background: PARIMA Research Sites(> 125,000 sq km
Map by Joseph Stoll. Source: McPeak, Little and Doss (2012:3)
I. Background Context (cont)
• Approximate US $1 billion in exports of livestock and livestock products from Horn of Africa and >90 percent comes from pastoral lowland areas
• In Ethiopia there have been rapid gains in exports since 2005
• Most analyses of livestock trade focus on post-production and little attention to producers. As will be shown, the rationale and structure of pastoralist household economy has not changed significantly due to market exposure.
II. Four critical challenges to highlight:
CHALLENGE 1. Pastoralist herd structures remain oriented toward dairy production/female herd structures, but most markets demand male animals. Milk income value remains most important component:
Figure Relationship between herd size, income and livelihood activities
TLU per capita
**Source: Analysis by John McPeak
Male camels
Female camels
Male cattle
Female cattle
Male goats
Female goats
Total number 35 100 294 1313 246 964
% of herd 26 % 74% 18.5% 81.5% 20.5% 79.5%
Dairy and breeding herds, Borana, Ethiopia, 2013
SOURCE: DATA FROM CHAINS STUDY, 2013
ANIMAL Export Regional Cross-Bordera
National Domestic
Local Domestic
Cattle 1. Bulls 3-7 year 340-380 kg
1. Bulls < 3 years;2. Large Oxen and Bulls> 7 years3. Heifers
1. Bulls (non-export quality) and oxen 3-7 yr. 2. Bulls > 7 years 3. Cows > 8 years
1. Bulls > 7 years2. Cows > 8 years3. Oxen > 7 years
Camel 1. Males 3-8 years 1. Males 3-8 years
Minimal Minimal
Goats 1. Males 18-24 months and 24-32 kg
1. Males 18-24 months and 24-32 kg
1. Males > 2 years2. Females >4 years
1. Males > 2 years2. Females >4 years
Sheep 1. Males 18-24 months and 24-32 kg
1. Males 18-24 months and 24-32 kg
1. Males > 2 years2. Females >4 yrs
1. Males > 2 years2. Females >4 yrs
Markets demand male animals? Southern Ethiopian Livestock Markets, 2013
KENYAN SITE
Avg per capita livestock (TLUs) (2000-02)
% decline 0300 to 1200 (due to drought)
% of Households relying on satellite camps (2000-01)
Mobility Ranking (1-6, with ‘1’ highest)
Kargi 6.98 0 88% 1North Horr 3.61 -24 % 45%2 2Logologo 2.49 -46% 81% 3Suguta Marmar 1
1.14 -33% 28% 4
Dirib Gombo
0.97 -79% 46% 5
Ngambo 0.64 -50% 1% 6
CHALLENGE 2. Mobility affects market access: Fixed markets are not where best grazing is, esp in droughts
Source: Basedon Little et el.(2008:599)
SITE
Avg daily value of milk production and herd reproduction (USD)
Total daily value per person (USD)
Mobility Rank(1-6)
Market Access
Kargi $0.97 $1.13 1 LowNorth Horr $0.68 $0.79 2 LowLogologo $0.40 $0.77 3 MediumSuguta Marmar $0.37 $0.53 4 High
Dirib Gumbo $0.22 $0.33 5 MediumNgambo $0.34 $0.47 6 High
Mobility, Milk Income and market access, northern Kenya, 2000-2002_______________________________________________________________________
(Source: PARIMA household study, 2000-2002; Little et al. [2008])
Abattoirs Export traders Local traders Local pastoralists0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Livestock Buyers (Access issue)
Buyers
Buyers
Perc
enta
ge S
hare
of B
uyer
s
Source: CHAINS Data, 2013; Debsu 2013: 38.
Kanicharo Dikale Total0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
Problems in Selling Livestock
Transport constraint
Low price
Low demand
High taxation
Markets are distant
Less bargaining power of sellers due to inter-ference of brokers
No problem
Research Sites
Perc
enta
ge o
f Pro
blem
s
LOCAL REPONSES:Emergence of “pastoralist/bushTraders” who collect market animals in remote areas; also graze market animals on local grazing; and bush markets/collection points!
Photos by Peter D.Little
Source: ILRI—CHAINS Project Technical Progress report, 2013
Commercialization Impacts on Land use and production--enclosures
Photo: Peter D. Little
Kanicharo Dikale Total0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
Figure Reasons for Selling Livestock by Study Locations
To buy clothes for the family
To pay tax
To buy food for the family
To cover medication expense of the family
To cover children's school expense
To build a house
To buy water for livestock
For ceremonial expense (wedding)
To buy other animal
To pay back loan
Animal's health problem/sick
To buy livestock feed (salt......)
To buy farm tools
To pay for veterinary services/medicine
To buy mobile phone
Research Sites
Perc
enta
ge o
f HH
Reas
ons
Source: Debsu 2013: 34.
CHALLENGE 3. The ‘why’ & ‘when’ herders sell animals
0300 0600 0900 1200 0301 0601 0901 1201 0302 0602
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Left outMoving FromStaying WithCombining
Source: McPeak, Little, and Doss 2012
Timing in Drought cycle matters: 2000-2002 (% losses/gains)
0600 0900 1200 0301 0601 0901 1201 0302 06020
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
SalePurchaseSlaughterBorrowLoanGift receivedGift givenreceived exchageBorrowstolenlost other
Different Determinants of TLU changes during June 2000-June 2002
Source: McPeak, Little, and Doss 2012
Source: McPeak, Little, and Doss 2012
CHALLENGE 4. Availability of pastures/feed not markets regulates herds (low market off-take rates!)
Photo: DejeneDebsu
Trader and HHs during droughts?
***38 % of traders say they profited during most recent drought (2011). Photo: Dejene Debsu
III. POLICY IMPLICATIONS• Improve local bargaining/price –auctions over dyadic markets? Photo: Peter D Little
•Address feed problems and value added activities Photo: Peter D Little
9
Policy Implications (cont)
• Support production and resource tenure issues
Photo: Peter D. Little
• Will pastoralism be able to provide animals based on projected future market growth?
Thanks to USAID and colleagues on CHAINS and PARIMA project
These individuals include Layne Coppock, Chris Barrett,
John McPeak, Getachew Gebru, Abdullahi Aboud, Solomon Desta, Waktole Tiki, Dejene Negassa, Carla Roncoli, Workneh Negatu, Hussein Mahmoud, Polly Ericksen, Uriel Kitron. The author would also like to acknowledge the support of AID Grant No. EEM-A-00-10-0001. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the above individuals or the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Government.