Regional Overview and Summary of the Results of the 2015 Household Economy Analysis Baseline Update

Somali Region, Ethiopia

Report Prepared by:

Regional Overview: Tanya Boudreau Livelihood Zone Profiles: Tanya Boudreau, Jennifer Bush, & Abdifatah Ismael

TABLE OF CONTENTS TEAM MEMBERS ...... iv INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Background to the 2015 Household Economy Analysis Baseline Update ...... 1 Somali Region context ...... 2 Overview of geography and rainfall patterns ...... 2 Market Overview ...... 3 The Livelihood Zones ...... 5 HEA Baseline Results ...... 7 Reference Years ...... 7 Wealth Breakdown and Asset Information ...... 8 Sources of Food...... 9 Sources of Cash Income ...... 14 Expenditure Patterns ...... 19 Total Income and Household Livelihood Protection Scores ...... 20 Hazards...... 24 Response (Coping) Strategies ...... 26 Implications for Program Planning ...... 28 Changes over the past ten years ...... 30 Rainfall trends ...... 30 Changes in household herd sizes ...... 32 Changes in area cultivated and agricultural production ...... 33 Changes in market conditions ...... 33 Future considerations ...... 34 Annex 1. Population by Livelihood Zone ...... 35 Annex 2. The Household Economy Analysis Framework and Methodology ...... 38 Uses of HEA Baselines and the Livelihood Profiles ...... 38 a) An Introductory Guide to Food Security and Livelihood Patterns in the Five Livelihood Zones .... 38 b) Early Warning and Food Security Monitoring ...... 38 c) Policy Development and Advocacy...... 39 d) Content of the Livelihood Zone Profiles ...... 39 The Household Economy Approach & Field Methodology ...... 40 Annex 3. Asset Comparison over three HEA Baselines ...... 45

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Average Annual Rainfall by Livelihood Zone, 10-year mean, RFE (2004/5 – 2013/14) ...... 2 Figure 2. Seasonal rainfall patterns ...... 3 Figure 3. Breakdown of rural population by livelihood zone cluster ...... 6 Figure 4. Reference years for the HEA baseline ...... 7 Figure 5. Average livestock numbers by wealth group and livelihood zone cluster ...... 8

Figure 6. Average area cultivated by wealth group and livelihood zone cluster ...... 9 Figure 7. Source of Food - Pastoral Zones ...... 10 Figure 8. Average number of camels - pastoral zones ...... 11 Figure 9. Sources of Food - Agropastoral Zones ...... 11 Figure 10. Sources of Food - Farming Zones ...... 12 Figure 11. Average Staple Grain Production - Agropastoral and Farming zones ...... 12 Figure 12. Sources of Food - average by livelihood zone cluster ...... 13 Figure 13. Household annual milk production ...... 14 Figure 14. Source of Cash - the Pastoral Zones ...... 14 Figure 15. Sources of Cash - The Agropastoral Zones ...... 15 Figure 16. Sources of Cash - the Farming Zones ...... 16 Figure 17. Sources of Cash - Average for the livelihood zone clusters ...... 17 Figure 18. Annual cash income levels (average for wealth group) ...... 19 Figure 19. Expenditure patterns by livelihood zone cluster ...... 19 Figure 20. An example of total income (GAP Livelihood Zone) ...... 21 Figure 21. Annual total income - reference year ...... 22 Figure 22. Total income vs the Livelihoods Protection Threshold ...... 22 Figure 23. The Household Livelihoods Protection Score ...... 23 Figure 24. Household Livelihoods Protection Score - poor and better off households in the reference year ...... 23 Figure 25. Comparison of HLPS to Total Income - Poor Households ...... 24 Figure 26. Average rainfall anomalies over the last 16 years ...... 31 Figure 27. Average Annual Rainfall Anomaly, 10-year and 5-year average ...... 31 Figure 28. Select changes in household herd size in the last decade ...... 32

iii

TEAM MEMBERS

OVERALL TEAM LEADER & FIELD COORDINATOR Abdifatah Ismael (Regional Aid Coordinator and Humanitarian Affairs Advisor to the president of Somali Regional State of Ethiopia)

BASELINE TRAINING, ANALYSIS SUPPORT, & LIVELIHOOD IMPACT ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (LIAS) DEVELOPMENT The Baseline Training was led by Julius Holt (FEG) and Abdifatah Ismael The Baseline Analysis (post field-work) was led by Alexandra King (FEG) The LIASes were developed by Mark Lawrence of FEG

FIELD TEAMS

Afder Pastoral Degahbur Agropastoral

Team Leader: Wossen Getachew, Consultant Team Leader: Huseen Warmahaye, DPPB Team Members: Mahamud Abdinur Sayid, DPPB Team Members: Ahmed Wali Huseen Haji, Consultant Mahamed Abdi Barah, DPPB Abdi Asiis Dahir Sulub, DPPB Abdi Mahamed Hasan,DPPB Mohamed Adan Yusuf, Private Mahamed Sheikh Basher,DPPB Mukhtar Huseen Ali, DPPB Kamaal Ibraahim, DPPB Nuur Shuraako, DPPB

Dawa-Ganale Riverine Filtu Dolo Pastoral

Team Leader: Wossen Getachew, Consultant Team Leader: Hassen Barud, DPPB Team Members: Mahamud Abdinur Sayid, DPPB Team Members: Bashir Hussein Ali, Consultant Mahamed Abdi Barah, DPPB Badal Daahir, DPPB Abdi Mahamed Hasan,DPPB Mustafe Abdi Ali, DPPB Mahamed Sheikh Basher,DPPB

Fik Pastoral Gode Agropastoral

Team Leader: Huseen Warmahaye, DPPB Team Leader: Mohamed Mandiid, WFP Team Members: Ahmed Wali Huseen Haji, Consultant Team Members: Abdi Ahmed, DPPB Abdi Asiis Dahir Sulub, DPPB Mahamed mahamud Abdi, Consultant Mohamed Adan Yusuf, Consultant Barut Abdi Omar Mukhtar Huseen Ali, DPPB Axmed Nuur, Consultant Kamaal Ibraahim, DPPB Ibraahim Sheikh , DPPB Nuur Shuraako, DPPB

Harshin Degahbur Pastoral Jijiga Agropastoral

Team Leader: Huseen Warmahaye, DPPB Team Leader: Mahamud Muhumed, WFP Team Members: Ahmed Wali Huseen Haji, Private Team Members: Hasan Reebe Wa Ays ,DPPB Abdi Asiis Dahir Sulub, DPPB Marwo Abdi Asiiz , DPPB Mohamed Adan Yusuf, Consultant Muhumed Mahamud Elmi, DPPB Mukhtar Huseen Ali, DPPB Mukhtaar Muhumed, DPPB Kamaal Ibraahim, DPPB Hibo Tahir Sheikh, DPPB Nuur Shuraako, DPPB Abdiqadir Ahmed Hashi , DPPB

Jijiga Sedentary Farming Korahe Agropastoral

Team Leader: Mahamud Muhumed, WFP Team Leader: Kaafi Mohamed Gaarif , WFP Team Members: Hasan Reebe Wa Ays ,DPPB Team Members: Abdi Rashiid Doolo, DPPB Marwo Abdi Asiiz , DPPB Abdul Ilaah Ugaas, DPPB Muhumed Mahamud Elmi, DPPB Sadaq Ali Mahad Ale, DPPB Mukhtaar Muhumed, DPPB Abdirisaq Korehe, WFP Hibo Tahir Sheikh, DPPB Abdiqadir Ahmed Hashi , DPPB

Korahe Gode Pastoral Liban Agropastoral & Filtu-Dolo Pastoral

Team Leader: Mohamed Mandiid, WFP Team Leader: Hassen Barud, DPPB Team Members: Abdi Ahmed, DPPB Team Members: Bashir Hussein Ali, Consultant Mahamed Mahamud Abdi, Badal Daahir, DPPB Consultant Mustafe Abdi Ali, DPPB Barut Abdi Omar Axmed Nuur, Consultant Ibraahim Sheikh , DPPB

Lowland Hawd Pastoral & Korahe Agropastoral Moyale Woyamo Pastoral

Team Leader: Kaafi Mohamed Gaarif , WFP Team Leader: Hassen Barud, DPPB Team Members: Abdi Rashiid Doolo, DPPB Team Members: Bashir Hussein Ali, Consultant Abdul Ilaah Ugaas, DPPB Badal Daahir, DPPB Sadaq Ali Mahad Ale, DPPB Mustafe Abdi Ali, DPPB Abdirisaq Korehe, WFP

Shinile Agropastoral Shabelle Riverine

Team Leader: Mahamud Muhumed, WFP Team Leader: Mohamed Mandiid, WFP Team Members: Hasan Reebe Wa Ays ,DPPB Team Members: Abdi Ahmed, DPPB Marwo Abdi Asiiz , DPPB Mahamed Mahamud Abdi, Consultant Muhumed Mahamud Elmi, DPPB Barut Abdi Omar Mukhtaar Muhumed, DPPB Axmed Nuur, Consultant Hibo Tahir Sheikh, DPPB Ibraahim Sheikh , DPPB Abdiqadir Ahmed Hashi , DPPB

Shinile Pastoral

Team Leader: Mahamud Muhumed, WFP Team Members: Hasan Reebe Wa Ays ,DPPB Marwo Abdi Asiiz , DPPB Muhumed Mahamud Elmi, DPPB Mukhtaar Muhumed, DPPB Hibo Tahir Sheikh, DPPB Abdiqadir Ahmed Hashi , DPPB

INTRODUCTION

Background to the 2015 Household Economy Analysis Baseline Update

Household Economy Analysis (HEA) is a unique livelihoods-based analytical framework designed to provide a clear and accurate representation of the inside workings of household economies at different levels of a wealth continuum and in different parts of the world. This picture can be used for a wide range of purposes, including development planning, emergency response, early warning, monitoring & evaluation, poverty analysis and reduction, and policy analysis.

Somali Region’s first HEA baseline was developed in Somali Region in 2000/2001 with support from Save the Children UK in partnership with the Somali Regional State Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Bureau (DPPB) and the World Food Programme (WFP), with funding from USAID and ECHO. An updated set of baseline information was published in 2008, drawing on field work that had been done in the previous few years. The HEA Baselines in Somali Region have been used for the past decade as the starting point for early warning estimates and annual needs assessments. They form an essential component of the regional and national early warning system and help provide a rich source of information on which to base development and disaster mitigation plans.

Given that almost a decade has passed since the last baseline, the Somali Regional State DPPB determined that it was necessary to update the HEA baseline information and initiated discussions with USAID and Mercy Corps, the prime contractor implementing the Pastoral Livelihoods Initiative (PLI), towards this end. The baseline information was compiled through a combination of fieldwork and reference to existing secondary data sources. The fieldwork to gather baseline HEA information was undertaken by trained field teams of staff from the DPPB and WFP in January and February of 2015. Most teams were led by an experienced HEA team leader and all of the teams were trained at the start by a senior consultant from the Food Economy Group (FEG). The field data was collected at village or settlement points through a tiered process of information gathering using structured and semi- structured interviews. Wealth breakdown information was gathered at community level with elders and local key informants. Information to put together the quantification of livelihood strategies was gathered through focus group interviews with representatives of each wealth group. Eight representative villages were visited in each livelihood zone. For more details on the Household Economy Analysis (HEA) methodology, please see Annex 2. The Household Economy Analysis Framework and Methodology1.

This report is divided into three sections: 1. The Somali Region Context section provides a background for understanding differences in livelihood patterns discussed later in the overview, offering a brief description of the geography of Somali Region, along with rainfall patterns that contribute to different livelihood outcomes. These geographic and seasonal differences come together with variations in market conditions, also discussed here, to produce the livelihood zones that act as the sampling frame in

1 More details on HEA can also be obtained by visiting http://www.foodeconomy.com/

1 which the HEA baseline work is conducted. 2. The HEA Baseline Results section lays out the findings of the recent baseline update, covering the reference year, wealth breakdowns, sources of food and cash and patterns of expenditure, total income and household livelihood protection scores, hazards, response (coping) strategies, and implications for program planning. 3. The last section, Changes over the Past Ten Years, attempts to highlight and make sense of a number of changes that have taken place since the last baseline.

SOMALI REGION CONTEXT

Overview of geography and rainfall patterns

Somali Region comprises an area of around 250,000 square kilometers in the southeastern corner of Ethiopia, bordering Djibouti to the north, Somalia to the east and north-east and Kenya to the south. Oromiya Region (Ethiopia) forms its western border; Afar Region lies to the northwest.

The region lies between 200 meters above sea level in the southern and central parts and 1,800 meters above sea level in Jijiga Zone. A mid-altitude plateau covers parts of Liban, Degahbur, Fik and Shinile zones. The vast majority, around 80% of the region, is considered lowland. The lowlands are arid to semi-arid, with rainfall in parts averaging less than 300 mm per year and hot temperatures, reaching 32- 40°C. The mid-altitude ‘areas account for approximately 15% of the region. Here rainfall ranges between 300 and 400 mm a year and temperatures are more moderate (20-28°C). In the higher altitude areas, such as Jijiga, which are found in only around 5% of the region, rainfall averages 750 mm per year and the temperatures are cooler, typically just below 20°. Figure 1 shows average annual rainfall (10-year mean) by livelihood zone; the zones on the right are all in northern highland areas; those on the left are in lowland southern areas.

Average annual rainfall by livelihood zone source: USGS

800 700 600 500

400 mm 300 200 100 0 LHP AFP HDP DGR KAP GAP FDP KGP MWP DAP FKP LAP SHP JAP SAP JSF Livelihood Zone

Figure 1. Average Annual Rainfall by Livelihood Zone, 10-year mean, RFE (2004/5 – 2013/14)

Rainfall throughout the region is bimodal, falling during two distinct periods. However, the occurrence of these periods varies, and the region can be divided into two areas based on seasonal rainfall patterns: Shinile and Jijga zones to the north, and the remaining seven zones to the south. Zones in the southern parts have a gu season occurring from April to June, and a deyr season from October to Figure 2. Seasonal rainfall patterns December. Zones with a main rainy season starting in July/August (karan) and a secondary rainy season from March – May (dira’) are found in the northern areas.

Most of the region is well-suited to livestock rearing, with camels, goats, sheep, cattle and donkeys owned to varying degrees throughout the region. Hilly terrain covered with thick, thorny brush, which provides good browse for camels and goats, is found in many areas. In other areas open plains with rich grasslands provide ideal grazing opportunities for cattle and sheep.

Three permanent rivers offer up opportunities for both irrigated farming and flood recession agriculture. These include the Dawa, the Ganale and the Shabelle river basins. There is also some rainfed agriculture from around the latitude of Degahbur northward, often opportunistic because of large inter-annual differences in precipitation, but capable of producing substantial yields in the few years when rainfall is good.

A notable lack of groundwater throughout the region creates the need for collecting rain water in large concrete tanks called berkads. This system replaces wells in many areas, and especially in the Haud, which makes up the large southeastern ‘horn’ extension.

Market Overview

Livestock, sold on the hoof, are the foundation for the regional economy. According to Ethiopian Government statistics, Somali region is estimated to have about 8 million sheep, 3.1 million goats, 2.3 million cattle, and 1.3 million camels2. Livestock provide milk, meat and cash, both from direct sales of livestock and from sales of milk and ghee. Each livelihood zone relies on a network of markets, starting

2 http://www.ethiopia.gov.et/statesomali

3 with local kebele and woreda centers which are connected to varying degrees with regional markets servicing external markets, with particular demand from the Gulf states, along with Kenya and Somalia and, to a lesser degree, other parts of Ethiopia. In these primary markets, livestock is sold to two groups: local buyers who are purchasing animals for local meat consumption and/or restocking; and traders who take animals on to bigger markets immediately or after fattening. The livestock market reaches its boom during the pre-Haj season in August and September when livestock are exported to the Gulf from all countries in East Africa. Livestock prices hit their lowest points during the peak of the long dry season due to poor body condition and slower trade.

Most zonal capitals and woreda towns are important trading centers for the rural areas that surround them. Through these corridors camels, cattle, goats and sheep leave the region, and rice, wheat, maize, sugar, oil, new and second hand clothes, and all types of household items flow in. The most important central market towns that serve as junctions between the local, regional and international markets within Somali Region are Moyale, Dolo Ado, Cherati, Gode, Warder, Kebridehar, Degahbur, and Jijiga. These markets have connection to central markets outside the region, such as Dire Dawa, Negelle, and Meisso; or – more importantly – outside the country, such as Bossaso, Hargeisa, Beledweyne, and Burao. The Mogadishu market, Djibouti market and Gulf States are critical end destinations.

In addition to selling livestock on the hoof, almost all households depend heavily on milk and ghee sales – a source of income that has grown in value and importance over the past ten years, driven by the increasing demand associated with a burgeoning urban population. Milk is sold exclusively to local markets, since the means for storing and transporting milk are not in place; many pastoralists settle a portion of the household, explicitly for this reason, on the periphery of towns in order to have access to the town market. Other locally-sold commodities include bush products, like firewood, charcoal, gums and resins. Agropastoralists also sell maize and sorghum with some riverine villages specializing in fodder, fruits and vegetables (sold mainly to markets within the region) and sesame and onions (sold to markets outside the region).

Somali Region is still poorly integrated with the rest of Ethiopia. Negelle, Diredawa, Meisso, Moyale and Babile function as relay points for livestock bound for Addis Ababa and the Ethiopian highlands, and some maize, sorghum and other cereals are supplied into Somali Region through these markets, but this is not what fuels the local economy. It is the demand from Somalia, Kenya, and most importantly the Gulf Arab states that creates real movement in the markets.

Market conditions in many areas have benefited from the construction of the asphalt road from Jijiga to Gode which traverses key towns such as Kebridahar, Degahbur and Birkod. This has led to the growing capacity and importance of the Gode and Degahbur markets in particular. In recent years, the Jijiga market benefited from a number of improvements, including: a steady increase in the number of licensed traders involved in import-export activities, close proximity to the border with Somaliland, the burgeoning financial capacity of traders, linkages with other zones through an asphalt road that connects to Berbera and other zones of the region; the development of telecommunication and various banking services; and an increasing population of consumers.

However, throughout most of Somali Region transportation infrastructure is still very poor. There are very few asphalt roads and the existing dirt roads are in bad condition; if bridges exist, they are in poor repair. In the rainy season it is especially difficult to get from one village to another by vehicle; and although the the dry season offers slightly better access, road conditions remain sub-standard. An extreme example of this is found in Fik Pastoral Livelihood Zone, considered the most isolated livelihood zone in Somali Region, where weeks, if not months, can pass without commercial trucks passing through. The rocky terrain, combined with security concerns and very poor roads results in a failure of both livestock and commodity markets for significant periods of the year and especially in the wet season. Afder Pastoral Livelihood Zone is also known for having some of the worst roads in the region. The Gode-Hargele, Charrati-Shakisa, Charrati-Gorobaqaqsa and Elkare-West Imey roads, most of which are important trade routes for livestock and other commodities, are all bad. In the northern areas, people are eagerly awaiting the completion of the renovation of the Ethiopia-Djibouti railway which traverses the Shinile livelihood zones. Some woreda towns with train stations were previously major marketing points, with onward transport by pack camel. Now that the railroad no longer functions, the flow of commodities into and out of these zones has slowed.

Given the poor road conditions, most people reach market centers by foot. Animals are typically walked along well-worn foot paths, and goods are transported either by donkey, camel or motorcycle. This poses a particular challenge for people living far from market centers. And in the farming areas, such as the Shabelle Riverine Livelihood Zone, poor transportation creates significant barriers to economic growth. Perishable crops like tomatoes and bananas are mainly sold in local markets for local consumption. Although some of these crops manage to make it to the central market in Gode, the difficult roads between Kalafo, Mustahil, Ferfer and Gode, which have deteriorated in the last few years, combined with the searing heat, which reaches levels close to 40 Co, mean that much of the produce spoils along the way.

Tougher restrictions on unlicensed cross-border trade in recent years, the volatile security situation in Somalia with the growth of Al-Shabaab, and the development of an asphalt road between Jijiga and Gode town have changed the trade routes for imported food and non-food items in the southern zones. Five years ago, most goods were coming across what was - at the time - a highly porous border with Somalia; but today most goods come through a single route (Wajale-Jigjiga) via licensed traders and associations. From Gode market goods are distributed onward throughout the southern livelihood zones. On the Somalia side, products which used to flow smoothly across the border to markets like Beletweyne and Mogadishu are now less likely to be transported due to the changing security situation at the border. Trade routes for livestock have shifted to Gode-Degahbur, from which most are exported to Somaliland through Wajale or taken directly to Hargeisa.

The Livelihood Zones

Livelihood zones are homogenous areas within which people share broadly the same means of production and the same access to markets. The geographical features discussed above, combined with seasonal variations and market conditions all contribute to determining the outlines of these zones,

5 shown in the map on the following page. For a complete list of the woredas and population for each livelihood zone, please see Annex 1. Population by Livelihood Zone.

In Somali Region there are three main livelihood zone ‘clusters’, or groupings of livelihood zones that share a common base pattern of livelihood: 1. Pastoral; 2. Agropastoral; and 3. Farming.

The pastoral livelihood zones predominate, making up around Population in Somali Region broken 59% of the rural population. In these zones land is down by livelihood zone cluster communally owned and various sub-clans traditionally exercise control over territories they perceive as their areas of origin as dictated by clan settlement history. This does not, however, place practical restrictions on livestock movements by any clan into or out of different livelihood zones, and in times of low clan conflict, there is unrestricted sharing of grazing and water resources. Because the rains are essential to replenishing the pastures and browse on which pastoralists depend, and the rains shift in location and intensity from season to season, mobility remains an essential characteristic of life throughout much of the region. Where people move Figure 3. Breakdown of rural population by their livestock is determined by changes in pasture and water livelihood zone cluster availability, disease outbreaks, market access, and service availability like livestock vaccination campaigns at particular times of the year. Other factors such as localized conflict and insecurity also influence the direction and destination of these decisions. Long

6 distance migrations do not take place in normal years, and are undertaken only when necessary in a bad year.

Agropastoralists account for around 26% of the total rural population, and pursue a mixture of extensive livestock rearing and rain-fed crop production; some agropastoralists may be better described as pastoralists who engage in opportunistic farming activities – as in Fik and some parts of Liban Zone. Others are more committed to farming, but nevertheless continue to place a large emphasis on livestock rearing. In most of these areas agriculture is undertaken as a means of securing food, rather than cash income. By growing crops, people reduce the number of animals they need to sell to purchase food. This lowers their vulnerability to food price shocks, and helps them to keep herd sizes relatively high.

Around the Dawa, the Ganale and the Shabelle river basins, irrigated agriculture is practiced. In these areas, as well as in Jijiga, where rainfall levels are relatively high, one finds the farming-oriented livelihood zones. The population living in the farming zones comprises around 16% of the rural population in Somali Region.

HEA BASELINE RESULTS

The HEA information collected during field work is presented below. The section begins with discussion of the reference year chosen in each livelihood zone, followed by a summary of the wealth breakdown and asset information. The sources of food and cash and patterns of expenditure are presented next, followed by an analysis of total income (food plus cash) in relation to the livelihoods protection threshold. Finally, a summation on hazards, response (coping) strategies and program implications is provided.

Reference Years

Each baseline assessment refers to a very specific time period called the reference year. In HEA, the reference year is a recent consumption year, starting with the month when own household production starts, usually marking the end of the main hunger season. In pastoral zones this is when milk production starts to peak, typically at the start of the main rainy season. In areas where a crop harvest was important, the main harvest starts the reference year. The reference year in all pastoral zones and most agropastoral zones was the consumption year between mid-April Figure 4. Reference years for the HEA baseline 2013 and mid-April 2014. The

Shabelle Riverine Livelihood Zone was an exception – the consumption year here was mid-June 2013 to mid-June 2014. Jijiga Sedentary Farming & Shinile Agropastoral Livelihood Zones were two other exceptions. The reference year in these zones was October 2013 to September 2014. Provided there are no fundamental and rapid shifts in the economy, the information in these HEA baseline profiles is expected to remain valid for between five and ten years (i.e. until at least 2020 and possibly beyond).

Wealth Breakdown and Asset Information

HEA baseline information is gathered and Average number of livestock by wealth group stored by wealth group. Wealth is a critical and livelihood zone cluster factor in determining how households obtain their food and cash income, and it is one of Camels the two most important ways that HEA data is disaggregated (the other being by livelihood zone).

In the pastoral zones, wealth is determined by the type and number of livestock owned. Camels are a particularly valuable asset in the pastoral and agropastoral livelihood zones, providing milk throughout the year, and Cattle worth the most per animal of any livestock category. They are not kept in the farming livelihood zones. Cattle are owned in all of the pastoral livelihood zones except for the Lowland Hawd Pastoral Livelihood Zone, where conditions are too dry. Cattle numbers per household are actually highest per household in agropastoral areas, where they can be fed with crop residues as well as Goats and sheep combined pasture. Goats and sheep combined make up the largest herd sizes, averaging just under 120 animals per combined herd for better off households in pastoral areas and over 80 animals per combined herd for households in the same wealth group in agropastoral livelihood zones.

In the agropastoral and farming zones, wealth is determined both by the amount of Figure 5. Average livestock numbers by wealth group and livelihood land cultivated and the type and number of zone cluster

8 livestock owned. The average area cultivated by wealth group and livelihood zone cluster is shown in Error! Reference source not found..

Household size is both an indicator of wealth group, with better off households having more members on average; and a contributing factor to wealth since it is necessary to have a bigger labor pool to help manage larger herds. On average, poor households have around 7 members; Figure 6. Average area cultivated by wealth group and livelihood zone cluster middle households have around 8; and better off households have around 10 members. Better off and some middle households also have more than one wife.

The percentage of households and the percentage of the population falling into each wealth group (average by livelihood zone cluster) is shown in Error! Reference source not found.. Since better off households have multiple wives and larger household sizes, the Table 1. % of households and population falling into each wealth group, average for livelihood zone cluster percent of the population (as % of hhs pastoral agropastoral farming opposed to the percent of poor 36% 33% 39% households) falling into the middle 45% 48% 41% upper wealth groups is larger better off 19% 19% 20% than the percent of households in each wealth group. % of pop poor 21% 17% 25% In five of the livelihood zones middle 42% 44% 38% the poor group was split into better off 37% 37% 39% two (very poor and poor), but for the most part the differences between these two bottom groups were not substantial. In the rest of the overview information for three wealth groups is presented (poor, middle, better off) in order to allow for comparisons across all livelihood zones.

Sources of Food

Understanding how people obtain their food is essential for determining what will limit - or potentially expand - this access. A fundamental component of the HEA baseline, therefore, is a detailed set of information on the sources of food for each wealth group in each livelihood zone. This information is shown below. For ease of presentation and interpretation, the zones have been grouped into three clusters: the pastoral zones, the agropastoral and the farming zones. This allows for a comparison of like

9 to like, and points up differences in patterns within each of these groupings. A graph showing the average for each of the zone clusters is shown in Figure 12, providing a summary statement about the differences across the zones.

The Pastoral Zones Sources of Food in the Reference Year Percentage of Annual Minimum Calorie Requirements

Figure 7. Source of Food - Pastoral Zones

The graphs in Figure 7 show us the relative importance of sources of food for all wealth groups in the pastoral livelihood zones. From these graphs we see there are two main sources of food for pastoralists and two minor ones: their own milk and purchased grains, sugar and oil are the two main sources; food aid and gifts contribute food for poorer pastoralists.

If we take a look at the breakdown for better off households shown in the graphs above, we see what the other wealth groups are aiming to achieve: around half of annual food needs coming from milk, and the rest made up of purchased grains, sugar and oil. Poorer households do not have enough milking animals to meet this goal, even in a relatively good year like the reference year, so they rely also on gifts of food from better off neighbors and relatives and food aid from the Productive Safety Nets Programme (PSNP).

Middle households, however, in all but three livelihood zones, come very close to meeting all their needs with their own herds, and for the most part do not need external support to meet their minimum needs; they do not consume as many calories as better off households, and their reliance on the market is heavier since they have less milk, but they still manage to meet over 100% of their minimum calorie requirements. Korahe Gode Pastoral (KGP) Livelihood Zone provides a good example of one of the zones where middle households meet all of their needs without external assistance, allowing us to see what it takes to achieve this minimum subsistence threshold. A middle household here typically owns 4 milking camels which generate over 2,000 liters of milk in the gu season and around half of that in the deyr season, providing over 3,000 liters annually. Just over a third of this is sold, leaving these households with enough to cover 20% of their minimum calorie requirements with camels’ milk. Added to the camels’ milk is that of around 3 lactating cows and 12 goats. The milk from these animals provides an additional 2,200 liters, around a

10 fifth of which is sold, leaving enough for consumption to cover 20% of the households’ minimum calorie needs. Having met just over 40% of their food needs with their own milk, middle households turn to the market for the rest. Around 36% of the remaining calories come in the form of sorghum, maize, wheat and rice; 23% comes from sugar, and the remaining 5% from oil. To buy this food these households need to come up with around 12,000 ETB, which is covered (and slightly exceeded) with the sale of one camel and one bull.

The importance of camels is highlighted through this example. In zones where households own camels, milk production is generally higher. By comparing camel numbers per household (by wealth group and livelihood zone, shown in Figure 8) with the ‘Sources of Food’ Figure 8. Average number of camels - pastoral zones graph above, we can see the higher contribution of milk to the annual diet for all wealth groups in KGP and LHP, and the lower contribution in SHP.

The Agropastoral Zones Sources of Food in the Reference Year Percentage of Annual Minimum Calorie Requirements

Figure 9. Sources of Food - Agropastoral Zones

In the agropastoral zones, as illustrated above, own crop production provides an additional source of food, covering 20 - 40% of minimum calorie needs across the board. Maize makes up over half of this in a year with good rainfall, like the reference year. Rain fed, flood recession and small amounts of irrigated agriculture are the basis for this production. Sorghum becomes more important in bad years when maize

11 fails. In all agropastoral zones gu season maize is primary. Sorghum is cultivated as well, but often more heavily in the deyr season since it is capable of withstanding longer periods of dryness.

The Farming Zones Sources of Food in the Reference Year Percentage of Annual Minimum Calorie Requirements

Figure 10. Sources of Food - Farming Zones

In the farming zones, agriculture takes on increasing importance, and the larger contribution of own crops is reflected in the graph above. While agriculture is given greater emphasis, livestock are nevertheless still a significant component of the local economy in the Shabelle Riverine (SHR) and Dawa- Ganale Riverine (DGR) Livelihood Zones. The Jijiga Subsistence Farming (JSF) Livelihood Zone, on the other hand, is in a different category from the rest of Somali Region, almost fully dependent on farming, with only minor contributions from livestock. Maize and sorghum are the only crops of note grown in SHR. In JSF we see a much larger portfolio of crops, with wheat a major crop, followed by sorghum, barley and maize.

Figure 11 shows combined staple grain production in the agropastoral and farming livelihood zones. Lower production in zones like the Liben Agropastoral and Shinile Agropastoral zones does not result in lower Figure 11. Average Staple Grain Production - Agropastoral and Farming zones contributions of own

12 crops (i.e. crops produced and consumed by the household) to food income (which is everything generated for consumption by the household); rather it is reflected as an almost total absence of cash income generated from crop sales (See Figure 15). In these zones, crops are grown to be consumed, helping offset the needs to purchase grain, which allows households to forego selling additional livestock and protect their herds. In the Gode Agropastoral (GAP) Livelihood Zone, as well as the three farming zones (DGR, JSF and SHR), crop production functions not just as a source of food, but also as a source of cash, as seen in the next section.

All Livelihood Zones – Average for the Livelihood Zone Cluster Sources of Food in the Reference Year Percentage of Annual Minimum Calorie Requirements

Figure 12. Sources of Food - average by livelihood zone cluster

Comparing across the three livelihood zone types, we can see more clearly the patterns highlighted above. Own milk and purchased food are the primary sources of food in pastoral zones; own crop production is the most important source of food in farming livelihood zones. And the agropastoral zones are somewhere in the middle, resulting in a more balanced reliance on the three main sources.

Figure 13, which presents milk production by household (combined camel, cow, and goat milk), makes the point that in all livelihood zones (with the exception of the Dawa-Ganale Riverine and Jijiga Subsistence Farming Livelihood Zones) milk provides a significant resource for all wealth groups to draw on.

Household annual milk production (average per wealth group) in reference year by livelihood zone – combined camel, cow, goat

Figure 13. Household annual milk production

Sources of Cash Income

Food is only part of the story; there are a range of essential goods and services that require cash to cover, and it is important to understand how people get their cash so that we can get a handle on both what will potentially undermine the access as well as how we might strengthen these cash flows. The graphics below compare the sources of cash income in the reference year for households in all three wealth groups, at first by livelihood zone cluster, and then as an average across the clusters.

The Pastoral Zones Sources of Cash in the Reference Year Percentage of Annual Cash

Figure 14. Source of Cash - the Pastoral Zones

The most striking thing to note about the graphs above is the very large contribution made by milk sales. In six of the eight pastoral zones, the sale of milk covers 30 - 60% of the annual cash generated by middle households. In the two livelihood zones where milk sales are lower - SHP and LHP - marketing conditions and the distance from urban markets are constraints to generating more from milk sales. What milk was marketed within the region was sold by households living fairly close to the woreda capitals. In the last HEA baseline, conducted around ten years ago, milk sales for middle households did not exceed 30% of annual cash income. This represents a large increase, and suggests either that households are strategically targeting the local woreda towns in a more deliberate way, perhaps settling closer to them or to important through-roads to ensure access to the local urban market; and/or that milk prices have increased as a result of a growing urban population.

Another point highlighted by the compilation of data shown in the graphs above, is the difference between better off and poor cash income sources and patterns: being richer means that you can derive all the cash you need from your livestock herd, in the form of milk/ghee sales and livestock sales. Being poorer means you are forced to look for a number of options outside your own herd, since your livestock numbers aren’t sufficient to cover food and cash needs. The most important of these options is self- employment, a category that includes collecting and selling bush products, such as construction poles, firewood and making and selling charcoal. In some areas, where Acacia, Boswellia and Commiphora trees are present, collecting and selling gum Arabic and incense is an option. Casual employment, some of it in the form of construction jobs found in local towns and some in salt mining areas, fills another part of the gap.

The Agropastoral Zones Sources of Cash in the Reference Year Percentage of Annual Cash

Figure 15. Sources of Cash - The Agropastoral Zones

The graphs above illustrate how households in agropastoral areas obtain their cash income. Crop sales are a meaningful source of cash in only three of the zones. Given that the reference years were at least average, and in some cases good years, this is a picture that conveys the upper range of what we might

15 expect to see from crop production. As such, it seems to suggest that households do not expect to gain much value in cash terms from their crops; the value comes on the food side. Every kilogram produced is a kilogram that doesn’t need to be purchased. The less grain that needs to be purchased, the fewer livestock that need to be sold to finance food acquisition. In other words, agriculture is pursued at least in part as a means of protecting herds.

In all but one livelihood zone, milk sales are an important means of generating cash, at least for middle and better off households. In GAP and DAP the contribution is comparable to the pastoral livelihood zones, saying as much about the growing demand of the Degahbur and Gode markets as it does about the importance of livestock in these areas.

Livestock sales are the most important means of generating cash in these livelihood zones, accounting for 45 - 65% of annual cash income on average. (See Figure 17 below.) The importance of livestock sales in Korahe Agropastoral (KAP) Livelihood Zone is especially striking. The proportionally smaller amount of cash income earned from crop sales in this livelihood zone reflects a growing problem of gully erosion and the steady invasion of Prosopis juliflora, an invasive tree species that has taken over large swaths of cropping and grazing land. This area has also seen an increase in livestock numbers, and high exports of goats and sheep, which helps boost livestock income. The absence of self-employment or petty trade activities on the poorer end of the wealth spectrum is notable.

The Farming Zones Sources of Cash in the Reference Year Percentage of Annual Cash

Figure 16. Sources of Cash - the Farming Zones

In the farming livelihood zones, crop sales appear as a significant source of cash income. Surprisingly, however, the relative importance of crop sales is higher in DGR and SHR, both of which continue in many ways to be more agro-pastoral than farming, than it is in JSF, which is a real farming zone. This is in part because production levels are higher in SHR (see ‘Average Staple Grain Production’ graphs in Figure

11); but more importantly it is because in SHR sesame, a high value crop, is grown, as well as onions (in the upper wealth group). These two crops together more than double the income from staple grains for better off households in SHR, and sesame sales make an important contribution to annual cash for all wealth groups. In DGR bananas, watermelons and tomatoes are important high-value cash crops, allowing households on the upper end of the wealth spectrum to earn substantial cash income. In JSF, on the other hand, it is only lower value staple grains that are sold, which limits the cash income that can be generated from crop sales alone. Better off households in JSF turn, instead, to their livestock herds for the remainder of their cash needs, selling both milk and livestock. PSNP cash transfers make a significant contribution for poor households here, helping them to preserve their livestock assets and meet minimum food and cash needs. Self-employment is the most important source of cash for poor households in DGR; this category includes sales of firewood and charcoal, the demand for which is fueled by the burgeoning refugee population resident in the Doloado camps. The extensive clearing and deforestation associated with the camps has also led to a high demand for fodder, an important source of cash income for poorer households in DGR (included in crop sales).

All Livelihood Zones – Average for the Livelihood Zone Cluster Sources of Cash in the Reference Year Percentage of Annual Cash

Figure 17. Sources of Cash - Average for the livelihood zone clusters

The summary graphs above, which show the average result for three wealth groups within the livelihood cluster, highlight once again the fundamental importance of livestock sales and milk sales everywhere, the relatively higher reliance on crop sales in the farming areas, and the large role that self-employment plays for poor households.

While the cash income graphs above give us a sense of the relative importance of each income option, the total cash income levels below in Figure 18 provide a sense of which wealth groups generate the most income in absolute terms, and which the least. Amongst the poor wealth group, households in the Jijiga Agropastoral Livelihood Zone had the lowest cash income levels during the reference year; those in

Degahbur Agropastoral Livelihood Zone had the highest. Both the middle and better off households in Gode Agropastoral Livelihood Zone have the highest levels of cash income in those wealth groups; whereas both the middle and better off households in Jijiga Subsistence Farming Livelihood Zone had the lowest levels of cash income in those wealth groups. There are a number of potential explanations for the variations in levels of cash income, including the preponderance of recent bad years (e.g. 2011 and 2012 were reportedly bad years in JAP, which has led to a decline in large livestock, and subsequent reduced income from livestock sales); differences in market access and livestock prices (e.g. infrastructural improvements in parts of DAP during the past six to eight years have resulted in the growing capacity and importance of the central Degahbur market, leading to improved access and prices); and differences in types and numbers of productive assets. In JSF, despite relatively high crop production levels, households consume much of this production, leaving less for sale; and high value livestock, such as camels, are not a feature of local household economies, like they are in a zone like GAP. At the same time, households in JSF do not grow high value cash crops, like sesame or onions as they do in SHR, which again limits their cash income.

Annual Cash Income Levels (Average for Wealth Group) Ethiopian Birr

Poor Households

Middle Households

Better-off Households

Note: Each figure represents the mid-point of a range Figure 18. Annual cash income levels (average for wealth group)

Expenditure Patterns

The graph below presents expenditure patterns for the reference year by livelihood zone cluster and wealth group. While absolute expenditure increases with wealth in line with total cash income, the expenditure breakdown by percent in this graph shows the relative amount of income spent on different categories as an average across the wealth group and for the livelihood zone cluster.

Expenditure Patterns by Livelihood Zone Cluster in Somali Region Percentage of Annual Expenditure Average for wealth group and livelihood zone cluster

Figure 19. Expenditure patterns by livelihood zone cluster

There are five points to make about the information presented above. First, relative expenditure on staple food decreases as you move up the wealth spectrum. The reduced need to purchase food is related directly to the amount of milk and/or crops generated by the household on its own. Better off and middle household in all areas produce more of their own food than poorer households, leaving them with less of a requirement to buy staple foods.

Second, in general, the expenditure on staple and non-staple foods combined is highest in pastoralist communities, where all staple grains need to be purchased, and lowest in farming zones, where households are growing as much of their own grains as they can. The range of staple and non-staple foods purchased throughout Somali Region is relatively limited, comprised – for the most part - of maize, rice, sugar and oil. Sugar consumption is very high, with many households purchasing enough to cover around one kilogram a day, mixed in with the milky tea that is taken throughout the day.

Third, all households spend a sizeable proportion of their cash income on household items, such as tea, salt, soap, utensils, jerry cans and kerosene. This category also includes the cash spent on milling grain at woreda centers. Tea takes up a particularly large proportion of household item expenditures, more than any other single category. Tea is consumed every day with large amounts of sugar and milk, helping reduce feelings of hunger and carry households through the leaner months of the year.

Fourth, poor households are more likely to have to spend money on water than better off households. This is because better off households often own berkads – concrete cisterns constructed to collect and store water. Critical water shortages throughout many zones are a major threat to lives and livelihoods.

Fifth, the relative proportion of annual cash spent on ‘inputs’, including seeds, tools, labor hire, livestock drugs, salt for animals, ploughing, etc. increases in line with wealth, and is highest in the farming zones. In these zones, in addition to paying for all the costs associated with keeping livestock, households need to put money into agricultural production, which can include things like tractor hire, oxen rental and labor hire – all things that take a sizeable proportion of the annual budget. Notably, this leaves households in the farming zones with less of a budget for discretionary items (‘other’) and less of a buffer to draw down on in bad years.

Total Income and Household Livelihood Protection Scores

The graphs in the previous section provided a comparison of food and cash income separately. In this section we look at total income (food plus cash) levels. Total income is a composite of food and cash income. It adds up all the sources of food and all the sources of cash income households generate in the reference year and uses either a food or cash equivalent to express the total value. The total income amount is a more complete representation of ‘real’ income than cash income alone, especially in areas where people produce a significant proportion of their own food. (For example, in the ‘Annual Cash Income Levels’ graph in Figure 18, poor households in JSF have the lowest cash income levels; however these households do not have the lowest total income because the value of the own crop production they consumed, which isn’t accounted for with cash income, is included in total income.) An example from GAP (expressed in cash terms) is presented in Figure 20. We can see from this example the

20 cumulative values of all food and cash sources, highlighting again the importance of milk sales (‘milk meat sold’), crop sales (‘own crops sold’) and livestock sales (‘livestock sold’) for middle and better off households. We can also see from this graph that better off households’ total income was over 50,000 ETB in the reference year, whereas poor households’ total income was less than

30,000 ETB. Detailed total Figure 20. An example of total income (GAP Livelihood Zone) income graphs like the one to the right can be found in each Baseline Storage Spreadsheet (BSS).

Figure 21 shows total income levels for the poor and better off wealth groups in all the livelihood zones for the reference year. In areas where milk and/or crop production levels are higher, more valuable livestock are owned, markets are accessible and well-connected to export opportunities, and recent years have been relatively good, allowing people to build up their livestock herds, we see higher total income levels. In areas where one or more of these criteria cannot be met, total income levels are lower. Therefore, in GAP, where crop and milk production levels are relatively high; where households own high value livestock, like camels and cattle, and herd sizes have increased over the past ten years; and where people have access to the Gode market, which sells on to Jijiga and to export markets beyond, total income levels are high. AFP, on the other hand, is known for having some of the worst roads in Somali Region; recent years have seen declining herd sizes at the household level due to a series of bad seasons in the last five years; and while milk production levels were relatively high in the reference years, there is no crop production to boost total income, like in GAP.

Annual total income (food & cash combined) expressed in cash terms Reference Year - ETB Poor & Better off Households

Figure 21. Annual total income - reference year

Total income tells us how much people are able to generate. But in order to understand what this means in terms of livelihood security, we also need to know the cost of maintaining their livelihood. This is shown by the Livelihoods Protection Threshold (LPT). The LPT is the cost of covering minimum food and non-food requirements for the household, including the total cost of covering minimum survival requirements (such as food, basic hygiene and food preparation costs) as well as the cost of maintaining livelihoods (productive input costs, education costs, health Figure 22. Total income vs the Livelihoods Protection Threshold costs and basic household items). By comparing these costs with total income we have a sense of how close to the edge households are. If households have almost no gap between their total income and their Livelihoods Protection costs, any small disruption in cash or food income can result in a deficit. A bigger gap between total income and the Livelihoods Protection Threshold means households will tend to be far more more resilient in the face of shocks.

We can compare the levels of reference year livelihoods security for all wealth groups in these zones by using a standard livelihoods protection score. This is another way of expressing - with one number - the information contained in the graphic above, essentially showing the size of the ‘gap’. It is calculated by dividing a household’s total income in the reference year by the Livelihoods Protection Threshold for that household in the same year. The Household Livelihoods Protection Score (HLPS) is essentially a ratio of what households generate in cash and food income in the reference year to what they need in order to cover all their survival and livelihood requirements. A score above 1 means households are able to cover their livelihood protection needs. The closer to 1 you get, the less of a ‘buffer’ the household has. Figure 24 shows the Household Livelihoods Protection Scores for poor and better off wealth groups in the reference year. Better off households in GAP have the highest HLPS of all households in Somali Region. This outcome is in line with total income levels, which are also highest for better Figure 23. The Household Livelihoods Protection Score off households in GAP.

Household Livelihoods Protection Score Reference Year Poor & Better off Households

Figure 24. Household Livelihoods Protection Score - poor and better off households in the reference year

For poor households in LHP, on the other hand, their standing at the bottom of this ranking requires a bit more explanation. In fact, if we compare the HLPS to total income levels (Figure 25 below), we see that poor households in LHP have the second-highest total income among poor households in Somali Region. With such a high level of total income, why are these the least livelihood secure households in the region? The reason has to do with the remote location of the zone; its reliance on imported food combined with its distance from Ethiopian markets means that prices for many commodities are higher here than in many other zones. The main staple (wheat) costs over 200% more in LHP than in GAP. This is a good example of why income levels on their own tell us little about whether or not people are food and livelihood secure. We need to know not just how much people can generate in terms of food and cash income, but also what they need to spend to meet their minimum requirements.

Household Livelihoods Protection Score compared to Total Income: Poor Households

Figure 25. Comparison of HLPS to Total Income - Poor Households

Hazards

Change is a constant feature of people’s lives, and in this region a number of chronic and intermittent hazards work against efforts aimed at building assets and securing livelihoods. Chronic hazards are those that have become part of the landscape people live with every year, and that people need to find ways to cope with on an annual basis. Intermittent hazards may not happen every year, but when they do occur, they can cause devastating damage.

The chronic hazards noted by households throughout the region include the following:

Water shortages - Many of the pastoral livelihood zones face problems obtaining secure access to clean, safe drinking water, which - among other things - leads to losses in productivity as people need to walk

24 long distances to get water, loss of livestock condition, as well as illnesses from drinking impure water. This was noted by households as a particular issue in Filtu-Dolo Pastoral, Fik Pastoral, Harshin Degahbur Pastoral, Afder Pastoral, Liban Agropastoral, Lowland Hawd Pastoral, and Moyale Woyamo Pastoral livelihood zones.

Livestock diseases - Livestock diseases cause major economic losses for all households in Somali Region, reducing the price people get for their animals, increasing the costs of care, and in some cases, leading to the loss of animals through death. Lumpy skin pox, tick-borne diseases, like heartwater, Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP), and Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP) are especially problematic in Filtu-Dolo Pastoral, Afder Pastoral and Liban Agropastoral livelihood zones.

Wild animals: Animal attacks on humans and livestock have significantly increased in many rural areas over the past ten years, causing deaths and injuries. This is a particular problem in Gode Agropastoral, Korahe Gode Pastoral, and Lowland Hawd Pastoral livelihood zones. Wild animals also destroy crops in some zones, such as Korahe Agropastoral livelihood zone.

Malaria and other human diseases – Malaria is especially problematic in many of the agropastoral lowland areas and the riverine zones, but it is a threat everywhere, creating additional stress on expenditure budgets, losses in productivity and threats to human lives.

Poor access to markets: Poor market access is a problem in many of the zones, leading to deflated prices for locally produced commodities and high prices for goods and services that people need to buy. Afder Pastoral, Fik Pastoral and Korahe Gode Pastoral livelihood zones have chronic market access problems.

Crop pests and diseases – Crop production is undermined by crop pests and diseases in the agropastoral and farming livelihood zones. These include stalk borer, weevils, Army worm (Spodoptera exempta), and covered smut in Gode Agropastoral, Jijiga Agropastoral, Jijiga Sedentary Farming, Shinile Agropastoral, and Shabelle Riverine livelihood zones.

Environmental degradation/deforestation/gully erosion – The landscape of many zones has been altered for the worse in recent years. In Harshin Degahbur Pastoral Livelihood Zone, trees and natural bush have been systematically cut down, transforming the landscape into extended open plains, with less browse for camels and goats and reduced shade for people. The rapid deforestation of this area, spurred on by the massive levels of charcoal production to feed the demand in Somalia, is leading to an environmental disaster. In Korahe Agropastoral Livelihood Zone, gully erosion increasingly funnels water into rivers and out of the livelihood zone, whereas this water once stayed in the livelihood zone.

Prosopis juliflora – The steady invasion of Prosopis juliflora, a mesquite tree (known as the ‘devil tree’ by pastoralists) which takes over grasslands and uses scarce water, is posing a threat to livelihoods in some areas, mentioned as a particular issue in the Korahe Agropastoral, Dawa-Ganale Riverine and Shabelle Riverine livelihood zones. This invasive tree forms impenetrable thickets around water points, with its many low branches and thorns, preventing livestock from reaching watering holes. Livestock that consume too much of the seed pods from this tree can be poisoned.

The main intermittent hazards mentioned by households throughout the region are listed below:

Drought – The lowland areas are more likely to experience drought than those higher up, but this threat is relevant for all livelihood zones. On average a drought occurs once every four to five years. Although households expect to face seasonal ups and downs, drought years are those in which back-to-back below average seasonal rainfall occurs, causing households to move long distances to find water and pasture for their animals, reducing milk production, increasing livestock mortality, and – in agropastoral and farming areas – significantly reducing crop outputs.

Conflict – Recurrent inter-clan conflict driven by competition over natural resources (mainly water and pasture) and inter-ethnic conflict – most notably between the Somali and Borana (Oromo) ethnic groups to the west over territorial boundaries, undermine access to grazing areas and markets in some years. Conflict and resulting insecurity were noted as concerns in Filtu-Dolo Pastoral, Degahbur Agropastoral, Fik Psatoral, Harshin Degahbur Pastoral, Jijiga Agropastoral, Liban Agorpastoral, Lowland Hawd Pastoral and Moyale Woyamo Pastoral livelihood zones.

Price shocks – Related to the issue of poor market integration and inadequate market infrastructure, price shocks occur every few years, with the cost of imported food items rising and the price for local livestock and agricultural produce dropping, resulting in disadvantageous terms of trade for local households. Given the heavy dependence on market purchases almost everywhere in Somali Region, this hazard has especially acute consequences when it occurs.

Border closures – Much of Somali Region is poorly integrated with the rest of Ethiopia, and highly dependent on the income from exported livestock, as well as the household goods and food items that are imported from Somalia and Kenya. Border closures and restrictions on cross-border trade can seriously undermine local livelihoods. This is particularly the case in zones like Moyale Woyamo Pastoral and Lowland Hawd Pastoral, which rely almost exclusively on cross-border trade, however, the demand from Somalia and Kenya fuels the economy everywhere, and a breakdown in international trade has dire consequences throughout the region, as was seen with the Gulf livestock import ban in 2001/2002.

Intermittent crop hazards – Frosts in Jijiga Agropastoral Livelihood Zone, and flooding in Shabelle Riverine Livelihood Zone are intermittent hazards unique to these two areas.

Response (Coping) Strategies

Households engage in a number of strategies in response to bad years, when things like drought or conflict occur. These strategies are listed below:

 Shifting expenditure away from more expensive foods (like rice and beans) and cutting out non- essential items in order to purchase cheaper staple food grains and other basics necessary for sustaining life and livelihoods is a common strategy for all households. This can free up extra cash to spend on basic food and livelihood needs.

 Increasing livestock sales is a key coping strategy for all wealth groups during bad years. This is the most important coping strategy for all wealth groups but its effectiveness is determined by market conditions, which are not ideal in many zones, and which deteriorate rapidly in bad years. In addition, poorer households have fewer livestock to sell, and their capacity to retain a viable herd while at the same time covering their minimum requirements is limited.

 Moving livestock to areas outside the livelihood zones where pasture and water conditions are better or away from conflict is common. Pastoralists commonly move livestock to areas with relatively better rains and hence better pasture and water availability. The first priority during bad years is to protect livestock from food and water stress deaths and secondly to reduce the impact of the hazard on milk production and livestock reproduction.

 Increasing the collection and sale of firewood, charcoal and other bush products is common for poorer households. Poorer households, especially, increase the collection and sale of bush products like charcoal and firewood; but increasing supplies of these products tends to push prices down, reducing the effectiveness of this strategy.

 Seeking gifts and loans (both financial and in-kind) from wealthier relatives, friends and neighbors is pursued by poorer households. The poor and some of the middle seek gifts and loans from their better off and middle relatives. In especially bad years better off households have less to give, thereby limiting the effectiveness of this option. Related to this, it is common to send children from poor households to wealthier relatives for stay during the bad year, helping reduce the strain on poor households.

 Increasing livestock and petty trade is pursued by middle households, who may attempt to enter into livestock brokering and trade, and increase petty trade activities. Poor and middle households try to engage in petty trade activities like selling food items and milk in semi-urban areas. It is usually men who undertake this activity, splitting from the household and leaving the women and children behind while they attempt to generate cash in nearby urban and semi-urban markets.

 Increasing the collection and consumption of wild foods is done wherever possible, but this does not result in a significant contribution to filling a calorie gap in most cases. People commonly collect and consume wild foods in bad years, but these tend to be low in caloric contribution, and the effectiveness of this strategy is very limited.

 Seeking employment is another option pursued by poorer households. Young members of poor households may send one member to woreda or regional towns or to riverine areas to find work. These household members send back remittances to help support the family if they can find employment.

 Postponing the use of berkads to the critical months is done to conserve water. In the event of poor rainfall performance, households in many livelihood zones try to delay the opening of the berkads for public consumption to months in which water scarcity is highest. This is done by exploiting temporary sources in the wet season and sending livestock to other places to reduce pressure on local water sources.

 Community-funded water trucking takes place in some zones. This is done to reduce the trek between water and pasture areas in the late dry season, or during droughts, when these distances can double.

 Digging of roots occurs in extreme situations. Herders dig the roots of certain plant species to maintain milk production, particularly of camels, which are often the only species capable of producing milk during a drought. These roots are known locally as andat, robis, rary and armo.

 Slaughtering livestock for meat consumption occurs in situations where staple food prices are very high or there is difficulty in accessing food through the market.

Implications for Program Planning

The longer-term development priorities suggested below include those that were highlighted by the wealth group interviewees themselves and those made by the assessment team following detailed discussions and observations in the field. All of these suggestions require further detailed feasibility studies.

 Improved animal health services: Livestock remain the economic backbone of this region and therefore have to be protected through establishing more rural service provision centers, training and supporting animal health workers, providing a regular supply of essential livestock drugs, combating the entry, distribution and usage of fake livestock drugs, and upgrading the knowledge of existing veterinary technicians.

 Improved livestock and crop markets: Stabilizing and developing livestock markets is important for strengthening food and livelihood security for all wealth groups in all livelihood zones. Improving the condition of roads, transport and communication services, and the dissemination of market information would increase households’ ability to generate cash income. Establishing internationally recognized livestock certification bodies and facilities and signing bilateral agreements with countries importing livestock from Ethiopia would also contribute to this goal. Organizing farmers into marketing cooperatives that are licensed and have the capacity to negotiate prices formally and to link effectively with bigger traders could help improve producer prices.

 Improved access to water: Water is a chronic problem in many livelihood zones, creating hardships for the all wealth groups. Access both in terms of quantity and quality can be improved through the construction of river-intake water schemes, boreholes in off-river areas and surface-water reservoirs in areas where ground water remains too saline or lies beyond the reach of local capacity.

 Environmental protection and rangeland management: Deforestation, gully erosion, and rangeland degradation are growing problems throughout the region. Population growth, destructive economic practices, over-grazing, intense demand for charcoal and firewood, and other factors are at the root of this trend. Key strategies might include awareness raising, maintaining the traditional culture of wet and dry season grazing, locating water points strategically in areas where they will have the least negative impact on key rangelands, pasture re-seeding initiative including by aerial means, undertaking gully control measures like the construction of check-dams and river diversion, and

protecting forest resources through the use of targeted policy instruments and traditional enforcement.

 Protecting people and livestock from wild animals: Measures aimed at protecting people and livestock from attacks by wild animals is required in a number of livelihood zones. Local administrations need to make this a priority.

 Financial services: Increasing the availability of financial services like banks and credit-giving institutions would help pastoralist better manage their resources, providing more flexibility in terms of asset transfers and allowing them to accumulate wealth both on and off the hoof.

 Diversification of livestock: Combining both nugul (cattle and sheep) with drought resistant species like camels helps reduce the risk of losing an entire herd. This strategy is employed by the better off and some of the middle households, but not the poor.

 Linking livestock products with industrial processing: The market for livestock products like milk, ghee, meat, hides and skins should be promoted through encouraging more investment into industrial processing and quality improvement.

 Introduction of dry land agricultural extension: Introducing crop technologies and techniques to increase production and diversify crops in the agropastoral zone could help improve food and cash income.

 Expanded access to education: Education is essential for the many young people who are born into a pastoral system that may be increasingly threatened in the near future given the mounting frequency and severity of drought events due to climate change. There is a pressing need to develop the minds and capacities of young people in this region so they can better adapt to changes in the future.

 Improved human health services: Poor access to health services limits human productivity by reducing working hours and undermining the capacity of economically active members of households. The problem of malaria is particularly acute in lowland and riverine areas. Increasing the coverage of health services to remote rural areas should be seen as a priority.

 Rehabilitation of pastoral ‘drop-outs’: The presence of pastoral drop-outs poses a big challenge for the region. Desperately poor, these households who have lost their herds increase deforestation (overexploiting firewood and charcoal sales), raise the levels of urban unemployment and end up begging in the streets of local towns. Because this region is located along a volatile international border where terrorist groups operate, a high risk of exploitation exists, with the disaffected, poor readily recruited in exchange for economic benefits. Rehabilitation in the form of skills development and training, job creation, and provision of productive assets is critical.

 Strengthen conflict prevention and mitigation: Strengthening the role of the guurti (traditional leadership), complemented with other legal enforcement mechanisms may help improve the security situation in the region.

 Timely response during emergencies: With timely responses to humanitarian crises, local communities can avoid the worst outcomes of droughts, maintaining their asset base and bouncing

back quickly from bad years. Early contingency and response plans, logical trigger mechanisms tied to the reality of people on the ground, and the release of humanitarian funds in time to help people make it through the worst months of a bad year are essential components of an effective response system.

 Improve local grain storage facilities: Developing a regional network of grain storage facilities that can help reduce seasonal price fluctuations would protect pastoral incomes.

 Curbing the spread of Prosopis juliflora: This predatory plant has displaced natural vegetation and is causing considerable damage to a number of zones. Its seed spreads rapidly through cattle and donkey dung, run-off, floods, and wind and can grow opportunistically in even harsh, dry environments. It is also difficult to clear and control once it grows. A concerted and collective effort on the part of the government, the public and NGOs is required.

CHANGES OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS

With two previous HEA baselines on hand, one based on a reference year from 1996/1997 and one from 2004/2005, we are now in a position to make some preliminary statements about what has changed over the years. We can compare the baseline results from these previous datasets to the current 2013/14 reference year results, and we can also take a look at changes in rainfall over the past few decades to help put the current reference year in context. This, combined with reports on changes in the natural resource base and new emerging threats can help indicate what the next five years might have in store.

Rainfall trends

Rainfall in this mostly lowland region is variable at best. The graphic below shows rainfall anomalies for the region, taking the average across all livelihood zones, with 100% being the ten-year average (2004/05 – 2013/14) and departures from this average shown as bars above or below this baseline on the graph. Each season is shown as a separate bar. For example, in the first season of 2001, rainfall levels for the region as a whole were only around 39% of the 10-year average; in the next season they were 51% of the average. On the other hand, the first season in 2010 saw rainfall levels were 161% of the 10-year average followed by a season in which rains were 61% of average. This pattern of ups and downs is part of a normal and expected seasonal variation, and it is one to which pastoralists have generally become well-adapted, although the unusual drought, such as 2001/2002, can still cause terrible consequences.

If we take a closer look at Figure 26 we can see that from 1996 – 2005 (inclusive) there were 20 seasons. Of these, 3 seasons were especially bad, with rainfall 50% or less of the 10-year average. Eight seasons were below average, (64 - 84% of average rainfall); in 9 seasons rainfall was at or above the 10 year average, with 2 of these seeing very high rainfall (146 - 238%). The worst seasons were 2001 (both the gu and deyr were well below average - 39% and 51%, respectively, resulting in a severe food crisis throughout the region) and the 2005 deyr (50%). The highest rainfall occurred in the 1996 gu (146%) and 1997 deyr (238%).

Average rainfall anomalies for Somali Region over the last 16 years (38 seasons) based on RFE Source of rainfall estimates (RFE): USGS Analysis: Mark Lawrence, FEG

Figure 26. Average rainfall anomalies over the last 16 years

Over the last nine years, from 2006 - 2014 (inclusive) there were 18 seasons. Of these, none was as bad as 2001 or 2005, however 7 were below average (63 - 85% of average), and a number of these below average seasons were sequential (2010 deyr, followed by 2011 gu; and the 2012 gu and 2012 deyr). Of these 18 seasons, 4 were well above average (124 - 178% of average). Within the region there were some bad seasons in specific livelihood zones; for example, the 2008 gu season in HDP, the 2009 gu season in LHP, and the 2010 deyr season in a number of zones were well below average. However, overall the last 10 years have seen much better rainfall than the previous decade. This trend, captured in the graphics below, highlights even higher rainfall over the past five years.

Average Annual Rainfall Anomaly, Somali Region, Ethiopia Average Annual Rainfall Anomaly, Somali Region, Ethiopia 10-year Avg (2005-2014) against Historical Avg (1981 – 2005) 5-year Avg (2010-2014) against Historical Avg (1981 – 2005)

Source: USGS, Analysis by James Rowland Figure 27. Average Annual Rainfall Anomaly, 10-year and 5-year average

Changes in household herd sizes

The nature of a pastoral livelihood system is that it only exists because it is able to accommodate shocks. It fits into an environment where it has to adapt continuously to changing rainfall and resource levels. One year there is plenty; the next there is dearth. The pattern of expansion and contraction of herds responds to the fluctuating resource base. On a per household basis, one doesn’t actually expect to see a trend of increasing livestock over time, but rather an undulating wave of ups and downs.

What one does expect to see is an increase in the population – and to that extent, the question becomes to what extent the market is able to add value to each livestock unit – because an increasing population can only be supported by a herd that continues to grow in value – especially given the ups and downs of the rainfall situation. In order to remain a viable pastoralist, you need a certain minimum number of livestock. Once you no longer have that, you either become an agro-pastoralist or a settled farmer or you move to an urban area and try your luck with other options.

Having said that, as shown in the rainfall analysis above, the last ten years have not been bad in terms of rainfall. In fact, the 2015 HEA baseline update took place at a time of relatively good extended rainfall. This has – with some exceptions – especially been the case in the past five years.

Figure 28. Select changes in household herd size in the last decade

With the HEA baseline data we have three points in time, but there is no way of knowing whether a change from point A to C represents a consistent decline or increase or just one point along a fluctuating

32 line. All we can say is that, based on what was reported in the field, herds per household have increased or declined, but these changes should not be seen as representative of a trend. In each of the livelihood zone profiles, more details are provided about changes in household assets. Here we provide a brief overview of the changes. Overall, herd sizes in many zones increased over the past ten years, although there are many exceptions to this. Camels have become more important and are kept in relatively large numbers in all pastoral zones now. Cattle are increasingly important in agro-pastoral zones, where people take advantage of crop residues to feed their livestock. In some cases, these changes in herd size have to do with market conditions and a shifting profit calculation, rather than rainfall and pasture conditions. For a more detailed record of changes in household herd sizes, please see Annex 3. Asset comparison over three HEA baselines.

Changes in area cultivated and agricultural production

Over the past ten years households have increased the area they are cultivating in three of the four agropastoral livelihood zones, including Degahbur Agropastoral (especially for poor and middle households), Gode Agropastoral (especially for middle and better off households), and Shinile Agropastoral livelihood zones. In the Liban Agropastoral Livelihood Zone the story is mixed, with the better off households increasing the area under cultivation, but middle and poorer households cultivating less. In Korahe Agropastoral Livelihood Zone all wealth groups are cultivating less than they did ten years ago, perhaps due to the encroachment of Prosopis juliflora into agricultural land as well as the decreasing extent of the flood plains as a result of the deepening river course.

In the two farming zones the story is mixed; there were very large increases in area cultivated in the Jijiga Sedentary Farming (JSF) Livelihood Zone, but in the Shabelle Riverine zone there was a general decline in area cultivated, except among the better off. Wheat production in Jijiga Sedentary Farming Livelihood Zone has increased more than five-fold in the last four to five years due to an expansion of mechanized agriculture, funded by investors from urban areas who rent large tracts of land for periods of five to twenty years. This development of large scale commercial farming, which has taken over many areas that traditionally served as grazing areas for livestock, may begin to undermine the capacity of local households to keep livestock in the future. Urban investors are buying up land in the Jijiga Agropastoral Livelihood Zone, and in the last five years an increasing amount of land is being sold to those outside the traditional lineage circle. In the best case scenario, the influx of new people and money will lead to more investment and increased production potential, and a gradual transfer of knowledge. The worst case scenario, however, is that a new population of diaspora and urban elite entering a rural economy where the population density is already high will sow the seeds of future conflict over land, resources and the rights of sub-clan and clan entities.

Changes in market conditions

33 capacity and importance of the Gode and Degahbur markets in particular. In recent years, the Jigjiga market benefited from a number of improvements, including: a steady increase in the number of licensed traders involved in import-export activities, close proximity to the border, the burgeoning financial capacity of traders, linkages with other zones through an asphalt road that connects to Berbera and other zones of the region; the development of telecommunication and various banking services; and an increasing population of consumers.

Tougher restrictions on unlicensed cross-border trade in recent years, the volatile security situation in Somalia with the growth of Al-Shabaab, and the development of an asphalt road between Jigjiga and Gode town have changed the trade routes for imported food and non-food items in some of the southern zones. Five years ago, most goods were coming across what was - at the time - a highly porous border with Somalia; but today most goods come through a single route (Wajale-Jigjiga) via licensed traders and associations. From Gode market goods are distributed onward throughout the southern livelihood zones. On the Somalia side, products which used to flow smoothly across the border to markets like Beletweyne and Mogadishu are now less likely to be transported due to the changing security situation at the border. Trade routes for livestock have shifted to Gode-Degahbur, from which most are exported to Somaliland through Wajale or taken directly to Hargeisa.

Future considerations

Oil and gas exploration is slated to take place in the near future in Somali Region and it is likely to affect pastoralists’ mobility, access to seasonal grazing and watering areas, and their settlement patterns, particularly if oil or gas is discovered, as this will lead to the creation of inaccessible buffer zones to protect installations. The livelihood zones most likely to be affected by this development are Korahe Gode Pastoral, Afder Pastoral, Korahe Agropastoral and Degahbur Agropastoral livelihood zones.

Another major regional issue is the rate of deforestation due to charcoal production and firewood sales. This is a particular problem in Filtu-Dolo Pastoral and Dawa-Ganale Riverine livelihood zones, where the presence of the huge refugee camp in Dolo Ado Woreda places an increased strain on local resources. The availability of fodder and browse has been severely diminished as a result.

ANNEX 1. POPULATION BY LIVELIHOOD ZONE

Pastoral Livelihood Zones Woreda Livelihood Zone Woreda Livelihood Zone SHP Woreda LHP Afdem 68,242 Bookh 114,600 Aysha’a 61,241 Danod 56,212 Denbel 33,528 Geladi 108,225 Erer 63,461 Warder 59,558 Mulo 69,030 Daratoole 49,210 Shinile 80,842 Dhoboweyn 29,608 Hadhagaala 50,400 Kabridahar 52,136 TOTAL 426,743 Marsin 25,981 HDP Shilabo 64,192 Aware 97,068 Ferfer 14,223 Daroor 51,000 TOTAL 573,944 Yocaale 49,145 KGP Dhoboweyn 14,804 Gunagado 95,918 Kabridahar 26,068 Degahbur 31,295 Marsin 12,991 Birqod 15,660 Sheykosh 38,318 Araarso 16,500 Dhanan 12,919 Gashamo 108,076 Imaybari 12,875 Harshin 79,160 Gode 28,378 TOTAL 543,821 Beercaano 20,343 FKP Kallafo 8,080 Degahmado 27,886 Mustahil 5,271 Duhun 23,701 TOTAL 180,047 Fik 115,102 AFP Gol Janno 39,200 Bare 88,173 Qubi 45,415 Weyib 81,548 Garbo 42,464 Dollo Bay 56,357 Serer 20,476 Hamero 68,643 Gorro Bakeksa 34,504 Segag 20,246 Guradamole 20,721 TOTAL 382,658 Qarsadula 43,017

Afker 70,428

Imaygalbed 12,261

Raaso 12,386

Adadle 61,530 TOTAL 501,400

Pastoral Livelihood Zones - continued Woreda Livelihood Zone Woreda Livelihood Zone FDP MWP Dollo Ado 27,167 Huddet 47,240 Filtu 115,268 Moyale 279,365 Dheka Suftu 38,372 Mubaarak 51,462 TOTAL 180,806 TOTAL 378,067

Agropastoral Livelihood Zones Woreda Livelihood Zone Woreda Livelihood Zone SAP DAP Denbel 50,291 Gunagado 31,973 Erer 15,865 Degahbur 73,021 Mulo 17,258 Birqod 36,540 Shinile 20,210 Hadhagaala 12,600 Araarso 38,500 TOTAL 116,225 Degahmado 41,829 JAP Fik 28,776 Awbare 219,593 Gol Janno 9,800 Babile 92,933 Qubi 11,354 Gursum 29,992 TOTAL 271,791 Harshin 8,796 GAP Jig-jiga 18,532 Duhun 4,183 Tuli Guuleed 5,634 Garbo 4,718 Kebri-Beyah 171,049 Hamero 3,613 TOTAL 546,529 Segag 3,573 KAP Adadle 23,666 Dhoboweyn 29,608 Dhanan 8,613 Kabridahar 52,136 Imaybari 12,875 Marsin 25,981 Ferfer 8,127 Sheykosh 16,422 Gode 32,432 TOTAL 124,146 Beercaano 23,250 LAP Kallafo 16,161 Bare 15,560 Mustahil 10,541 Dollo Bay 9,393 TOTAL 151,750 Serer 47,778 Gorro Bakeksa 23,002 Farming Livelihood Zones Guradamole 2,302 Woreda Livelihood Zone Qarsadula 4,780 JSF Dollo Ado 9,056 Awbare 146,395 Filtu 30,738 Jig-jiga 166,790 Dheka Suftu 10,232 Tuli Guuleed 50,706 Moyale 31,041 TOTAL 363,891 Mubaarak 5,718 SHR TOTAL 189,600 Adadle 9,466

Imaybari 60,082 Ferfer 18,286 Gode 20,270 Beercaano 14,531 Kallafo 56,562 Mustahil 36,893 Imaygalbed 36,782 Raaso 37,157 TOTAL 290,030 DGR Weyib 27,183 Dollo Bay 28,179 Afker 17,607 Dollo Ado 54,335 Filtu 7,685 Dheka Suftu 2,558 TOTAL 137,546

ANNEX 2. THE HOUSEHOLD ECONOMY ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY

Uses of HEA Baselines and the Livelihood Profiles

The livelihood profiles presented here offer an analysis of livelihoods and food security on a geographical basis. A portion of southern Bangladesh was divided into homogeneous zones defined according to a livelihoods framework. A description of two of these zones is provided here, including an analysis of the position of different wealth groups within the zones. It is envisaged that this product will be useful on three levels, as follows.

a) An Introductory Guide to Food Security and Livelihood Patterns in the Five Livelihood Zones

The profiles should form a useful briefing for a newcomer to these areas who needs to get a grasp of food security conditions. Development planners can also benefit from using the livelihood profiles. One objective of development is to reduce people’s vulnerability to hazards and to increase their capacity to cope. An important first step is to understand who is vulnerable, to which hazards, and why. Likewise, efforts to reduce poverty require an understanding of how the poorest households normally survive in different areas and the reasons for their poverty.

b) Early Warning and Food Security Monitoring

Most early warning and food security monitoring systems draw heavily from two information sources: (i) crop and/or livestock production data, and (ii) market price information. Given the predominance of production data, local food security is often equated with production outcomes. Hence, a chronic or temporary production shortfall is immediately translated into chronic or temporary food insecurity.

This is almost never the whole story. A full account of the household economy includes both what food people produce, and what cash people earn to purchase food and other essential items. Thus, data on casual employment or self-employment or charity from relatives or the sale of handicrafts may be equally important to the livelihood story as data on crop and livestock production. The HEA baseline information can therefore be used to identify a fuller set of appropriate key indicators for monitoring.

Using a baseline livelihood profile, we can explore household capacity to adapt to economic stress, especially failed crop or livestock production; and we can appreciate household activities at different periods in the yearly cycle. All of this feeds directly into our analysis of need, helping to answer key questions such as: which areas and what types of household are likely to cope should a hazard strike and which will need assistance? What types of intervention will be most appropriate, and when and for how long should they be implemented? All of this is done through modeling scenarios and understanding their potential impact on households.

Thus, for instance, one could point to the position of poor households in a given geographical area who are highly dependent on charcoal sales. If charcoal sales are outlawed (and the law is enforced), their income will be dramatically reduced: can they find alternative income elsewhere – and will they be competing with people from other zones in these activities?

c) Policy Development and Advocacy

Disaster management has been the main impetus to the spread of early warning systems. The rationale in early warning is to improve the efficiency in the scale and timing of emergency assistance. However, increasingly planners are looking at alternatives to food aid in early emergency intervention - and this often requires changes in policy and practice. A case in point is the stabilization of market prices for basic foods. Livelihoods analysis can expose the likely effects of such interventions on different households’ capacity to survive a crisis. The analysis can also recommend the optimum timing for intervention.

Livelihood analysis can also be applied to other policy changes. For example, if government taxes on trading of a cash crop were reduced, or new charges were made for government veterinary drugs, what would be the impact on households? More generally, the household viewpoint offers a more secure footing for looking at the increasingly voluminous discussion of poverty alleviation and safety nets. HEA baselines can be used to measure the impact of response programs or policy changes on household economies. It is particularly relevant to assess effectiveness and appropriateness. Of particular relevance for decision-making, it enables ranking of needs and comparison of populations.

d) Content of the Livelihood Zone Profiles

The profiles are divided into a number of sections:

Zone Description offers a general description of local livelihood patterns (livestock rearing, crop production, off-farm income generation etc.).

Markets contains basic information on the marketing of local production and on any importation of staple food into the zone.

The Reference Year section explains the one-year period for which information has been gathered in each livelihood zone.

Seasonal Calendar sets out the timing of key activities during the year. This is useful in a variety of ways, e.g. to judge the likely impact of a hazard according to its timing during the year, or to assess whether a particular activity is being undertaken at the normal time in the current year.

This is followed by four sections that provide the core information on the ‘Household Economy’ of the zone.

The Wealth Breakdown section describes four main wealth groups (‘very poor’, ‘poor’, ‘middle’ and ‘better-off’), explaining the differences between these groups and how this affects potential access to food and cash income.

The Sources of Food and Sources of Cash sections examine patterns of food and income access at each level of wealth, relating these to the characteristics of each group. An annual picture is presented, with food expressed as a percentage of 2100 kcals per person per day. The Sources of Food section also contains production data (by kg or liter) for the main crops and, where relevant, milk, to provide another set of information by which to understand households’ production potential. The sources of cash income are presented in absolute Bangladesh Taka earned per year. The Expenditure Patterns section is of interest in showing what proportion of their annual cash budget households at the different wealth levels spend on food, on household items, on production inputs, etc.

The section on Hazards provides information on the different types of hazard that affect the zone, differentiated by wealth group where this is appropriate.

Response Strategies describe the various strategies available to different types of household in the zone, together with a judgment of the likely effectiveness of the strategies.

The section Key Parameters for Monitoring suggests the key indicators to monitor in each livelihood zone, based upon an understanding of local livelihood patterns.

The final section, Program Implications, outlines some ideas for longer-term programming.

The Household Economy Approach & Field Methodology3

A livelihood is the sum of ways in which households make ends meet from year to year, and how they survive (or fail to survive) through difficult times. There is increasing interest in using livelihoods analysis as the lens through which to view a number of subjects. These subjects range from emergency response to disaster mitigation to longer-term development. The interest rests upon two basic observations:

Information about a given area or community can only be properly interpreted if it is seen against the context of how people live.

Interventions can only be designed in ways appropriate to local circumstances if the planner knows about local livelihoods and whether or not a proposed intervention will build upon or undermine existing strategies.

3 For a more detailed description of the HEA field methodology, please refer to Chapter 3 of The Practitioners’ Guide to the Household Economy Approach, Boudreau, T. et al, The Food Economy Group (FEG) and Save the Children UK, 2008. The guide is available at: http://www.feg-consulting.com/resource/practitioners-guide-to-hea

The profiles in this report describe the major characteristics of two livelihood zones in southern Bangladesh. The information for these profiles was gathered using the Household Economy Approach. The remainder of this section explains some of the terms used in HEA and throughout the report.

Livelihood Zone: A livelihood zone is an area within which people share broadly the same patterns of access to food (i.e. they grow the same crops, keep the same types of livestock, etc.). They also share broadly the same access to markets. Patterns of livelihood clearly vary from one area to another. Local factors such as climate, soil, access to markets, etc. all influence livelihood patterns. The first step in a Household Economy Analysis is therefore to prepare a livelihood zone map. This map delineates geographical areas within which people share basically the same patterns of access to food and have the same access to markets. A rapid livelihood zoning was conducted before the HEA Baseline Training in Bangladesh. The initial results of this exercise are presented in the first part of the next section (Overview of the Livelihood Zones).

Wealth Breakdown: Where a household lives is one factor determining its options for obtaining food and generating income. Another factor is wealth, since this is the major influence on that household’s ability to exploit the available options within a given zone. It is obvious, for example, that better off households owning larger farms will in general produce more crops and be more food secure than their poorer neighbors. Land is just one aspect of wealth, however, and wealth groups are typically defined in terms of their land holdings, livestock holdings, capital, education, skills, labor availability and/or social capital. Defining the different wealth groups in each zone is the second step in a Household Economy Analysis, the output from which is a wealth breakdown4. For the purpose of this assessment, a household was defined as people eating from the same pot and also sharing the same resources. The wealth breakdown information can be found in each of the individual profiles as well as the Baseline Storage Spreadsheet (BSS).

Quantification of Livelihood Strategies: Having grouped households according to where they live and their wealth, the next step is to generate quantified Household Economy baseline information for typical households in each group for a defined reference or baseline year. Food access is determined by investigating the sum of ways households obtain food – what food they grow, gather or receive as gifts, how much food they buy, how much cash income is earned in a year, and what other essential needs must be met with the income earned. A central aspect to HEA is that quantification takes place by converting all food and cash sources to a standard measure, represented in relation to minimum calorie requirements for a household for the year. The

4 It is important to bear in mind for this analysis that we are thinking of wealth in relative (and local) terms. Statistical data may indicate that 80% or even 90% of the population in a particular area lives below the national poverty line, but this is measuring poverty on a national, absolute scale. In a livelihoods analysis we are interested in understanding the differences in the ways that people within a livelihood zone obtain access to food and cash income and the reasons for these – in which case it is not particularly useful to lump 80% or 90% of the population together into one group, especially if there are differences in terms of food and cash income access within that larger group.

41 graph below illustrates this point. By converting to a common currency, we are able to compare food access across wealth groups, livelihood zones, and even countries.

Household Response (or Coping) Strategies: Once this baseline is established, an analysis can be made of the likely impact of a shock or hazard in a bad year. This is done by assessing how food access will be affected by a shock, what other food sources can be added or expanded to make up initial shortages, and what final deficits emerge.5

Outcome Analysis: There is a basic principle underlying the Household Economy Approach which states that: an analysis of local livelihoods is essential for a proper understanding of the impact – at household level – of hazards such as drought or conflict or market dislocation. Total crop failure may, for example, leave one group of households destitute because the failed crop is their only source of staple food. Another group, by contrast, may be able to cope because they have alternative food and income sources. These alternative sources – such as livestock to sell or relatives elsewhere who can assist – can make up the production shortfall. Thus, effective hazard impact assessments must be based on livelihood analysis, and livelihood analysis itself involves several steps.

The objective of Outcome Analysis is to investigate the effects of a hazard on future access to food and income, so that decisions can be taken early on about the most appropriate types of intervention to implement. The rationale behind the approach is that a good understanding of how people have survived in the past provides a sound basis for projecting into the future. Three types of information are combined: (i) information on baseline access, (ii) information on hazard (i.e. factors affecting access to food/income, such as own production or market prices) and (iii) information on response strategies (i.e. the sources of food and income that people turn to when exposed to a hazard). The approach can be summarized as follows: Baseline + Hazard + Response = Outcome

5 The term response strategy is preferred to coping strategy for two reasons. Firstly, the term coping strategy is often used to refer to regular components of everyday livelihood (e.g. firewood sale), which strictly speaking are only coping strategies when intensified in response to a hazard. Secondly, ‘coping’ can be taken to imply that the strategy in question is cost-free, which is not always the case.

Furthermore, in order to determine whether the total income after coping is sufficient to meet needs, it is necessary to define what those needs are. In HEA there are two thresholds that are used for this purpose. The first is the Survival Threshold. This represents the costs to cover minimum survival requirements, including minimum food (2100 calories per person per day), water (if purchased in the zone) and the means to prepare food. If people cannot meet the Survival Threshold, their lives are at risk. This threshold is fairly standard across livelihood zones with the exception of water, which is often not purchased but collected. The second threshold is the Livelihoods Protection Threshold, which includes the cost of both survival (as just discussed) as well as basic education, health, productive inputs and minimum household items purchased in an average year. This threshold will vary across livelihood zones and wealth groups because of differences in production costs (e.g. a wealthy pastoralist with 100 cattle will have very different input requirements than a poor household living in a cropping area.) The Livelihoods Protection Threshold is the standard threshold used to determine whether humanitarian assistance is required. If households cannot cover these costs an intervention to protect livelihoods (which is crucial for next year’s survival) should be launched.

The idea is that once the baselines have been compiled they can be used repeatedly for this type of Outcome Analysis over a number of years until significant changes in the underlying economy render them invalid. A good HEA baseline will generally be valid for between 5 and 10 years. What varies is the prevailing level of food security, but this is a function of variations in hazard, not variations in the baseline. Put another way, the level of crop or livestock production may vary from year to year (hazard), but the underlying pattern of production (the baseline) does not usually change very rapidly.

ANNEX 3. ASSET COMPARISON OVER THREE HEA BASELINES

AFP poor middle better off 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 % of hh 40 40 36 50 50 44 10 10 20 hh size 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 8.5 9 camels 7 4 5 17 35 20 45 70 40 cattle 5 8 3 12 15 6 25 40 15 shoats 25 29 21 60 70 50 90 150 68 donkeys 1 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 1.5 0 2

DAP poor middle better off 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 % of hh 30 35 34 50 45 46 20 20 20 hh size 7 7.5 7 8 8.5 9 9 9.5 11 area cultivated 0.5 0.55 0.75 0.9 1.25 1.5 1.4 1.9 2 camels 0 1 3 17.5 22.5 21 35 42.5 40 cattle 6.5 3.5 4 25 13.5 11 50 29 20 shoats 20 50 44 50 70 89 90 110 125 donkeys 1.5 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 1 2

DGR poor middle better off 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 % of hh 50 30 29 35 35 30 15 15 20 hh size 7 7 6 7 10 area cultivated 2.3 1.25 1.5 3.25 2 3 5.3 2 4 camels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cattle 2 2.5 2.5 5 7 7 3.5 13.5 10 shoats 5 22 6 25 35 25 65 60 38 donkeys 0.5 1 1 1.5 2 2 2 0 3

FDP poor middle better off 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 % of hh 30 35 27 50 45 38 20 20 16 hh size 7 7.5 6 8 9 8 8 11 9 camels 7.5 10 5 20 30 16 45 50 30 cattle 4.5 6 5 17.5 20 11 35 25 21 shoats 30 38 24 65 82 53 130 144 85 donkeys 1 2 2.5

FKP poor middle better off 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015

% of hh 35 40 35 50 45 45 15 15 20 hh size 8 7 7 8 8 8 8 10 10 camels 7.5 5 4 25 30 24 50 62.5 47 cattle 3 5 3 10 10 6 20 15 13 goats 35 40 37 70 74 90 130 170 123 donkeys 1 2 2.5

GAP poor middle better off 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 % of hh 25 35 26 50 45 53 25 20 21 hh size 7 7 7 7 7 8 10.5 10 10 area cultivated 0.66 0.5 0.5 0.66 0.75 1 1.25 1 1.5 camels 0 2.5 3 0 19 19 10 20 38 cattle 12.5 6 6 60 15 20 95 35 38 shoats 45 25 40 120 65 80 250 115 125 donkeys 1.5 1.5 1 2 2.5 2 2.5 2.5 4

HDP poor middle better off 2005 2015 2005 2015 2005 2015 % of hh 32.5 32 50 48 17.5 20 hh size 6 6.5 8 8 9 10 camels 2.5 4 20 20 40 42 cattle 1.5 2 5 5 5 12 goats 35 48 90 86 160 170 donkeys 2 1 1.5 2

JAP poor middle better off 2005 2015 2005 2015 2005 2015 % of hh 40 27.5 45 52.5 15 20 hh size 6 6.5 7 8.5 10 11 area cultivated 0.9 1.5 2.1 camels 0 0 6 4 18 8.4 cattle 3 4 11 8 17 14 shoats 8 15 24 29 45 44 donkeys 1 1 1 1 1 2

JSF poor middle better off 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 % of hh 25 30 26 50 45 50 25 25 24 hh size 6 6 6 6 6 8 7 7 10 area cultivated 1.5 1 2 3 2 3.6 5.5 3 5.8 camels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cattle 1.5 2 1.5 5 8 5.5 10 9 9.5

46 shoats 3 3 7 7 12 14.5 12 18 22 donkeys 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

KAP poor middle better off 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 % of hh 31 31 35 52 50 45 17 20 20 hh size 7 7 7 9 9 9 11 11 10 area cultivated 0.5 0.5 0.215 0.75 1.3 0.23 1 2.3 0.27 camels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cattle 4 3 8 10 7 20 20 11 32 shoats 24 17 36 44 30 65 60 40 93 donkeys 1 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 2.5 3 2.5

KGP poor middle better off 2005 2015 2005 2015 2005 2015 % of hh 35 27 45 51 20 22 hh size 7 7 9 8 11 9.5 camels 5 7 17 25 32.5 50 cattle 6 6 13 11 29 21 shoats 40 48 72 100 120 170 donkeys 1 1 0 2.5 0 3.5

LAP poor middle better off 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 % of hh 30 35 25 50 45 40 20 20 16 hh size 6 6.5 6 7 7.5 7 9 10.5 9 area cultivated 0 0.75 0.35 0.75 1.5 0.7 1.15 1.5 1.2 camels 3.5 5.5 3 12.5 12.5 10 32.5 30 21 cattle 3.5 5 4 11 17.5 11 25 20 19 shoats 12 30 25 25 50 48 85 80 69 donkeys 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 2 2

LHP poor middle better off 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 % of hh 30 37.5 35 47 40 45 23 22.5 20 hh size 6 7 7 8 9 8 9.5 10 10 camels 8.5 11 7 47.5 52.5 23 85 47.5 50 cattle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 shoats 145 75 54 110 140 106 150 194 132 donkeys 1.5 1 1 1 1 1.5 0 1 2

MWP poor middle better off 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015

% of hh 30 35 27 55 50 38 15 15 15 hh size 6 7.5 7 8.5 8.5 8 11.5 10.5 10 camels 11 7.5 5 30 20 13 65 40 25 cattle 11.5 7 5 27.5 15 11 1 27.5 18 shoats 20 30 28 55 40 44 95 65 63 donkeys 1 0 1 1 1.5 1 2.5

SAP poor middle better off 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 % of hh 30 35 31 50 45 51 20 20 18 hh size 6 6.5 6.5 6 7 8 6 9 11 area cultivated 0.5 0.7 0.65 0.8 1.2 1.25 1 1.4 1.5 camels 1 0 0 3.5 7 3.5 7.5 10 10 cattle 3.5 2.5 3 7.5 7 6 11.5 15 11 goats 7 7 18 15 25 40 25 110 66 donkeys 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 2.5

SHR poor middle better off 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 % of hh 35 40 25 48 45 44 17 15 15 hh size 7 7.5 7 6 8.5 8 8 10 10 area cultivated 0.75 0.75 0.8 2.25 1 1.5 3.5 2 2 camels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cattle 2 4 5 4 8 11 8.5 12.5 21 shoats 7 7 14.5 13 13 33 20 20 60 donkeys 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.5 3.5 2

SHP poor middle better off 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 % of hh 30 26 48 54 22 20 hh size 7 6 10 7.5 16 10 camels 5 4 1 12.5 13 7.5 33 30 15 cattle 10 4 5 25 9 9 60 20 12 goats 25 40 24 85 85 58 174 150 133 donkeys 2 1.5 1 3 2.5 1.5 3 2.5 2.5