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.