Pastoralists Dropout Study in Jijiga, and Fik Zones of ,

December 2009

Report compiled by David Ondijo Ojwang (Consultant), Kenya Polytechnic University College, Haile Selassie Avenue, P.O. Box 52428-00200, Nairobi (Email: [email protected]) in collaboration with Save the Children UK’s Somali Region Revitalizing Agricultural/Pastoral Incomes and New Markets (RAIN) Programme Team

FOREWARD

Studies occupy a special place in Save the Children UK’s Programme and advocacy work. In all interventions, area, activity and beneficiary targeting is of paramount importance if projects are to have positive impact on people’s life. As responsible duty bearers, it is of great interest for us to know if vulnerable groups of people are covered in our project activities. Livelihood being a complex process affected by many factors and involving a number of activities, it is important to carefully look through the matrix before decisions can be made on the best approach that would yield maximum benefit. Such studies also provide benchmarks upon which programme progress can be monitored and, impact evaluated at the end of programmes’ lifespan.

The report presents findings of a one-month study on “pastoralist dropouts” commissioned by Save the Children UK (Ethiopia Programme) in some selected woredas (districts) in Somali region of Ethiopia. The analyses captures the causes and process that drives people out of pastoral production system, the fate and aspirations of those who are no longer engaged in meaningful pastoral livestock production, their coping livelihood strategies and possible solutions that can reverse the negative trend in rangeland productivity. This information is important as it will inform ongoing work, forthcoming reviews and evaluations in respect to the SC UK RAIN livelihood programme launched in April 2009 in Somali region of Ethiopia.

Several people participated in this study and their contributions are highly appreciated. These include SC UK field staff in Somali region who laid the ground and organized logistics for this survey. Worth mentioning is Mr. Mohammed Badal of Jijiga Office, Mr. Yosef and Mr. Arab of Shinile Office and Mr. Hammed of Fik Office. Thanks also go to SC UK staff in Addis particularly Mr. Esayas, Maria and Mr. Temba who took their time to discuss the study instruments. Many thanks also go to Ms Firehiwot for her contributions towards success of the study including organization of the final presentation. Our acknowledgements are also due to the team of 12 enumerators who carried out the survey. Their commitment and objectivity forms the basis for integrity of this report.

Special thanks go to David Ondijo Ojwang (Consultant) who, designed and coordinated the study, analysed the voluminous data generated and compiled this report in consultation with RAIN Programme Manager Mrs Ann Mutua. In this connection, our gratitude also go to other SC UK experts Mr. Ali Idd, Mr. Yosef, Mr. Badal, Mr. Esayas and Mr. Demeke who went through the draft report and made valuable comments that greatly enriched the final report. We are grateful to all those who attended the final presentation and gave comments that added a lot of value to the final report. Special thanks go to the CARE team and Somali region government officials for their contributions during the final presentation.

We owe special thanks to all household respondents, individuals who provided information for case studies, key informers, elders and all those who formed special focus group discussions for providing the vital information which makes this report. Finally our gratitude goes to donors whose funding has made the implementation of RAIN programme as well as this study possible.

Ann Ndida Mutua RAIN Programme Manager

ii TABLE OF CONTENT

Foreword……………………………………………………………………………………....ii Table of Content……..……………………………….………………………………………iii List of Tables…………………………………………………….…………………………...iv List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………...….v List of Plates………………………………………………………………………………....vii List of Boxes…………………………………………………………………………………vii Terms and Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………viii Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………...... ix

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information………………………………………………………………….1 1.2 Situation in Somali Region……………………………………………………………….2

SECTION 2: RAIN PROGRAMME AND THE DROPOUT STUDY

2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….4 2.2 Purpose and Justification of Pastoralists Dropout Study…………………………………4 2.3 Objective of the Pastoral Dropout Study…………………………………………………5 2.4 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………...6 2.4.1 Study Area and Target Population……………………………………………...6 2.4.2 Site and Sample Selection………………………………………………………7 2.4.3 Data Collection………………………………………………………………….8 2.4.4 Data Entry and Analysis………………………………………………………...9 2.4.5 Limitations………………………………………………………………………9

SECTION 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS OF DROPOUT SURVEY

3.1 Household Characteristics………………………………………………………… …...10 3.2 Level of Drop Out ………………………………………………………………………11 3.3 Causes of dropout……………………………………………………………………….13 3.3.1 Direct Natural Causes…………………………………………………………13 3.3.2 Direct Manmade Causes………………………………………………………14 3.3.3 Indirect Causes………………………………………………………………...15 3.4 Traditional Safety Nets………………………………………………………………….16 3.5 Process of Dropout………………………………………………………………………17 3.5.1 Loss of Livestock and Household Response…………………………………..17 3.5.2 Duration before Movement……………………………………………………17 3.5.3 Choice of Places for Relocation……………………………………………….18 3.5.4 Willingness to go back to Original Homes…………………………………….19 3.6 Alternative Livelihood Activities………………………………………………………..21 3.7 Condition of Dropouts in the new Environment………………………………………...23 3.7.1 Reception by the Host Communities…………………………………………..23 3.7.2 Welfare of Dropouts………………………………………………………… 24 3.7.3 Opportunities provided by the New Environment……………………………..26 3.7.4 General Perception of Dropouts on the New Environment…………………....27 3.8 Effect of Dropout on Household structure………………………………………………28 3.9 Perception of Host Communities towards Dropouts…………………………………….29

iii 3.10 Effect of Dropout on Children’s Life………………………………………………….32 3.10.1 Education…………………………………………………………………….32 3.10.2 Health and Nutrition…………………………………………………………33 3.11 Opportunities that Exist for Pastoral Dropouts………………………………………...35 3.11.1 Production and Trade………………………………………………………...35 3.11.2 Market Accessibility…………………………………………………………38 3.12 Possible Solutions to Dropout Problem………………………………………………..38

SECTION 4: GENERAL DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..40 4.2 Challenges Facing Pastoral Production………………………………………………...40 4.3 Solutions to Pastoralist Dropout Problem………………………………………………41 4.3.1 Restocking………………………………………………………………….. ..41 4.3.2 Rangeland Management…………………………………………………… ...41 4.3.3 Diversification of Income Source Generating Activities……………………..43 4.3.4 Nomadic Pastoralism versus Sedentarism………………………………….. 45 4.3.5 Social Protection Instruments………………………………………………...46

SECTION 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...47 5.2 Recommendations……………………………………………………………………...47 5.2.1 Immediate Solutions……………………………………………………….....48 5.2.2 Long term Solutions………………………………………………………….48

Annex I: Household Questionnaire………………………………………………………...50 Annex II: Guideline questions for Focused Group Discussions (Host Community)………65 Annex III: Guideline questions for Focused Group Discussions (Dropouts)…………… 66

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Percent distribution of those with formal education, global and by district……….10

Table 2: Percent distribution of children attending formal education by district and settlement…………………………………………………………………………………....11

Table 3: Percent proportion of literacy levels by districts surveyed ………………………..11

Table 4: Type and average number of animals holding per household in the four districts of Babile, Fik, Hamaro and Shinile…………………………………………………………….13

Table 5: Proportion of respondents citing different causes of dropout by districts…………14

Table 6: Proportions of time taken before movement by districts surveyed………………..18

Table 7: Proportion of those citing different reasons for choice of place for relocation by district and settlement……………………………………………………………………….19

iv Table 8: Proportions of people who have settled in new locations by districts……………..20

Table 9: Proportion of people involved in various livelihood activities by districts and settlement……………………………………………………………………………………21

Table 10: Proportion of people with specific trade skill by district and settlement area……22

Table 11: Proportion of dropout perception on their acceptance by the host communities by district and settlement………………………………………………………………………..23

Table 12: Proportion of those confirming receipt of support from different agencies………24

Table 13: Global proportion of dropouts who are members of cooperative movement and self help groups compared to the general population………………………………………….....25

Table 14: Proportion of dropouts belonging to cooperative movement by district and type of settlement……………………………………………………………………………………25

Table 15: Percent proportion of respondents accessing services that they never had before moving by districts and by settlement………………………………………………………27

Table 16: Proportion of family composition during movement by district…………………29

Table 17: Proportion of perception of host communities towards dropouts by district and settlement type………………………………………………………………………………32

Table 18: Proportion of dropout children attending school compared to non dropout children……………………………………………………………………………………..32

Table 19: Reported global incidences of diarrhoea and malaria among dropouts and non dropouts……………………………………………………………………………………..33

Table20: Proportions of those engaged in different activities by districts and by settlement type………………………………………………………………………………………….36

Table 21: Proportions of people suggesting different solutions for pastoral dropout problems by district and settlement type………………………………………………………………39

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Percent global distribution of respondents with formal education……………….10

Figure 2: Percent dropout rate by district and settlement area……………………………..12

Figure 3: Trend of relocation after herd loss by districts in the last 20 years……………....13

Figure 4: proportion of those who have received animals through the traditional restocking programme by district………………………………………………………………………16

v Figure 5: Percent proportion of reasons cited for relocation by districts…………………….17

Figure 6: Pie chart showing the global proportion of time taken before movement after herd loss……………………………………………………………………………………………18

Figure 7: Proportion of those citing different reasons for choice of place for relocation by settlement type…………………………………………………………………………….....19

Figure 8: Proportion of respondents who have occupied new location for given period of time by settlement type……………………………………………………………………………20

Figure 9: Global proportion of those engaged in different livelihood activities by settlement type…………………………………………………………………………………………..21

Figure 10: Proportion of people with special trade skills by district and by settlement type………………………………………………………………………………………….22

Figure 11: Global proportion of dropout perception on their acceptance by the host communities by settlement………………………………………………………………….23

Figure 12: Global percent proportion of respondents confirming access to services and opportunities in new location before and after moving……………………………………..27

Figure13: Proportion of respondents’ perception on the new environment by districts…….28

Figure 14: Proportion of how households moved to their new location by settlement type...... 29

Figure 15: Proportion of those accommodating dropouts by district and settlement type...... 30

Figure 16: Proportions of respondents hosting dropouts for different period of time……....31

Figure 17: Global proportion of perception of host communities towards pastoral dropouts……………………………………………………………………………………..31

Figure 18: Percent frequency of those using soap for different purpose by status…………34

Figure 19: Proportion of respondent citing different causes of diarrhoea by status………...34

Figure 20: Proportion of respondents who have engaged in any given livelihood activities within the study area………………………………………………………………………...36

Figure 21: Proportion of male and female involved in different livelihood activities………37

Figure 22: Proportion of those who have acquired cultivatable land by district……………37

Figure 23: Proportion of people suggesting different solutions for dropout problems……..39

vi

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1: Carcasses of dead animals in Harey Kebele, Shinile………………………………15

Plate 2: Shoats grazing in fields (background) with germinating grass in Hore, Shinile………………………………………………………………………………………15

LIST OF BOXES

Box 1: Story of Dropout desperations…………………………………………………...... 26

Box 2: Building Wealth from Restocking………………………………………………….42

Box 3: Education as a Deferred Investment………………………………………………..44

vii TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

FGD Focussed Group Discussion

KI Key Informant

NGO Non Governmental Organization

Pastoralist Dropout These are groups of former pastoralists who because of livestock losses have abandoned pastoralism and are now surviving on alternative livelihood options. In this study, stockless pastoralists hosted within pastoral communities were also considered as dropouts

RAIN Revitalizing Agricultural/Pastoral Incomes and New markets

SC UK Save the Children UK

ToT Terms of trade

UNICEF United Nations

WFP World Food Programme

viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Pastoralists have traditionally made optimum use of the fragile natural resource base of rangelands by practicing a mobile and extensive livestock-keeping system. However, in recent years a number of complex concerns have emerged that render effective livestock production more difficult and burdensome for the pastoral nomads. These includes recurrent drought, rapid increase of human population, environmental degradation and policies that are not supportive to pastoral production system. This has made pastoral communities increasingly vulnerable to food and livelihood crises and growing numbers are dropping out of pastoralism every year, while more have to depend on emergency relief food provision for survival. Somali Region is one of the most vulnerable in Ethiopia with natural and human-made disasters and market crisis all disrupting the economy and severely threatening food security and livelihoods. Situation is made worse by over reliance on purchase as the main source of non livestock food items such as cereals whose prices have been on the rise in recent years. This is against the backdrop of stagnant livestock prices due to market problems. The net effect of the challenges is that many people in the region are dropping out of pastoral production system.

RAIN Programme and Dropout Study

Analysis of food situation in Somali region of Ethiopia showed that many households were in serious livelihood crisis coming as a result of rainfall failure in three consecutive seasons since 2007. The poor rain condition together with high grain prices has depleted resilience of the pastoral populations in the region. This situation called for an immediate response in order to protect pastoralists’ livelihoods and restore their resilience to different types of shocks. Consequently, RAIN programme was initiated in April 2009 in 18 target districts within five zones targeting about 4,632,914 people. The programme is being implemented by Save the Children UK in collaboration with Mercy Corps. SC UK is implementing projects in Jijiga, Fik and Shinile zones all within Somali region. It is apparent that a good proportion of people within the programme area are not involved in pastoral production process due to lose of their livestock assets. However tangible information on this group of people was lacking and it was therefore necessary to carry out a study that could help in area, beneficiary and activity targeting. The aim of this study was therefore to develop a more in-depth understanding of the current livelihood situation and vulnerabilities of stockless pastoralists in Somali Region of Ethiopia.

Study Area and Methodology

The survey was carried out in four representative districts of Babile (Jijiga zone), Fik and Hamaro (Fik zone) and Shinile (Shinile zone) in October 2009 by a team of twelve enumerators and SC UK RAIN programme field staff under the guidance of an external Consultant. The main people targeted for the baseline survey were respondents from households, community leaders, elders, government officials, officials from non governmental organizations, both local and international as well as international organizations giving humanitarian assistance within the study area. Also targeted were individual dropouts and, beneficiaries of specific livelihood projects. Primary data was collected using household questionnaire, Guideline questions for Focused Group Discussion (FGD) for the hosting community and for dropouts, case studies, field observation and key informants that included

ix officials from government line bureaus and non governmental organizations. Secondary data were obtained from various literatures on pastoralism and Save the Children UK documents. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS and Excel software.

Key Findings of Pastoralists Dropout Study

Household Characteristics

A total of 200 household respondents were interviewed out of which 117 were male and 83 female giving a proportion of 58.5% and 41.5% respectively. Out of the total number of people interviewed, 92.6% are married, 2.1% single, 3.1% widowed and only 1.6% divorced. The average household size is 6.24 ± (1.65), most of them under the age of 18 with a mean of 4.37 ± (1.98). Only 26% of those interviewed have formal education, out of which an insignificant number of only 1.5% have gone above grade 9. 63.5% of those interviewed confirmed that their children are attending school. However, the attendance level varies with more children in urban (75.8%) being in school compared to 51.0% in rural areas. Marked variations also exist across the districts surveyed.

Level of Dropout

In total, 96% of all those interviewed confirmed that they have at one time in their lives practiced pastoralism. However, only 23.5% confirmed that they still practice pastoralism giving a dropout rate of 76.5%. This level appears relatively high and this could be due to the areas that formed the sampling frame which are known to be point of attraction for dropouts because of alternative livelihood activities and as food distribution centres. There were no marked variations of dropout levels among those who have moved to big towns (79%) and those who live within Kebeles in the rural areas 74%. However, dropout rates varied remarkably across the districts. On average, 14.5% of those who have stopped pastoralism moved to the new locations within the last one year and up to 61.5% within the last five years showing that the problem is on the rise. Those who still practice pastoralism have low numbers of herd for pastoral subsistence. The overall mean for animals held per household is 7.36 ± (13.14) for camel, 4.45 ± (6.17) for cattle, 14.77 ± (12.08) for goats, and 15.86 ± (16.72) for sheep.

Causes of dropout

Direct natural causes identified to drive people out of pastoral system were drought cited by 97.6% of all those interviewed and animal diseases (86.2%). Other reasons cited were insecurity 26.9%, pressure from large family 11.4% and mismanagement of herd 5.4%. However, the extent to which respondents perceive the reason cited varied across the districts surveyed. It was also clear from observations that pasture degradation coming as a result of poor range utilization could be contributing to dropout process due to decreased range productivity. Although the study established that there were no restrictions on access to the local markets, wide range movement in some areas such as Fik, restrictions on informal cross border trade in some parts of Shinile, along side the long standing ban on livestock exports to some international markets could be limiting trade opportunities thereby making livestock prices low in these areas. Over reliance on food purchase whose prices have been on the rise in recent past all put strain to pastoral production system as more animals need to be sold in order to buy other non animal food items. Only 8% of those interviewed said they have ever received animals for restocking from the communities, out of which a paltry 1% said the

x animals provided were adequate showing that this traditional social protection system has collapsed. The problems cited as well as collapse of the traditional safety net system have lead to many people becoming pastoralist dropouts.

Process of Dropping Out

Out of all those interviewed, 94.5% said they lost their animals gradually as a result of draught and inherent poverty that has steadily decreased livestock numbers. In the absence of traditional safety net system, most of those interviewed (67%) said they migrated from their original homes after they lost their animals. 76.9% of those interviewed said they moved to their new locations within 1 – 2 years after losing their herd. Choice of places for relocation is largely determined by family affiliation as confirmed by 76.8% of those interviewed. Other factors considered include access to social services 65.9%, opportunities for non pastoral livelihood activities 29.7%, opportunity for work 17.4% and, to a small extent availability of cultivatable land 5.8%. Although most of those interviewed (93.5%) confirmed that there are relatives who still live in places they migrated from, only 66.7% said they are willing to go back to their original homes. Social services and amenities were cited as the main reason why some people do not want to go back to rural villages. 94.9% of those interviewed said decision to move was made by nuclear family or personal, and 76.8% of respondents said they move together with their nuclear family.

Alternative Livelihood Activities

Dropouts engage in various alternative livelihood strategies, the main ones being firewood collection with 31% of people engaged in this activity in urban centres, this is followed by tea kiosks with 24.2% and other petty trade in which 23% of urban dwellers are involved. Other major activities include charcoal burning (20.2%), herding and trekking of livestock 17% and manual labour 17%. However, opportunities for these activities among others vary across the districts as well as in rural and urban settlements. Only 5% of those interviewed posses trade skills and this make them unable to take advantage of many job opportunities available in construction industry coming as a result of expansion of most of the towns in the region. The study found out that there are growing numbers of men who have engaged in activities such as sale of milk, water and firewood that were traditionally associated with females. On the other hand, females are also venturing into activities such as livestock trade which was traditionally a male domain.

Condition of Dropouts in the new Environment

Overall, 75% of dropouts said they are experiencing problems in places where they have relocated as well as the livelihood activities they are trying to engage in. 76.8% of them perceive their reception by host communities as average. Generally, those in large urban centres find reception less cordial compared to rural areas with some urban dropouts reporting discrimination by host communities. 44.5% of those accommodating dropouts view them negatively due to increased burden on meagre family resources. In urban settlements, the other reason for negative resentment is environmental degradation coming as a result of cutting of trees for charcoal and firewood by pastoralists dropouts. On average, only 47.5% of dropouts confirmed receiving help from development and humanitarian organizations although there were wide variations across the districts. Where they exist, support is given to general population and dropouts are not given special preference. Only 14% of dropouts said they belong to self help groups while only 2% confirmed belonging to some form of

xi cooperative associations. Despite the huddles, majority of dropouts (69.9%) agreed that there are services and opportunities that they have now but did not have before dropping out and relocating. However, most of them said life in the new environment in terms of livelihood is more of a struggle and only 9.5% of those interviewed have managed to accumulate some livelihood assets after dropping out.

Effect of Dropout on Children’s Life

Children of dropouts have higher access to formal education with 69.3% enrolled in schools compared to 44.7% of non dropout children. This is attributed to availability of schools in urban centres where dropouts move to after lose of livestock. 29.3% of dropouts reported incidences of diarrhoea among their children in two weeks preceding the study compared to 23.4% among non dropouts. However, incidences of malaria were almost the same among the two groups at an average of 27.8% for both. Mothers’ knowledge on child nutrition was largely similar among the two groups, but lack of access to protein food items (milk and meat) among dropouts has made their children to be in poor nutritional status compared to practicing pastoralists’ children. Children of dropouts who end up as urban destitute have higher chances of being abused as some of them resort to begging.

Possible Solutions to Dropout Problem

Even though large number of those interviewed (78.4%) said there should be continued support in form of food aid, they were all in agreement that this is a temporary measure and a more sustainable solution should be sort. On permanent solution, 83.0% felt that making newer sources of income through diversification of livelihood activities is the best solution. Other suggestions given included restocking (72.9%), development of skills 55.3%, creation of jobs 51.8%, supporting of public services 45.7%, provision of rural finance 39.2%, provision of farm inputs 22.1%. Also cited were, development of markets by 17.6%, building peace and restoring pastoral lifestyle 18.1% and, sending family members to look for employment 23.0%.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Pastoral production is undergoing a negative transition which is presenting more challenges than opportunities that has led to many people dropping out of the system. However, despite these challenges, Somali region still has great potential for sustainable pastoral livelihood. What is required is development of friendly policies and infrastructure that can protect and enhance this system of production. Proper utilization of fragile rangeland ecosystem should no longer be left to traditional systems alone instead modern approach to rangeland resource management should be incorporated to enhance traditional methods in order to increase productivity. Development partners and government should have deliberate efforts geared towards reversing the negative trend in pastoral production and bring back pastoralists to gainful production process for their own benefit as well as for the general economy. The study therefore recommends the following as some of the possible solutions to dropout problems:

• Awareness creation on proper rangeland management. • Diversification of income through other livelihood activities. • Restocking. • Establishment of revolving funds to enhance petty and middle level trade. • Petty traders should be linked to value chain off take activities.

xii • After careful ecological assessment, agriculture can be established in areas where conflicts may not arise between farming and nomadic pastoral system. People in these areas should be facilitated through provision of inputs and training on crop husbandry. • Farming activities can be enhanced further by forming cooperatives for marketing and linking them to value chain system. • Even though not mentioned as a livelihood strategy in this study, bee keeping is one activity that is known to be viable in many range areas. Possibility of this activity should therefore be explored and enhanced where it is viable. • Link the results of dropouts with that of value chain addition to establish where dropouts can fit along the chain to bring them back to gainful productivity. • Discourage pastoral communities from demarcating land and restricting movement through land they consider to be personal/private. • Young people who are not attending school should start training through apprenticeship in construction projects, welding and carpentry workshops. • Food aid support should only continue as a temporary solution as other permanent alternatives take root and could be better implemented within the traditional safety net frameworks • There should be development of infrastructure in such as schools, health centres and provision of clean water in pastoral areas to discourage relocation to urban centres. • Boarding schools at both primary and secondary levels should be established to ensure that children of pastoralists are not forced to abandon schools when their parents migrate. • Credit system that does not require collateral should be established to allow pastoralists communities to access fund for improvement of productivity and businesses. • Establish vocational training centres where trade skills can be developed. Courses should be established based on needs assessment. • Establish middle level industries that can add value to livestock products in order to increase earnings from livestock. • Develop policies that seek to protect interest of pastoralists’ communities. • There should be advocacy work to governments to have policies that protect the interest of pastoralists. • A comprehensive social protection programmes both formal and informal should be established in pastoral areas to ensure poor pastoralists are able to sustain their assets.

xiii SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information

Pastoralists constitute the majority of dry land inhabitants in eastern parts of Africa where they have traditionally made optimum use of the fragile natural resource base by practicing a mobile and extensive livestock-keeping system. They move according to where and when pasture and water becomes available, and use different herd management strategies such as herd splitting, herd diversification and herd maximization to ensure that they spread the risk of livestock loss from droughts, diseases and theft. All the while, they make maximum use of the available vegetation without degrading the environment.

However, in recent years a number of complex concerns have emerged that render effective livestock production more difficult and burdensome for the pastoral nomads. First, the traditional strategies are underpinned by mobility and are thus only effective in a context that permits the practice of mobile pastoralism. Thus, to the extent that development policies promoted by governments and donors restrict mobility, they effectively increase the vulnerability of pastoralists to natural and man-made shocks1. Secondly, there has been a rapid increase in human population in pastoral communities that has resultantly put pressure to the inelastic pastoral production process and lead to environmental degradation. Lately, the effect of climate change that has resulted in prolonged periods of drought and shorter drought cycles has made pastoral communities increasingly vulnerable to food and livelihood crises.

Beside the natural factors affecting pastoral productivity, there are a myriad of man-made forces which undermine the resilience of pastoralists to shocks and other drivers of change thereby increasing vulnerability. Indeed some people have argued that it is not drought as such that make pastoralists vulnerable, but the growing inability of pastoralists to cope with it. Factors that constrain pastoral drought response mechanisms, especially the mobility of people and animals, are the main reason for this. These factors include restrictions on trade and movement, poor investment in social services and infrastructure, insufficient and poorly designed state-led investment in development initiatives, and public policy constraints. These factors have fed the misconception that pastoralists are in a perpetual state of humanitarian crisis, and that their extreme vulnerability requires and justifies short-term interventions. This is perhaps why governments continue with low levels of investment and restrictive policies that preclude approaches to lessen pastoralist vulnerability. It is no wonder that, although diverse initiatives are being implemented to help pastoralists cope and prosper, more and more of them find themselves unable to remain within the pastoral production system. Instead, growing numbers are dropping out of pastoralism every year, and more and more have to depend on emergency relief food provision for survival.

The pastoral regions in Ethiopia as elsewhere in Africa are characterized by unpredictable and unstable climatic features as well as ecologically fragile environment. These regions embracing roughly 61 % of the country's landmass are situated in the periphery of the country that fall below 1500 m. They are inhabited by approximately 7.7 million people (13 % of the national population) residing in 7 Regions, 21 Zones, and 123 Woredas. The livestock numbers in the pastoral regions is estimated at 40-42% of the country's total livestock population.2 In the past, pastoral dominated livestock sector contributed more than 20% of

1 Hpg April 2009. Demographic trends, settlement patterns and service provision in pastoralism. Transformation and opportunity

2 Pastoral forum Ethiopia March 2002 1 Ethiopia’s total GDP, probably much more if other intermediate values of livestock such as leather industry are properly assessed.3 But this is rapidly changing as the numbers of livestock continue to dwindle in pastoral areas. In recent times it has been observed that livestock die more quickly, more regularly, and in larger numbers in this environment in response to drought years compared to what was experienced in previous generations. For instant, between 1980 and 2000 pastoral areas of Ethiopia suffered three major droughts in which pastoralists lost 35-67% of their livestock inventory with a monetary value of hundred of millions of USD.4 Between 2001-02 and, 2005-06 there were other two major droughts. Overall livestock losses of 50-75% were reported from the two episodes.5 Viewed at macro level, the decline may be insignificant as the losses may be compensated for by other sector of the economy. However at household level, people/livestock ratios have declined to a level below what is viable for sustainable subsistence livelihood. According to a recent study in Borana Zone of Oromiya Region Ethiopia, there are indeed a good number of pastoralists who are dropping out of pastoral livelihood.6

1.2 Situation in Somali Region

The Somali Region is one of the most vulnerable in Ethiopia7 with natural and human-made disasters and market crisis all disrupting the economy and severely threatening food security and livelihoods. The main factors behind the long-term economic decline in most parts of the region are population pressure combined with dwindling access to natural resources mainly caused by short cycles of drought, overgrazing and conflicts. More to these, livestock diseases are quite frequent especially during drought periods. In some parts, markets are not well functioning with pastoral economy suffering further from man-made shocks such as crackdown on informal cross border trade in addition to the general ban of livestock trade in foreign markets such as the gulf states.

Successive years of drought have made it impossible for pastures to regenerate and water sources to replenish. This has made the Somali pastoralists communities to face greater hardships ever witnessed in the recent past. Already cut off from their normal trading routes and migration patterns due to conflict and trade restrictions, the drought – combined with the effects of rising food prices have had devastating consequences on the lives and the livelihoods of pastoralists. As pasture and water become less and less attainable and internal movement remains difficult the livestock/food security situation has increasingly become critical.

A recent analysis of livelihoods in the Somali Region and East Hararghe and Oromiya Regions by Mercy Corp revealed deteriorating household wealth status. High livestock mortality of up to 65 – 70% were reported in some zones such as Shinile in an evaluation

3 Akhilu, Y. (2002) An Audit of the Livestock Marketting Status in Kenya, Ethiopia and Sudan. OAU/Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources, I and II.

4 Desta S. and D.L. Coppock. 2002. Cattle population dynamics in the southern Ethiopian rangelands, 1980-97. Journal of Range Management 55: 439-451. 5 Morton, J. 2006. The 2006 Drought and Pastoral Communities of Southern Ethiopia: Report on a study of the perceptions of the drought and impacts of drought emergency responses in Borena zone (Oromia region) and adjoining areas of Somali region.

6 Solomon D., Wassie B., Getachew G., and Dadhi A. (2008) Pastoral Drop out study in Selected Weredas of Borana Zone Oromia Regional state

7 Vulnerable Livelihoods in Somali Region, Ethiopia, Stephen Devereux, IDS Research Report 57, April 2006 2 carried out in December 2008.8 The reports indicate that poorer households with severely depleted herds from past years have been unable to regain the productivity and growth of their animals and, there are growing indications of people dropping out of pastoral livelihood. Increasing reliance on food purchases to meet household consumption-needs has put more pressure on livestock resource base as livestock terms of trade (ToT) continue to have an inverse relationship to those of other food items. Results of the Gu seasonal assessment of 2008 indicated that the prices of both sorghum, the staple cereal and maize had risen drastically over the past 18 months. In some instances, pastoralists are forced to sell up to four “consumption goats” in order to purchase one quintal (100 kg) of cheapest cereal.

Due to the shocks and challenges that communities in Somali Region are facing, it is becoming apparent that many of them are becoming “Drop-out pastoralists.9” However, general observation shows that the diversification options they take are largely dictated by predicament and not as a result of emerging opportunities. Policy and programme interventions by government and development partners are therefore needed in order to bring this group of people back to gainful production process. But this is not possible due to dearth of information about them. This study therefore aims to shed more light on the process of dropping out and, fate of pastoralist dropouts.

8 Oxfam, Emergency Food security and livelihood Evaluation Report. Ayisha and Shinile Woreda, Shinile Zone Somali Region Ethiopia, December 2008. 9 These are groups of pastoralist who because of livestock losses have abandoned pastoralism and are now surviving on alternative livelihood options. For this study, stockless people within pastoral areas were also considered dropouts. Of interest were also those who have too few animals that can permit meaningful pastoral livelihoods. 3 SECTION 2: RAIN PROGRAMME AND THE DROPOUT STUDY

2.1 Introduction

RAIN Program which started in April 2009 was initiated as a result of food situation analysis in Somali region of Ethiopia. The failure of three consecutive seasonal rains since mid April 2007, compounded by steadily increasing grain prices since 2005 has gradually depleted the resilience of the pastoral, agro pastoral and riverine populations in the region. Already cut off from their normal trading routes and migration patterns due to conflict and trade restrictions, recent drought combined with effect of rising food prices has had devastating consequences on the lives and livelihoods of pastoralists. This situation warranted an immediate response in order to protect livelihoods and to restore local communities’ resilience to these continuums of shocks.

To maximize impact, the RAIN consortium composed of Mercy Corp and SC UK identified a total of 18 target districts within five zones for project implementation. The total population of the target area is estimated at 4,632,914. Out of this, the project targets 198,971 beneficiaries from Shinile, 649,499 from Jijiga, 283,587 from Fik, 377,060 from Deghabur and 442,123 from East Hararghe making a total of 1,951,240 or 42% of the total population. The overall goal of the programme is to protect, promote and diversify livelihoods in a strategic cluster of connected districts in the Somali Region and East Hararghe as a means of increasing households’ resilience to shocks within three years.

2.2 Purpose and Justification of Pastoralists Dropout Study

Studies are conducted to establish the nature of existing conditions. They provide benchmarks for comparison with post developmental monitoring in order to measure impact and change. Livelihood, like all other development areas, has various classes of events in which survey can be used to generate valuable data. Core among them are (i) changing physical conditions (ii) coping strategies to the changing environmental conditions (iii) critical areas that require intervention and (iv), success stories of previous intervention programmes. Measurable data collected on these aspects can be tracked over a period of time to clearly demonstrate effects and impact of deliberate activities geared towards their improvement.

The RAIN programme launched in April 2009 has sets of expected results that are clearly spelt out in the programme’s log frame. These results are expected to be measured against certain known levels in the process of impact monitoring and evaluation. Success of the programmes will largely depend on proper area, activities and, beneficiary targeting. It has become a common knowledge that there are stockless pastoralists within the general population. However, there is no tangible evidence from systematic study to prove the magnitude of the problem; causes of dropout, where they go to, how they are surviving and what their aspirations are. Without such information it is impossible to plan for any mitigation activity to address problems of this special group of pastoralist. It was therefore necessary that SC UK undertake a detailed study on dropouts who are expected to be part of the target populations and beneficiaries. Results of this study would be important in seeking both short term and long term solutions to dropout problem and addressing plights of dropouts and their children. Together with subsequent quantitative monitoring data, the information would also be important when assessing the extent to which the project would have met its general aim of improving the lives of pastoralists’ communities within the target area. Beside SC UK the information will also be useful to the government and other agencies working in the region for

4 purpose of planning and implementation of any other livelihood support programme to help this special group of pastoralists.

2.3 Objective of the Pastoral Dropout Study

As an inherent component of design of the RAIN project as well as requirement in the financing agreement with the donor, a study into ‘dropouts’ from pastoral system was planned at the onset of the programme. This was to help SC UK develop a more in-depth understanding of the current livelihood situation and vulnerabilities of stockless pastoralists in Somali Region of Ethiopia. This will inform further on the designed strategies of the RAIN programme and Save the Children UK policy and advocacy strategies in Ethiopia. Specifically, results of the study would enable RAIN project implementing teams to:

1. Develop a current and more in-depth understanding of livelihoods and vulnerabilities in Somali Region, including dynamics and changes since the previous baselines. 2. Use the updated pastoral dropout baseline information and analysis to: • inform the design of relevant livelihoods interventions and strategies • be able to monitor and evaluate the impact of interventions in the future • inform policy and advocacy strategies • help in the design of an effective monitoring system by the implementing agencies and for informing the work of collaborating organizations, as required 3. Inform plans for future assessment phases (focus, methodologies and processes) based on the results and lessons learnt from this baseline. 4. Review overall design strategy, assess feasibility and provide general advice on project implementation strategy. 5. Revisit indicators, establish baseline data and, develop program for Monitoring and Evaluation framework. 6. Revisit log frame and work plans and develop detailed implementation work plans

The study was also aimed to be a learning process for the community/beneficiaries, SC UK, and other implementing partners and was therefore to identify opportunities and propose key project aspects and approaches that will contribute to better implementation and overall improvement and protection of pastoralists’ livelihoods from harm. In line with the objectives spelt out above, the survey sort to answer the following pertinent questions:

1. How many people within the general population are dropouts? 2. What are the main causes of dropping out? 3. What livelihood activities are they engaged in? 4. Have they migrated from their original location? 5. Are their lives better or worse than before dropping out? 6. How are the lives of dropouts compared to those who still practice sustainable pastoralism? 7. How is the life of children of dropouts compared to those still practicing pastoralism? 8. What opportunities exists for pastoralists dropouts? 9. How can their livelihoods be enhanced either by getting them back to mainstream pastoral livelihood or exploiting alternative opportunities? 10. Does dropout have effect on household structure?

5 2.4 Methodology

2.4.1 Study Area and Target Population

There are nine administrative zones within Somali region namely:- Shinile, Jijiga, Fik, Deghabur, Korahe, Warder, Gode, Afder, and Liban. The survey was carried out in three zones in which Save the Children UK operates, which are Shinile, Jijiga and Fik in October 2009.

Shinile Zone: Lies in the northernmost end of Somali Region at an altitude range of 950- 1350m above sea level. The population is estimated at 360,000 – 465,000. The area receives an annual rainfall of 500 – 700 mm distributed in two rainy seasons Gu and Karan. The northern area towards Djibuti has a harsh climate and the rainfall pattern varies compared to other parts, with a long dry season (jilaal) from late September to late March only interrupted by few unreliable showers in December or January. The zone has three seasonal rivers and several dry riverbeds across the entire region. Shallow wells dug in the riverbeds are the main source of water for pastoral communities. It has two livelihood zones, Shinile pastoral and agro-pastoral. Agro-pastoral livelihood zone comprises mainly of lowlands with high percolation and evaporation. The main crop is sorghum and to a small extent, maize. Animals kept are sheep, goats, cattle and camel. The population involved in commercial activities in urban or trading centres is less than 5%. Beside unreliable rainfall, the zone is also prone to market disruption resulting from conflicts and restrictions on informal cross border trade.

Jijiga Zone: This is where Regional administrative headquarters are located. There are two livelihood zones, agro-pastoral and sedentary farming. Agro-pastoral area has two distinct ecological areas, that is, valleys and mountains in the west and vast plains in north-east and south. The four main rivers within the zone are all seasonal. Soil is largely black cotton except in Babile District where there is sandy soil suitable for groundnut cultivation. The zone depends on the Diraa rains (March – May) and heavier Karan rains (July – October) both of which are important for cultivation/maturation of crops, water availability and livestock pasture regeneration. The sedentary farming area does not also have permanent rivers. Rainfall pattern is more or less like the agro-pastoral areas. Important crops in both livelihood zones are sorghum and maize. Livestock are mainly sheep, goats and cattle. Pasture is supplemented by crop residues and stored fodder in drier months. Vulnerability is mainly drought due to over reliance on rain fed agriculture.

Fik Zone Lies in west-central part of Somali Region bordering with Oromiya Region to the west. The terrain is hilly and browse-rich, with vegetation comprising of thick thorny bushes with some pockets of grass. The main water sources are shallow wells dug in seasonal river beds, although the quality deteriorates as water becomes saline in dry seasons. Areas distant from seasonal rivers are vulnerable to water shortages as people use natural ponds where rain water collects, and this is only available in the wet seasons. Population is estimated at 225,296 of which almost all live in pastoral livelihood with few cases of opportunistic farming if the rains are good. But this has been unreliable with only two harvests reported in the last ten years. Predominant animals are shoats largely goats and camels. Main problems in the zone include rainfall failures, market disruptions, clan conflicts/general insecurity and poor road network.

The main people targeted for the survey were respondents from households, community leaders, elders, government officials, officials from non governmental organizations, both

6 local and international as well as international organizations giving humanitarian assistance within the study area. Also targeted were individual dropouts and, beneficiaries of specific development projects.

2.4.2 Site and Sample Selection

Since it was not practical to gather information from the whole region, representative sites were selected for study based on some considerations. The first consideration was the area of operation of Save the Children UK as they were going to be the immediate consumers of the baseline information. Consequently the three zones in which RAIN programme is being implemented by SC UK were selected. Those were Shinile, Jijiga and Fik zones. Representative Woredas (Districts) were selected from the three zones based on a number of criteria in order to get sample that are representative enough to answer the research questions. In Jijiga, Babile Woreda was selected out of the two districts of SC UK operation since it was considered to have less influence of a large urban area as Jijiga Woreda which is the regional headquarters. In Shinile zone, Shinile Woreda was selected and the consideration here was because it is largely pastoral compared to Woreda that is agro-pastoral. In Fik zone, two Woredas were selected namely Fik and Hamaro, consideration here being largely the distance and security. The four districts selected constitute about 45% of the districts in which Save the Children UK has activities in Somali region, and it was therefore considered representative enough.

The population in the 18 districts in which the RAIN consortium10 operates is 1,742,641 and the total number of beneficiaries targeted is 871,320 people. Since the sampling unit was the household, the total population was divided by average household size to get the target population to be included in the sampling frame. Assuming household size of eight people, the estimated total household number is about 220,000. At 95% confidence level and 0.05 margin of error, a sample size of 384 was appropriate for this survey. However, considering that the study was to gather a lot of information as shown by the research questions, as well as time consideration, it was imperative that we work with a lower sample size. We therefore decided to work with a slightly higher confidence interval of 0.07, but maintained confidence level of 95% as this is considered the critical level of acceptance for statistical inferences. A sample size of 196, that was rounded up to 200 was calculated and used based on the formula below:

c 2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx = Z( /100) r(100-r)

N x 2 n = /((N-1)E + x)

Where: N = the population size r = the fraction of responses that you are interested in and, Z(c/100) = the critical value for the confidence level c

The calculated 200 sampling units were equally divided so that samples of 50 were taken from each of the four Woredas surveyed. Because of the variations in characteristics of urban and rural set up, the Woredas selected were further stratified into rural and urban. As it is usual to represent the population proportionately in the different strata, 25 samples were taken from

10 RAIN consortium are two partner organizations Save the Children UK and Mercy Corp who are implementing the RAIN programme in the 18 districts of Somali and Oromiya Regions of Ethiopia.

7 urban centres, which for this survey was the district headquarters, while the other 25 drawn from Kebeles and nearby settlements.

It is usually tricky to have a complete random sampling in surveys like this involving large number of people. However, to minimize biases associated with non-random procedures, we applied systematic random sampling technique. In this process, enumerators took a given direction, from which they entered and interviewed a household respondent after a given interval of household depending on the size of the town or Kebele. A discussion was held between government officials, line bureau heads and elders at the headquarters of each Woreda to determine the best sites for random selection of the study samples.

2.4.3 Data Collection

A team comprising of 12 enumerators, three of them being supervisors under the guidance of independent consultant took part in collecting data on which this report is based. The process begun with development of research tools, an assignment which was undertaken by the consultant in collaboration with Somali Region RAIN programme team. Further inputs on the tools were received from Save the Children UK members of staff at the SC UK’s headquarters in Addis Ababa. Once the tools were developed, a 2 day workshop was organized at SC UK offices in Jijiga to discuss the questionnaire and other tools with the team of enumerators. The workshop was used to finalize the research tools as well as imparting data collection knowledge and skills to the enumerators. Other pertinent issues such as survey design, logistics and sampling sites were also discussed. Since the tools were developed in English and the interviews were to be conducted in Somali language, it was important at this stage to ensure that all enumerators understood the questions well and had the correct translations in Somali language. No limitations were observed as all enumerators were college graduates.

After the training workshop, a one day survey was carried out to pre-test the household questionnaire in Babile town. This still being part of the training process, one of the survey supervisors administered the questionnaire to a respondent as the others listened. This was followed by a brief discussion after which each of the enumerators went out and filled up two pre-test questionnaires. A final session was held to discuss the questionnaire to incorporate comments and recommendations that came from pre-testing exercise. The finalized document was bulked and the survey exercise kicked off in Babile town.

Primary data was collected from several sources using various methods. These were household questionnaire that was used at household level (Annex 1), Guideline questions for Focused Group Discussion (FGD) for the hosting community (Annex 2) and, guideline questions for FGD for dropouts (Annex 3). Each FGD group comprised of six members drawn from different gender and age group, so that there were elders both male and female, community leaders and youth representative. At district level, a government official was also represented in the group. Case studies were also conducted for project beneficiaries and for dropouts in order to get the real life picture of problems and solutions affecting pastoral dropouts. For purposes of triangulation, primary information was also sort from Key Informants (KI) that included government line bureaus, non governmental organizations both international and local, as well as international humanitarian aid organizations. Because the subject of survey is influenced by environmental factors, the survey team also took field notes from observations and took pictures of the field situation whenever there were issues of interest.

8 In total, there were 200 respondents at household level, 50 of them from each Woreda surveyed; notes from 8 FGDs, 4 from hosting communities and 4 from dropouts distributed into two for each Woreda; and, three case studies, one from a dropout, the other from a restocked beneficiary and the final one from a college graduate from pastoral area. Beside these, there were also notes from KI all which have been incorporated to make this dropout baseline survey report. Secondary data were obtained from various literatures on pastoralism and Save the Children UK documents. Key among them was Somali Region Livelihood Baseline of 2008. Besides providing the background information, the secondary data were used to validate some of the study findings.

2.4.4 Data Entry and Analysis

A data entry scheme was developed for the household questionnaires in SPSS computer software. Questions with multiple responses that are not mutually exclusive were split in the data entry scheme so that the proportions of each of the responses are captured. All the items in the questionnaire were entered into SPSS spreadsheet after which the data was cleaned to correct for errors in code entries and outliers, then analysed using SPSS and Microsoft Excel software. Qualitative data were analysed by manual coding, sorting and sifting before inferences were drawn from the different coded responses.

2.4.5 Limitations

1. In this study, household size is computed from the number of children that a family unit has, however, it is common that households would be having relatives who are not necessarily children of respondents. It is therefore possible that household sizes reported could be slightly lower than the actual size.

2. The survey sort to get information only on dropout rates and fate of those dropping out and did not go further to analyse household livelihood characteristics. Result of the study is therefore not a replication of livelihood baseline surveys where Household Economy Assessment (HEA) is done for various wealth groups. However, findings of the survey could be useful in categorizations of this special group of pastoralists who no longer have the assets upon which the traditional wealth groups are based. Future HEA could possibly recognise dropouts as a separate group in which household characteristics should be analysed separately.

3. As per the survey design, the data was collected from Woreda headquarters and villages around administrative Kebeles. These are known point of attractions for dropouts due to alternative livelihood opportunities and as food aid distribution centres. Therefore, the levels of drop out reported could be higher than the general population. But the high rates are valid as it gives a true reflection of dropout problem since it is expected that once people lose their animals, they move to other areas where they can get help and alternative livelihoods. This information is therefore useful for targeting beneficiaries of interventions programmes that seek to address drop out problem.

9

SECTION 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS OF DROPOUT SURVEY

3.1 Household Characteristics

There were a total of 200 household respondents interviewed both dropouts and non dropouts, out which 117 were male and 83 female giving a proportion of 58.5% and 41.5% respectively. This gives a fairly uniform distribution of the gender and the findings are expectedly devoid of gender bias. Majority of those interviewed were between the age groups of 31-40 years, 41.5% and 41 – 50 years, 35.5%. Out of the total number of people interviewed, 92.6% are married, 2.1% single, 3.1% widowed and only 1.6% divorced. This implies that nuclear family units are stable and the communities have low mortality, which can be extrapolated to mean low level of conflict and insecurity. It also means that there are few female headed households. The average household size is 6.24 ± (1.65), most of them under the age of 18 with a mean of 4.37 ± (1.98). Only 26% of those interviewed have formal education, out of which an insignificant number of only 1.5% have gone above grade 9. However, there are variations across the districts as well as between urban and rural communities as shown in table 1 below. Majority (66.7%) of those with formal education have attended Quaran schools and very few of them can read and write in official and local language (Figure 1)

Table 1: Percent distribution of those with formal education, global and by district

Urban Rural Average District Global 27.0% 25.0% 26.0% Babile 44.0% 44.0% 44.0% Fik 16.0% 16.0% 16.0% Hamaro 28.0% 32.0% 30.0% Shinile 20.0% 8.0% 14.0%

Figure 1: Percent global distribution of respondents with formal education

At the moment, there are more children attending formal schools because 63.5% of those interviewed confirmed that their children are in school. However, the attendance level varies with more children in urban (75.8%) being in school compared to 51.0% in rural areas.

10 Marked variations also exist across the districts surveyed with rural areas in some districts such as Fik having low rate of only 20.8%. Details of school attendance by districts and settlement are given in table 2.

Table 2: Percent distribution of children attending formal education by district and settlement

Urban Rural Average District Global 75.8% 51.0% 63.5% Babile 76.0% 68.0% 72.0% Fik 62.5% 20.8% 41.7% Hamaro 92.0% 64.0% 78.0% Shinile 72.0% 50% 61.2%

Although the general school attendance looks average, there are few pupils who continue to higher grades. For instance, only 15.7% of children have gone beyond grade 7, while a paltry 3.3% have gone beyond primary level. Similarly, Hamaro district show impressive general enrolment, but all parents interviewed said none of their children have gone beyond primary school. The low attendance level in some of the rural areas is attributed to migratory nature of the communities. Secondary schools are few and located in large towns, making them inaccessible to children in remote pastoral areas. Moreover, the schools do not have boarding facilities making it impossible for those without relatives in town to enrol in them. Boarding schools, both at primary and secondary levels have been instrumental in other countries in improving access to education among pastoralists’ communities. Table 3 compares the literacy levels in the four districts studied.

Table 3: Percent proportion of literacy levels by districts surveyed

Level Global Babile Fik Hamaro Shinile

Those who can read and 39.0% 41.7% 25.0% 41.0% 42.9% write Those who have attended 63.1% 66.7% 75.0% 63.2% 50.0% Quaran schools Completed grades 1 - 6 60.5% 55.6% 50.0% 63.2% 70.0% Completed grades 7 - 9 15.7% 13.9% 10.0% 15.8% 22.2% Gone above grade 9 3.3% 2.8% 5.0% 0.0% 7.7%

3.2 Level of Drop Out

Globally, 96% of all those interviewed confirmed that they have at one time in their lives practiced pastoralism. However, only 23.5% confirmed that they still practice pastoralism giving a dropout rate of 76.5%. Although the level may appear high, the findings are in agreement with an earlier evaluation carried out by Oxfam GB where livestock loss of up to 69% were reported, with 75% of the population being considered destitute due to total loss of animals.11 Similar estimates were also given by other KI from organizations working within

11 Oxfam, 2008. Emergency Food Security and Livelihoods Evaluation Report. Ayisha and Shinile Woreda, Shinile Zone Somali region Ethiopia.

11 some of the areas surveyed. But as discussed in the study limitations, the level may be higher than the general population as the data could be positively skewed due to the sampling areas which could be having higher concentration of dropouts since they are points of attraction for dropouts. However, since it is the dropouts that are to be targeted by mitigation programmes, the findings are valid as it gives true picture of dropout problems within the areas where people move to after losing their animals.

There were no marked variations of dropout levels among those who have moved to big towns (79%) and those who live around point of attractions within the rural areas 74%. However, drop out rates varied remarkably across the districts (Figure 2), with Hamaro having the highest average rate of 90% and Fik lowest at 60%.

Figure 2: Percent dropout rate by district and settlement area

The problem of dropout appears to be a recent phenomenon and its magnitude is certainly on the rise. On average, 14.5% of those who have stopped pastoralism moved to the new locations within the last one year alone, while up to 61.5% moved less than five years ago. This trend is a replication from all the districts where most drop outs moved less than five years ago after loss of their livestock. In Fik 20% of dropouts moved in the last one year while in Babile, 19.5% moved within the same period. Similar observations were made in Shinile where herd loss of 18.6% was reported in the past one year. It is only in Hamaro where movement was slightly lower within the last one year. But this does not mean the situation is better in Hamaro, as the explanation for the departure is because most of the dropouts had lost their herds much earlier. Figure 3 shows the trend of relocation by districts in the past 20 years.

Out of the total number of those interviewed, only 23.5% said they still practice pastoralism. However, most of them (92.6%) said that the number of herds they hold is far too small for sustainable pastoral production. The type and number of stocks vary greatly from one household to the other and also by zone and districts. The overall mean for animals held per household is 7.36 ± (13.14) for camel, 4.45 ± (6.17) for cattle, 14.77 ± (12.08) for goats, and 15.86 ± (16.72) for sheep. The large standard deviations of means are due to the wide range between the numbers of animals that different households have. In Fik, and Hamaro camels, goats and sheep are the most important animals while in Babile and Shinile cattle, sheep and goats are the main animals of preference, but with some people in areas bordering Fik keeping

12 camels. Table 4 gives the type and average number of animals held by households in the four districts.

Table 4: Type and average number of animals holding per household in the four districts of Babile, Fik, Hamaro and Shinile

Camel Cattle Goats Sheep District Babile 7.0 ± (9.22) 6.64 ± (7.65) 10.57 ± (8.10) 12.18 ± (14.13) Fik 7.73 ± (16.10) 1.84 ± (3.78) 17.52 ± (14.25) 19.83 ± (20.36) Hamaro 9.25 ± (6.50) 0.00 ± (0.00) 11.91 ± (7.78) 16.75 ± (13.87) Shinile 5.57 ± (5.32) 5.00 ± (5.06) 15.73 ± (11.92) 11.00 ± (9.810)

The threshold number of animals required for subsistence through pastoralism is 24-42 cattle or 100-462 shoats, or 12-30 camels (Dahl and Hjort 1976)12. From the averages indicated above, it is apparent that nearly all households have livestock that is way below the minimum survival requirements for pastoral livelihood. The question then is how the dropouts and the general population survive. The survey looked into this aspect and some of the answers to the question are discussed in section 3.6 of this report.

Figure 3: Trend of relocation after herd loss by districts in the last 20 years

3.3 Causes of dropout

3.3.1 Direct Natural Causes

There are various factors that affect livestock productivity either directly or indirectly. Therefore the reasons that eventually drive one out of pastoral livelihood are likely to be multiple. But in this study, one factor that came out as the major cause of dropping out was drought, a reason cited by 97.6% of all those interviewed. Although there were no rain data to

12 Dahl, G. and Hjort, A. 1976. Having herds: Pastoral herds growth and household economy. Dept. of Anthropology, Stockholm.

13 back this finding, the response is consistence with information gathered from KI and FGDs who confirmed that drought cycles have increasingly become shorter in the recent past. Information documented by SC UK early warning system confirms that rainfall situation has not been good in the past few years. Plate 1 shows carcass of dead animals that resulted from a recent drought in Harey area of Shinile.

The other major reason cited for livestock loss was animal diseases mentioned by 86.2% of those polled. However, they said that the diseases are secondary as they become aggravated by droughts which make the animals weak. Overall, insecurity was not considered as a major cause of dropout with only 26.9% of those interviewed confirming security as a problem. The other reason cited for dropout problem mentioned by 11.4% of those interviewed was pressure on livestock production by large family. This could be directly through increased sale of animals to cater for family needs or when a parent share animals among his children and each of them ends up having very few animals to sustain the household’s livelihoods. Although respondents from across the districts mentioned the problems cited, the level to which they perceived each of them varied across the districts. For instance, the extent to which insecurity is viewed as a problem in Fik is almost twice as it is perceived in Shinile. Table 5 give details of responses on the causes of dropouts in the four districts surveyed.

Table 5: Proportion of respondents citing different causes of dropout by districts

Babile Fik Hamaro Shinile Global Reason for herd loss Herd loss due to insecurity 22.0% 37.1% 29.8% 20.5% 26.9% Herd loss due to drought 92.7% 97.1% 100% 100% 97.6% Herd loss due to animal 92.7% 85.7% 83.0% 84.1% 86.2% diseases Herd loss due to pressure 17.1% 5.7% 4.3% 18.2% 11.4% from large family Loss due to 7.3% 11.4% 0.0% 4.5% 5.4% mismanagement of herd

3.3.2 Direct Manmade Causes

It is important to note that even though the rains may have been less and more erratic in recent times, proper utilization of pasture and water conservation can be of great importance in sustaining livestock productivity. For instance, overgrazing in some areas has lead to degradation of pastures to an extent that some areas have become completely bare. This happens when animals graze in areas with sprouting vegetation over a period of time thereby not allowing for regeneration and recovery of pastures. Environmental degradation was quite evident, in the plains of Harey in Shinile zone, where many highly mobile pastoralist households had settled just a few days after rainfall. Shoats were feeding on the sprouting grass when it had barely grown above the ground (Plate 2). This has lead to gradual but steady depletion of soil seed banks making what was previously wet season grazing land to become bare land. Consequently many are changing herds from grazers to browsers with the number of cattle drastically reduced as people now prefer keeping shoats.

Soil erosion leads to water wastage because water runoff does not spread well into pasture areas thereby reducing plant productivity. Extensive erosion was witnessed in some parts of

14 Fik and Shinile zones, and this could be one of the contributing factors for the decreasing carrying capacities of rangelands in these areas.

Plate 1: Carcasses of dead animals in Harey Plate 2: Shoats grazing in fields Kebele, Shinile (background) with germinating grass in Hore, Shinile

Increasing constraints on mobility linked to conflicts and trade restrictions could have far reaching consequence on pastoral productivity. This makes real prices of livestock and livestock products low despite the growing demand, and there is therefore no compensation for the lower numbers of animals held by households. With such small and decreasing herd sizes, sales remain focused on immediate cash needs rather than on commercial off-take. This makes pastoral economies to remain poor, with limited circulation of cash. The study established that there was no restriction in movement to local markets as people are free to move to these markets on a daily basis to trade. However, wide range movement in some areas such as Fik and crackdown on informal cross border trade in some parts of Shinile could be limiting trade opportunities thereby making livestock prices low in these areas.

3.3.3 Indirect Causes

Only 11.4% of those interviewed mentioned that pressure from large family could have driven them out of pastoralism. However, this is an important problem to note as it is becoming apparent that the burden on pastoral productivity is on the rise. The changing lifestyle of pastoralist communities is putting a lot of pressure on pastoral system of production to a point that the system can no longer sustain. First, the diet of pastoralist population is becoming more exotic and therefore they have to rely heavily on imported basic food stuff whose prices are quite high. Traditionally, staple cereal food was sorghum and to some extent maize, but for now wheat is becoming the most important staple food as indicated by 84.1% of those interviewed. This is way above those who confirmed sorghum and maize as staple cereal food at proportions of 26.2% and 54.5% respectively. Considering that majority of the people as confirmed by 71.0% of those interviewed purchase staple food, expenditure on non animal

15 food products such as wheat flour, rice, pasta, sugar, tea leaves, pulses and cooking oil must be very high. Situation is made worse by the fact that prices of this commodities have been on the rise in recent past.

Secondly, there is expenditure on non food items such as clothes, shoes, mobile phones and watches, and notably purchase of luxurious items such as chad, soft drink and mineral water. All these were not previously associated with pastoral livelihood. With the declining livestock terms of trade, what this means is that households must sell large number of their animals to meet these costs. It is clear that with such expenditures livestock off-take must be much higher than the natural process of animal population growth through reproduction. This is a major problem beside drought, which is making more people get out of sustainable pastoral production. Unless the system of production is changed or livelihood activities diversified, it would be difficult to sustain pastoralism and more people may continue dropping out of the system.

3.4 Traditional Safety Nets

In Somali traditional set up, households that lost their animals through natural calamities such as drought or through war were restocked by the communities based on certain laid down regulations. In this survey the functioning of this traditional process was investigated by asking the dropouts if they have ever received animals for restocking. Overall, only 8% of those interviewed said they have ever received help from the community. Out of these, only 1% said the animals given were adequate. Although there were variations on those who had received animals through traditional restocking programme in different districts (Figure 4), the levels were generally low. This shows that this system has weakened and it is no longer functional within the area. The reasons given for the collapse of the restocking programme is the recurrent drought that has rendered almost everybody a destitute. It is therefore not practical anymore as no one has extra animals to give away. They all admitted that this used to happen when conditions were good and only when a small proportion of the population needed help. But for now even those who are still having animals are struggling to survive beside the burden of taking care or other relatives who have lost their animals. But this does not mean the communities are no longer helpful to each other, indeed most dropouts survive with the help of relatives before they can move away to look for alternative livelihoods.

Figure 4: proportion of those who have received animals through the traditional restocking programme by district

16 3.5 Process of Dropping Out

3.5.1 Loss of Livestock and Household Response

94.5% of those interviewed said they lost their animals gradually, but the numbers that have dropped out in the last one year show a different pattern. Possible explanation for this could be that drought alongside other factors could have played a role in the dropout problem. It is clear that change of lifestyle as discussed above is putting a lot of pressure on pastoral productivity. Sale of large number of animals to meet other expenditures and continued decline in animal numbers due to drought could have caused households to reduce their herd sizes below the survival threshold. Because the animal regeneration process could no longer keep in pace with needs which are constant, the numbers continued to decline and with the last major drought most households lost the few animals that were still remaining.

With the collapse of traditional safety net and weakening of other social protection system, it means that individuals have to stand on their own once they lose their herd. The natural reaction after lose of herd is relocation to other areas as established in the survey where majority of those interviewed (67%) said they had migrated from other areas. There were multiple reasons cited for movement, but the most important ones were drought and animal diseases that in turn lead to animal loss. There were marked variations in some of the reasons cited in the four districts surveyed. For example, insecurity is more of a problem in Hamaro compared to other districts. Figure 5 gives the proportion of those citing different reasons for relocation across the districts. In general, the finding confirms that relocation is an inherent coping strategy towards loss of livestock as reported by some earlier study.13

Figure 5: Percent proportion of reasons cited for relocation by districts

3.5.2 Duration before Movement

In general, majority of people interviewed move in less than one year after losing their herd (Figure 6). This seems to be a natural reaction due to the fact that communities’ ability to sustain dropouts has drastically reduced and one must immediately look for alternative

13 Solomon et al (2008). ibid

17 livelihood once he becomes stockless. Generally, it is apparent that in the past years, the departures were gradual possibly forced by chronic poverty, but in recent times, departures are more sudden coming as result of drought as shown by the data of those moving within the year of losing their herd. However, there are higher proportions of those moving into Babile and Shinile in less time compared to Fik and Hamaro (Table 6). This could be attributed to the two areas having close proximity to large urban centres where there are more opportunities for alternative livelihoods such as trade and labour. The other reason could be restrictions of movements due to conflicts in Fik zone where the two districts of Fik and Hamaro fall.

Figure 6: Pie chart showing the global proportion of time taken before movement after herd loss

Table 6: Proportions of time taken before movement by districts surveyed

Babile Fik Hamaro Shinile Period of time Less than 1 year 57.6% 42.9% 27.3% 43.2% 1 – 2 years 39.4% 37.1% 27.3% 32.4% 3 – 4 years 3.0% 11.4% 33.3% 16.2% 5 years 0.0% 5.7% 9.1% 2.7% Above 5 years 0.0% 2.9% 3.0% 5.4%

3.5.3 Choice of Places for Relocation

Overall, choice of places for relocation is largely determined by family affiliation as confirmed by 76.8% of those interviewed. Other factors considered include access to social services polled by 65.9%, opportunities for non pastoral livelihood activities 29.7%, opportunities for work 17.4% and to a small extent availability of cultivatable land 5.8%. The other important factor that influence site for relocation is proximity to food aid distribution centres. But there was considerable variation of people citing the reasons listed above in different districts studied as well as the type of settlement as shown in figure and table 7.

18 Fig 7: Proportion of those citing different reasons for choice of place for relocation by settlement type

Table 7: Proportion of those citing different reasons for choice of place for relocation by district and settlement

Babile Fik Hamaro Shinile Reason Influencing Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Movement Access to social 75.0% 47.1% 76.2% 50.0% 71.4 47.4% 81.0% 75.0% services % Opportunities for 18.8% 29.4% 14.3% 7.1% 21.4 10.5% 23.8% 12.5% labour % Search for non 37.5% 35.3% 33.3% 7.1% 14.3 26.3% 33.3% 43.8% pastoral livelihoods % Availability of 12.5% 17.6% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0% cultivable land Family affiliation 75.0% 88.2% 76.2% 78.6% 71.4 68.4% 85.7% 68.8% %

3.5.4 Willingness to go back to Original Homes

In order to find out viability of interventions such as repatriations, respondents were asked several questions to establish if they could go back to their original homes. Even though most dropouts have moved out of their original areas after loss of herd, the places they migrate from are still habitable. On average, 93.5% of those interviewed confirmed that people still live in the areas they migrated from and indeed most of them (80.5%) still keep in touch with relatives left behind. However, a much lower proportion of those interviewed (66.7%) said they are willing to go back to their original homes. Those living in urban areas are less willing to go back to their original homes. Out of the total number interviewed 63.9% said they are willing to go back to their original homes compared to 69.7% of those in rural areas. Hamaro district had the highest proportion of those willing to go back at 81.8%, followed by Fik 62.9% and Shinile 62.2%. Babile had the least proportion of those willing to go back at

19 60.6%. Livelihood opportunities available in the new location compared to original homes is most important influencing factor in decision to go back home. Such opportunities are less available in areas with smaller towns and this could explain why Hamaro had the highest number of people willing to go back to their original homes since alternative livelihood activities are less compared to other districts. Similarly, such opportunities are more in urban areas compared to rural areas hence the variation. The reasons why most people don’t want to go back to their original homes the social services available in the new environment. These include access to education opportunities for their children, health services and proximity to food aid distribution centres. In Fik zone, insecurity was also a major reason cited by some people for unwillingness to go back home.

The tendency is that once people relocate they stay in those locations more or less permanently. Over 70% of respondents said they had been in the new locations for over 3 years and the situation was similar for immigrants in towns and rural Kebeles (Figure 8). This position was the same in all other districts. Table 8 shows details of duration taken by dropouts in their new location. In towns, this decision is largely influenced by existence of more opportunities for alternative livelihood activities.

Figure 8: Proportion of respondents who have occupied new location for given period of time by settlement type

Table 8: Proportions of people who have settled in new locations by districts

Babile Fik Hamaro Shinile Level Less than 1 year 9.1% 11.4% 25.0% 8.1% 1 – 2 years 36.4% 22.9% 15.0% 18.9.% 3 – 4 years 24.2% 22.9% 35.0% 37.8% 5-6 years 21.2% 20.0% 10.0% 13.5.% 7-8 years 3.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.8% 9-10 years 3.05 2.9% 5.0% 2.7% Above 10 years 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.1%

20 3.6 Alternative Livelihood Activities

One of the main questions of interest for the study was how pastoralist dropouts and those with few animals survive. This information is important in making choices on the types of intervention activities to employ in any given area. It is a lot easier to enhance activities that communities are already engaged in rather than bring in totally new ideas, as long as the activities are socially acceptable and without negative impact to the environment. Activities identified in which dropouts are involved in were herding and trekking of animals, sale of charcoal, sale of firewood, manual labour, house help, watchmen, petty trade, sale of chart, tea kiosks and farming. However opportunities for any of these activities varied remarkably across the districts and also for urban and rural areas. Figure 9 show the activities and compare the proportion of dropouts engaged in each of them in urban and rural areas.

Figure 9: Global proportion of those engaged in different livelihood activities by settlement type

Opportunities for these activities also varied remarkably across the districts surveyed. Generally, districts with large towns such as Babile and Fik provided better opportunities for the activities listed compared to Hamaro. Table 9 gives the proportion of people involved in different activities in the four districts studied.

Table 9: Proportion of people involved in various livelihood activities by districts and settlement

Babile Fik Hamaro Shinile Activity Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Herding 32.0% 20.8% 16.0% 8.0% 8.0% 6.0% 12.0% 4.0% Charcoal sale 20.0% 25.0% 16.0% 16.0% 4.0% 8.0% 28.0% 32.0% Firewood sale 16.0% 12.5% 44.0% 8.0% 32.0% 40.0% 32.0% 20.0% Manual labour 20.0% 16.7% 12.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 24.0% 16.0% House help 8.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Watchman 4.0% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Petty trade 32.0% 8.3% 20% 4.0% 28.0% 16.0% 12.05 12.0% Chad sale 12% 4.2% 0.0% 8.0% 16.0% 4.0% 4.0% 0.0% Tea kiosk 40.0% 29.2% 8.3% 8.0% 28.0% 26.0% 20.0% 12.0% Farming 28.0% 16.7% 0.0% 16.0% 12.0% 4.0% 8.0% 0.0%

21 Most of the towns in the region are expanding fast and there are a number of job opportunities available especially in construction industry. However, dropouts cannot take advantage of this because they lack specialised trade skills. Out of the total number of people interviewed only 5% possess trade skills. There is marked variation across the districts and in urban and rural settlements in the four districts. It is of interest to note that respondents from Babile rural had the highest number of those confirming that they have skills at 12% out of total number with skill. The reason for this is not clear, but one possibility is that dropouts in Babile rural settlement could be more flexible in terms of their movement to towns like Babile and Jijiga where they have relatives compared to the other areas. This is unlike dropouts in big towns who come from distant places and may not be having many relatives in the town to support them. Figure 10 compares the proportion of people with skills in the four districts and in urban and rural settlements.

Figure10: proportion of people with special trade skills by district and by settlement type

In terms of specific trade area, masonry is the skill possessed by majority of those interviewed (60%) while carpentry and welding had 20% for each. The other skill mentioned by just a few was traditional textile fabrication and blacksmith. Table 10 provide details of specific trade skill by district and settlement. There was no body confirming having other common skills such as electrician, plumbing, painting, mechanic or driving. All these are possible areas in which capacity can be developed in order to help dropouts diversify their livelihood activities.

Table 10: Proportion of people with specific trade skill by district and settlement area

Babile Fik Hamaro Shinile Trade Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Masonry 0.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.0% 4.0% Carpentry 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% Welding 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

22 3.7 Condition of Dropouts in the new Environment

3.7.1 Reception by the Host Communities

The life situation of dropouts was investigated by asking some general questions about issues that affects their daily lives. Overall, 75% of those interviewed said they are experiencing problems in places where they have relocated as well as the livelihood activities they are trying to engage in. Majority of those interviewed (76.8%) perceive their reception by host communities as average. But this seems to be largely dependent on whether the dropouts have been hosted by their own clan members or within other clans or communities. Generally, those in cosmopolitan urban centres are more likely to find reception colder as the earlier settlers see them as a bother. Figure 11 and table 11 compares perception of dropouts in the way they have been received in urban and rural settlements as well as in the four districts studied.

Figure 11: Global proportion of dropout perception on their acceptance by the host communities by settlement

Table 11: Proportion of dropout perception on their acceptance by the host communities by district and settlement

Babile Fik Hamaro Shinile Reception Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Very good 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% Good 6.3% 0.0% 19.0% 35.7% 7.1% 5.3% 23.8% 12.5% Average 93.8% 94.1% 66.7% 57.1% 78.6% 89.5% 66.7% 68.8% Bad 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 7.1% 7.1% 0.0% 9.5% 18.8%

Some of the dropouts in urban centres reported discrimination in areas like food distribution as host communities perceive them as intruders who compete with them for scarce resources. Those in towns, especially Babile and Shinile reported that host communities stop them from cutting trees for charcoal preparation. The other challenge reported was shelter, since they do not have land in towns to construct makeshift dwellings.

23 3.7.2 Welfare of Dropouts

Only 47.5% of those interviewed confirmed receiving help from development agencies although this varied across the districts. In Babile only 16% of respondents said they receive support. Proportion was equally lower in Shinile with only 36% confirming support from agencies. Fik zone had generally higher proportion of those confirming support with Hamaro and Fik districts having proportions of 70% and 68% respectively. Support come from both government and NGO’s but the extent to which their participation was confirmed varied across the districts and settlement areas (Table 12). Support is given in form of food aid mainly by World Food Programme, animal health services, construction of water reservoirs and child nutrition by international NGOs. In Fik zone, livelihood restoration aid in form of animals for restocking by Save the Children was also reported.

Table 12: Proportion of those confirming receipt of support from different agencies

Babile Fik Hamaro Shinile Agency Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Government 50% 16.7% 56.3% 57.9% 77.8% 55.6% 44.4% 88.9% International 50.0% 50.0% 62.5% 52.6% 61.1% 72.2% 55.6% 37.5% NGO’s Local NGO’s 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% CBO’s 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Although support is given to people where dropouts are hosted, there are no specific ones targeting dropouts except for the restocking programme by save the Children UK, as help is given to the general population. In some cases, some dropouts even claimed that they are discriminated especially in big towns where they do not have relatives. Usually the local administration is given a hand in selecting beneficiaries for a given project or even humanitarian assistants such as food aid. It is therefore not unusual for them to omit people they consider as outsiders from their list of beneficiaries. Such discrimination was reported by some dropouts interviewed in Babile town where they cited cases in which they have been isolated when support is given to the general population because they come from Somali Region while the area is under administration of Oromiya Region.

Cooperative movement is generally low in the area with only 2% of those interviewed confirming that they belong to some cooperative society, while only 14% said they are members of self help group. It is worth noting that majority of those who are members of self help groups are dropouts (Table 13). 75% of those who belong to cooperative movement come from urban centres. However, a good proportion of members of self help groups (57%) are from rural areas. But there are remarkable variations across the districts surveyed as shown in table 14.

24 Table 13: Global proportion of dropouts who are members of cooperative movement and self help groups compared to the general population

Cooperative society Proportion of membership Total members Yes No Still practicing Yes 2 45 47 4.3% pastoralism No 2 151 153 1.3% Total 4 196 200 2.8% Membership of self Proportion of help groups Total members Yes No Yes 4 43 47 8.5% No 24 129 153 15.7% Total/Average 28 172 200 12.1%

Table 14: Proportion of dropouts belonging to cooperative movement by district and type of settlement

Membership of cooperative Membership of self help group movement District Urban Rural Urban Rural Babile 4.0% 4.0% 16.0% 24.0% Fik 4.0% 0.0% 16.0% 12.0% Hamaro 0.0% 0.0% 16.0% 20.0% Shinile 8.0% 0.0% 12.0% 8.0%

The main activities in which members of self help groups are engaged in include manual labour, livestock brokerage and trade, charcoal burning and sale of chad. In Babile, they are also involved in cash crop production and sale of agricultural produce.

Lack of support in livelihood projects and rejection of dropouts in some of the urban centres reduces some of them to urban destitute. Situation is made worse when they cannot get land space to construct makeshift dwellings and are therefore forced to live in rented houses. This is the situation in which some dropouts in Babile town have found themselves as narrated by one of those interviewed.

Box 1: Story of Dropouts Desperations

Ibrahim left Gasangas Kabale in Hamaro District of Fik region in 2005 after he lost his livestock from severe drought that affected the region that year. Before the loss of his herd, he owned 25 camels, 20 cattle and 200 shoats which mean he was in the upper wealth category before the disaster. After lose of the animals he had no option but to move to a place where he could get assistance and if possible an alternative source of livelihood. Ibrahim and his entire nuclear family comprising of one wife and seven children decided to move to Babile town. His decision to move to Babile was influenced by the fact that other members of the clan had moved and settled in this town earlier, and also being a big town along Jijiga Addis Ababa

25 highway and a district headquarters, there were more prospects of alternative sources of livelihood.

Since his arrival in the town four years ago life has been a great challenge as things have not turned out the way he expected. The town has high population of youths and getting any form of unskilled job is difficult for someone like him who was used to pastoral way of life. Population around the town comprise of agro-pastoralist communities which makes it practically impossible for someone from a different zone to get cultivatable land around the town. This has reduced the family to a near destitute situation as they have to depend on relatives for food donations from time to time. Since they do not own any land within the town, the family lives in a rented house and they have to struggle through the petty trade his wife does to raise the rent.

Although the town life is good for those with money, for destitute like him even access to some common services is not easy. For instance, the good schools around are all private and money is required for school fees and even public schools require books and uniform which the family can hardly afford. There is a public health facility nearby, however in some cases essential drugs are not available and one requires money to purchase the medicine from private drug stores. He attributes the death of one of his seven children in Babile to this problem. The fact that they do not have money also means that they cannot afford proper food for their children and the younger ones suffers from malnutrition.

Mr. Ibrahim feels that the best way out of his plight is to get back to pastoral livelihood if he could only have a way of restocking. He opines that this is what he knows best and would embark on it with ease, but again he has cold feet for this due to the recurrent drought that may not permit complete recovery to pure pastoral livelihood. In case they have to continue staying in Babile or any other large town, best solutions would be to have training in skills such as masonry, welding or carpentry. The other solution is for the family to be provided with seed money to start small business within the town.

Story narrated by Mr. Awal Maalim Ibrahim, a dropout living in Babile town, Babile district, Jijiga Zone of Somali Region Ethiopia.

3.7.3 Opportunities provided by the New Environment

Generally, majority of those interviewed (69.9%) admitted that there are certain services and opportunities that they can now access which was not possible before they relocated. However, there were variations on the extent to which respondents reacted to different opportunities. Response also varied in rural and urban settlements as well as in the different areas of study. Details of global response are given in figure 12 while those of individual districts and settlement areas are provide in table 15.

26 Figure 12: Global percent proportion of respondents confirming access to services and opportunities in new location before and after moving

Table 15: Percent proportion of respondents accessing services that they never had before moving by districts and by settlement

Babile Fik Hamaro Shinile Opportunities Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Education 92.3% 83.3% 91.7% 85.7% 100% 92.3% 100% 100% Health services 91.7% 80.0% 100% 85.7% 100% 100% 100% 100% Clean water 100% 88.9% 100% 66.7% 100% 100% 100% 90.0% Farm plots 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 100% 100% 0.0% 100% 0.0% Food aid 100% 80.0% 93.8% 100% 0.0% 100% 100% 83.3% Employment 100% 66.7% 33.3% 50.0% 100% 0.0% 100% 50.0%

Despite having access to the services indicated, the life of dropouts is that of struggle for survival, and indeed only 9.5% of them said they have acquired some assets after dropping from pastoralism. But simple assets acquired such as bed, watch and mobile phones do not add much value in terms of survival.

3.7.4 General Perception of Dropouts on the New Environment

Ironically, a good proportion of those interviewed said that the new places they have relocated were much better than where they were before dropping out. Overall, 42% said the new location was better, 39.9% felt that the places are the same while only 18.1% were of the opinion that the new location is worse than where they came from. There were slightly more people in urban opining that the new environment is better with 44.4% of them responding positively to the question compared to 39.4% in rural areas. This means that more people in rural areas (42.4%) felt that the situation is rather similar to their original homes. Perception on this also varied in the four districts (Figure 13).

27 Figure13: Proportion of respondents’ perception on the new environment by districts

Generally, a good proportion (70.3%) felt that the new locations have more advantages compared to where they came from. Among the advantages listed are health services, opportunities for education and close proximity to food distribution centres. Others from conflict areas also felt that the new environment is better because of security. Also cited as an advantage especially in urban centres are opportunities for more alternative livelihood activities. But as expected, more of urban dwellers were in agreement compared to those from rural areas at proportions of 76.4% and 63.6% respectively. Similar variations were also noted in the four districts studied. Shinile had the highest proportion of those who felt that the new environment had advantage at 75.7% followed by Fik at 71.4%. Positive response to this question was more or less the same in Babile and Hamaro at 66.7% and 66% respectively.

3.8 Effect of Dropout on Household structure

Under normal drought situation when pasture and water become scarce people consult to decide where, when and how to move. It is also during such consultation that decisions like who should move and with which type and age groups of animals are arrived. However, such consultation is not applicable when people lose their herd because they no longer have a common purpose of survival. This was confirmed in this study where 83.3% of those interviewed said the decision to move was made by the nuclear family.14 A further 11.6% said decision was purely personal which shows that up to 94.9% confirmed that decision to move is a household affair. Only 3.6% said that decision was made by the clan. Similarly the number citing local government decision in movement was very low at a proportion of 1.4%. This position was rather similar in all the four districts studied.

In general, decision to stay in current location is also largely a family issue as confirmed by 96.4% of all those interviewed. There were also no much variations of response towards this question across the districts as well as in urban and rural settlements. Globally, majority of those interviewed (76.8%) said they move together with their nuclear family members. A few

14 Nuclear family as applied in this study refers to a household comprising of a father, a mother and their children or children under their care.

28 others either moved alone but were later joined by other family members as shown in figure 14 below. This confirms reports of earlier studies where most dropouts were found to move with nuclear family when relocating (Solomon, et al, 2008)15

Figure 14: Proportion of how households moved to their new location by settlement type

There were also slight variations in the composition of family during movement in the four districts as shown in table 16.

Table 16: Proportion of family composition during movement by district

Babile Fik Hamaro Shinile Family composition during movement Moved alone 3.0% 5.7% 12.1% 8.1% Alone but joined with family members 9.1% 2.9% 3.0% 5.4% later Moved together with family members 75.8% 82.9% 72.7% 75.7% Moved with family members who have 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% since left Moved with other members of the 9.1% 8.6% 12.1% 8.1% community

These results indicate that dropout has minimal effects on family structure because family units tend to remain intact with people preferring to relocate together. This is important when targeting household beneficiaries for given livelihood activities.

3.9 Perception of Host Communities towards Dropouts

Overall, a total of 35.2% of those interviewed said they have accommodated dropouts, with urban dwellers accommodating slightly more at 38.4% compared to rural settlements at

15 Solomon et al 2008. ibid

29 32.0%.16 Babile had the highest proportion of those accommodating dropouts at 48%, followed by Hamaro at 40%. In Fik, 30% of those interviewed said they are accommodating dropouts, while Shinile had the least proportion at 22.4%. Variations were evidence within the districts as well as settlement area (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Proportion of those accommodating dropouts by district and settlement type

Globally 85.7% of respondents said they are related to those they are accommodating. Tendency to live with relatives is a bit higher in rural areas as confirmed by 90.6% of respondents from rural settlements compared to 81.6% in towns. In three districts of Babile, Fik and Shinile, over 90% confirmed that they accommodate dropouts based on blood relationship. It is only in Hamaro where there is departure from this general trend as only 65% of respondents said those they live with are their relatives. It was further confirmed that it is in Hamaro town that more people accommodate those who are not related to them as indicated by 45.5% of those interviewed. Response in Hamaro rural was more close to the global average as 77.8% of respondents said they have accommodated relatives. Religion is an important influencing factor for those accommodating people they are not related to. These results further confirm response from dropouts themselves who indicated that choice of places for relocation is largely influenced by presence of relatives.

All those interviewed including FGD and KI concurred that the problem of dropout has been on the rise in recent past. This was empirically verified by asking respondents the number of years each of them have been accommodating dropouts. From the Analysis of response towards this question it can be seen that the problem is on the rise with the largest proportion of people having relocated within the last one year (Figure 16). This result is consistent with those given by dropouts which have been presented in previous section of this report.

16 Accommodation of dropouts is used in this context to describe households in which people who have dropped out of pastoralism are living. It should therefore not be confused with the presence of dropouts within a given area.

30 Figure 16: Proportions of respondents hosting dropouts for different period of time

Overall, more of those accommodating dropouts view them as a burden as confirmed by 44.3% who said they impact on their lives negatively compared to 20% who said dropouts have influenced their lives positively (Figure 17). Those viewing dropouts negatively cited increased household burden that has put a lot of strain on households scarce and ever dwindling resources. Where dropouts live in communities where they are not related, some members of host communities feel that dropouts are destructive to the environment as a number of them are engaged in sale of charcoal and firewood. Some respondents in Babile and Shinile were emphatic that dropouts are the main cause of desertification around the area due to the rate at which they are cutting down trees. Others also view them negatively because of competition they pause when food aid is being distributed. On the other hand, reasons cited by those who view them positively were a bit trivial. Some respondent said that influx of dropouts in a given area attracts attention of aid agencies that come to give assistance and they benefit along with dropouts. But perception varied remarkably in different settlements as well as the four districts studied with more people in rural areas viewing them negatively than those from towns (Table 17).

Figure 17: Global proportion of perception of host communities towards pastoral dropouts

31 Table 17: Proportion of perception of host communities towards dropouts by district and settlement type

Positively Neutral Negatively

Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural District Babile 35.7% 20.0% 21.4% 40.0% 42.9% 40.0% Fik 0.0% 25.0% 57.1% 25.0% 42.9% 50.0% Hamaro 9.1% 22.6% 45.5% 22.2% 45.5% 55.6% Shinile 33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 40.0% 16.7% 60.0%

It appears that negative sentiments are much more in rural compared to urban settlements. The main reason could be that dropouts in town are less of a burden to hosting households because there are more opportunities for dropouts to fend for themselves compared to rural settlements. Those interviewed among the host community agreed that the traditional safety net system has greatly weakened and can no longer be relied on to bail out people when they lose their livestock. On average, only 13.1% confirmed that they have ever given animals to their relatives in recent past. Reason given is rampant poverty coming as a result of loss of animals by almost everyone within their community. They assert that currently, there are few people who can be singled out as better off to be in a position to give animals out.

3.10 Effect of Dropout on Children’s Life

Save the Children UK being a child based advocacy organization it was of interest to find out situation of children whose parents have dropped out of pastoralism. Due to the magnitude and the terms of reference for this study, it was not possible to go for a detailed nutritional assessment. However, some quick simple structured questions on child welfare, health and nutrition were used to capture some vital information that could allow for inferences to be drawn on children of dropouts in relation to those who still practice pastoralism.

3.10.1 Education

Analysis was done to establish if children of dropouts had equal opportunities for education compared to the non dropouts table 18.

Table 18: Proportion of dropout children attending school compared to non dropout children

Children going Proportion of children to school Total attending school Yes No Still practicing Yes 21 26 47 44.7% pastoralism No 104 46 150 69.3% Total/Average 125 72 197 57.0%

These results show that children of dropouts have a higher access to education compared to those still practicing pastoralism. A possible explanation for this is that dropouts are likely to move to urban or peri-urban centres where there are schools and because they change to sedentary life where children take advantage and attend school. On the other hand, those still practicing nomadic pastoralism have to move from place to place and it is difficult for their

32 children to be consistently in schools which are all located in large settlement areas. This finding supports earlier studies by Devereux who confirmed that ‘urban residents still enjoy better access to basic services such as clinics and schools, than do rural communities. This is because large numbers of people living in close proximity allow for economies of scale and cost effective delivery.17

3.10.2 Health and Nutrition

Two important diseases, malaria and diarrhoea are known to be the main causes of acute malnutrition in children. The prevalence of these diseases was assessed to establish if there is any variation in morbidity between children of dropouts and those of the general population. Prevalence was directly established by documenting incidences within the last two weeks prior to the survey among under fives. Possible causes were established indirectly by documenting information on knowledge on predisposing factors such as source and treatment of drinking water and cleaning of hands when feeding the child.

Overall, 27.9% of those interviewed reported that their children suffered from diarrhoea, while 27.8% reported cases of malaria. In both cases, incidences were slightly higher in rural areas compared to towns. Frequency of 32.3% was reported for diarrhoea in rural settlements compared to 23.5% in urban areas, while for malaria a proportion of 33.3% was reported for rural compared to 22.2% in urban settlements. Cases of malaria were the same among dropouts and non dropouts while diarrhoea was slightly higher among children of dropouts (Table 19).

Table 19: Reported global incidences of diarrhoea and malaria among dropouts and non dropouts

Incidences of Proportion of those diarrhoea Total reporting diarrhoea Yes No Still practicing Yes 11 36 47 23.4% pastoralism No 44 106 150 29.3% Total/Average 55 142 197 27.9 Incidences of Proportion of those Malaria reporting Malaria Yes No Yes 13 34 47 27.7% No 42 109 151 27.8% Total/Average 55 143 198 27.8%

Diarrhoeal infections occur mainly through contaminated food and water. Knowledge on this was investigated among dropouts and non dropouts. On average, 75.9% of those interviewed confirmed that they use soap, but the proportion of non dropout was slightly higher at 85.1% compared to dropouts at 73.1%. Generally the use of soap in washing hands before feeding a child or to wash Child’s hand before feeding was low and this could be contributing to the

17 Devereux, S. (2006) Vulnerable Livelihoods in Somali Region, Ethiopia. IDS, Institute of Development Studies

33 high prevalence of diarrhoea. Figure 18 give a summary of use of soap by dropouts and non dropouts.

Figure 18: Percent frequency of those using soap for different purpose by status

Despite the knowledge that dirty water causes diarrhoea as confirmed by 84.9% of those interviewed, only 27.1% confirmed that they purify their drinking water. Proportion of dropouts purifying drinking water was slightly higher than that of non dropouts at 29.6% and 19.1% respectively. There were also more dropouts (39.1%) using boiling to treat drinking water compared to 22.2% for non dropouts. There is generally higher proportion of non dropouts demonstrating knowledge on the causes of diarrhoea compared to dropouts (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Proportion of respondent citing different causes of diarrhoea by status

34 A Slightly higher proportion (83.0%) of non dropouts said they know about ORS, a re- hydration salt important in management of diarrhoea, with similar proportion confirming having used it. Management of diarrhoea using Oral re-dehydration salt (ORS) is an important first line treatment of diarrhoea as it greatly reduces devastating effects of the disease, especially in children. Comparatively, only 72.2% of dropouts confirmed knowing about ORS. High prevalence of ringworms was also noted among dropouts’ children at 40% compared to 31.9% among non dropouts. However, signs of lice were noted in higher proportion (21.1%) among non dropouts compared to 17.3% among dropouts.

Majority of mothers (50.5%) feed their children twice a day. Comparatively, more mothers (65.2%) from non dropout population feed their children twice a day compared to 46.4%. This mean that a higher proportion (24.8%) of dropout mothers feed their children three times compared to 8.7% among non dropouts. Out of all mothers interviewed, 94.7% said they breastfeed their children until after six months. However, it was not established if they exclusively breastfeed or they introduce weaning foods along with breast milk before six months are over. There were no much variations on this question between dropouts and non dropouts. The general conclusion is that knowledge on child health and nutrition is fairly the same among dropouts and non dropouts, but the variations could be due to what people in each category can afford depending on their situation. For instance, high prices of soap were cited by both dropouts and non dropouts for low usage especially in washing children’s hand before feeding. The number of times a child is fed also depends on availability and quality of food the child is given. Generally, children of non dropouts have access to milk and meat which most non dropouts can no longer afford. It is therefore evident that a larger proportion of dropout children are in poor nutritional status compared to non dropouts. More to this, the large number of children engaged in begging within urban centres can also be linked to dropping out as a good number of dropouts end up in urban centres as destitute. Such children also have higher likelihood of being abused.

3.11 Opportunities that Exist for Pastoral Dropouts

3.11.1 Production and Trade

One way by which pastoral dropouts can be helped is to enhance positive engagements which they are already involved in. Such opportunities were investigated by asking questions on any economic activities they have ever engaged in since dropping out. They were asked specific problems associated with activities listed. Those engaged in the various activities varied across the settlement types as well as the districts surveyed. Globally, the most popular economic activity that dropouts are engaged in is sale of firewood with 30% of those interviewed confirming having engaged in this at one point. Source of income for the least number of people interviewed is remittances from relatives with only 1.5% of respondents saying that they receive such help. Figure 20 gives a summary of types of activity and the proportion of the population involved.

35 Figure 20: Proportion of respondents who have engaged in any given livelihood activities within the study area

There were variations in opportunities for these activities in the districts studied as well as specific settlement type within the district (Table 20)

Table20: Proportions of those engaged in different activities by districts and by settlement type

Babile Fik Hamaro Shinile Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Livelihood activity Sale of milk 12.0% 20.0% 20.0% 4.0% 16.0% 8.0% 4.0% 12.0% Sale of water 8.0% 8.0% 16.0% 12.0% 24.0% 8.0% 8.0% 0.0% Sale of firewood 12.0% 32.05 44.0% 16.0% 36.0% 26.0% 40.0% 24.0% Sale of charcoal 16.0% 28.05 20.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 20.0% 28.0% Sale of sugar & salt 20.0% 4.0% 12.0% 8.0% 8.0% 12.0% 4.0% 12.0% Sale of tobacco 8.0% 0.05 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% Sale of chad 8.0% 8.0% 4.0% 12.0% 20.0% 12.0% 4.0% 0.0% Push handcart 8.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% Livestock brokerage 28.0% 32.% 24.0% 0.0% 12.0% 0.0% 16.0% 20.0% Sale of farm produce 32.0% 16.0% 4.0% 12.0% 4.0% 0.0% 8.0% 4.0% Manual labour 28.0% 20.0% 16.0% 16.0% 16.0% 8.0% 16.0% 8.0% Livestock trade 36.0% 8.0% 12.0% 4.0% 8.0% 8.0% 12.0% 4.0% Tea kiosk 36.0% 24.0% 8.0% 8.0% 28.0% 36.0% 24.0% 16.0% Remittances 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0%

In order to know which gender to target for specific activity in case of intervention, it was of interest to know the relationship between sex and specific livelihood activity. From these analyses, it became apparent that there are some activities that are gender skewed while others that are gender neutral. Figure 21 compares the proportion of male and female engaged in the different livelihood activities. The study found out that there are growing numbers of men who have engaged in activities such as sale of milk, water and firewood that were traditionally associated with females. On the other hand, females are also venturing into activities such as livestock trade which was traditionally a male domain.

36

Figure 21: Proportion of male and female involved in different livelihood activities

Agriculture is one of the viable options for pastoral dropouts or for practicing pastoralists who are intending to diversify their production base. However, agricultural activities may not be possible in some areas due to climatic and other physical factors. The study investigated the possibility of agriculture as an option for those dropping out of pastoralism. This was done by asking specific questions on acquisition of agricultural land and production process. Overall, 19.5% of those interviewed said they had acquired agricultural land. Due to variations in climatic conditions within the area of study, there were marked variations on acquisition of arable land in the four districts (Figure 22).

Figure 22: Proportion of those who have acquired cultivatable land by district

On production, they reported that the average annual harvest for sorghum is 5.23 ± (2.73) while that of maize 4.26 ± (2.70) per acre cultivated. However, there were remarkable variations within the four districts with highest harvest recorded in Babile with mean of 8.27 ± (6.60) and 6.67 ± (5.25) for sorghum and maize respectively. Second was Fik with average of

37 4.43 ± (3.10) for sorghum and 4.8 ± (4.67). Lowest harvests were reported in Hamaro and Shinile where harvest for sorghum was 3 ± (0.00) and 1.33 ± (0.58) respectively.

When asked about crop diversification 50% of those interviewed said they grow vegetables besides the two major cereal crops. But a small proportion (4.1%) said they also grow fruits which include oranges, paw paw and mango. The reason for less diversification on fruits is due to the fact that fruits take long period to mature while most dropout look at farming as a temporary activity.

3.11.2 Market Accessibility

Centres of trade are the points where exchange of goods and services occur for mutual benefit of the seller and the buyer. Freedom to visit such centres is critical in some circumstances as it determines accessibility to essential goods such as staple food. This was investigated by asking respondents the number of times they visit trading centres and for what reasons. A good number of them (40.5%) said they go to the market once a week. The main reasons for going to the market is to buy goods which show that majority of them are not involved in trade. Other reasons for visiting the market included looking for relatives to give help and to look for manual labour. Generally, more people in towns said they visit market more regularly than those from rural area. Up to 72% of them visit market at least twice per week compared to 47% in rural areas. There are also more people going to the market to trade in urban areas compared to rural areas. The obvious reason for this is existence of more opportunities in towns compared to rural areas. But the other inference that can be drawn from this is that there are no restrictions for trade at the local level. But as discussed earlier, movement in some border areas such as Shinile and restrictions in Fik zone could be limiting opportunities for trade in these areas.

3.12 Possible Solutions to Dropout Problem

The survey made an attempt to tease out information on what dropouts and host communities were having in mind as possible solutions to dropout problems. This was done by asking certain specific closed ended questions at household level, but the questions also formed the main discussion points in Focused Group Discussions and Key Informant interviews. The idea was to find out, weigh and triangulate each of the solution being discussed.

Continued supply of food aid was supported by majority of those interviewed as confirmed by 78.4% of the total number polled. However, they were all in agreement that this is just a temporary solution that should be in place only when communities cannot feed themselves. On permanent solution to the problem, 83.0% of those polled felt that making newer sources of income through diversification of livelihood activities is the best way in which dropout problems could be adequately addressed. A good proportion (72.9%) was also for the opinion that restocking could still be one of the options which current dropouts can be helped beside other diversification activities. Proponents of restocking argued that pastoralism is what they know best and with support from government and development partners they could get back to their feet if restocked. All the suggestions floated and proportion of people in support for each of them are summarised in figure 23 below.

38 Figure 23: Proportion of people suggesting different solutions for dropout problems

Climatic variations as well as the socio-economic structures of the area of study and settlement type should be put into consideration before implementation of any mitigating project. The survey analysed the above listed solution by districts and settlement types to see if the opinion are universal or specific to area and settlements. Details of these analyses are provided in table 21 below.

Table 21: Proportions of people suggesting different solutions for pastoral dropout problems by district and settlement type

Babile Fik Hamaro Shinile Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Suggested solution Creation of jobs 66.7% 44.0% 48.0% 44.0% 56.0% 40.0% 64.0% 52.0% Improvement of market 25.0% 8.0% 12.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 16.0% 0.0% information Development of markets 29.2% 20.0% 12.0% 8.0% 8.0% 16.0% 32.0% 16.0% Peace and restoration of 33.3% 16.0% 24.0% 28.0% 16.0% 16.0% 0.0% 12.0% pastoral lifestyle Provision of farm inputs 29.2% 40.0% 8.0% 36.0% 16.0% 4.0% 24.0% 20.0% Support public service 62.5% 40.0% 40.0% 36.0% 48.0% 40.0% 52.0% 48.0% Provision of rural finance 54.2% 32.0% 40.0% 24.0% 44.0% 28.0% 48.0% 44.0% Development of skills 79.2% 32.0% 44.0% 56.0% 60.0% 48.0% 56.0% 68.0% Restocking 66.7% 60.0% 64.0% 84.0% 88.0% 80.0% 68.0% 72.0% Provision of food aid 50.0% 48.0% 100% 88.0% 100% 92.0% 64.0% 84.0% Send family members to 20.0% 20.0% 24.0% 16.0% 36.0% 20.0% 24.0% 24.0% look for employment Grow more crops 28.0% 28.0% 12.0% 40.0% 4.0% 8.0% 12.0% 16.0% Build herd and go back to 72.0% 40.0% 68.0% 52.0% 64.0% 60.0% 60.0% 64.0% pastoralism Diversify sources of 80.0% 92.0% 76.0% 76.0% 92.0% 84.0% 84.0% 80.0% income Continue living as now 8.0% 8.0% 12.0% 12.0% 20.0% 8.0% 8.0% 4.0%

39 SECTION 4: GENERAL DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

Pastoralists have long been regarded as a homogeneous group, with livestock economy at the core of their livelihood system. However, from results of this study it is clear that pastoral communities face diverse processes of transformation that have brought deep changes in their livelihood system and disrupted their traditional lifestyles. More than ever before pastoral production is undergoing a negative transition which is presenting more challenges than opportunities. Clear understanding of these challenges and whatever little opportunities that may exist is paramount for developing appropriate policies and informing interventions that would safeguard the interest of pastoral communities. Previously, the concern of governments and development agencies has been to look for ways of improving pastoral production and life of pastoralists. But at the moment, pastoral production is in critical state and the issue is not improvement but to either save it or allow it to go into extinction if results of this study is anything to go by. Up to 76.5% of the populations interviewed have indeed dropped out of pastoralism as a livelihood activity, while the remaining proportion is not having meaningful production due to low herd sizes. The question therefore is weather pastoralism is still a viable process and, whether the downward trend can be reversed.

For all practical purpose, the option of letting off pastoralism as a means of production should be out of question for a number of reasons. First, those who have dropped out of the system have not done so willingly and they are not engaged in other meaningful alternative livelihood activities. In essence, their contribution to their own welfare and to the general economy has more or less ceased. Secondly, most areas that have been exploited for pastoral production are extremely hostile for alternative production process and only pastoralism is viable. Therefore, when we talk of diversification, pastoralism should be part and parcel of it in order to continue utilizing the fragile environment in a sustainable manner. This general discussion is based on analyses of factors that have lead people out of pastoral system as discussed in the previous sections and, possible options available to bring them back into gainful production process.

4.2 Challenges Facing Pastoral Production

Drought was singled out as the main problem that has lead to drastic decline in pastoral production in recent years, thereby driving people out of pastoralism. Closely correlated with this were animal diseases which respondents largely associated with drought, meaning that on its own it is not considered a major factor. Traditionally, utilization of the vegetation of the drier areas took place under a system which restricted the timing, frequency and intensity of grazing, and was instrumental in the maintenance of the rangeland. But there is now emerging trend where people are demarcating large chunks of land, fencing them off and restrict grazing in the fenced areas. Besides being a recipe for increased conflicts, such restrictions undermine maximum utilization of rangeland resources thereby reducing productivity. To a small extent, security was also cited in some areas particularly in Fik zone. The other challenge identified is the low value for livestock and livestock products coming as a result of absence of value addition on livestock products. The barn on livestock export to some external markets, restrictions in cross border livestock trade and absence of industries that process livestock products have all ensured minimal benefits from livestock production. Although not mentioned by many, general expenditure on food and non food items whose prices have been on upward trend in recent times has put a lot of pressure on pastoral

40 productivity to a point where the system may not be coping. People are forced to sell large number of livestock whose ToT has continued to remain low, in order to purchase these items. Consequently, the number of stock per household has been on the decline making shocks largely drought to easily wipe out few animals held by households. All these, together with the collapse of traditional restocking programme have systematically driven many people out of the system. However, the fact that there are some people who are still surviving on pastoral system of production means all is not lost. Indeed, the study found out that a good proportion of those who are no longer having their own stock are being supported by relatives who are still in the system.

4.3 Solutions to Pastoralist Dropout Problem

In the past, efforts by governments and aid agencies to tackle the challenges faced in pastoral areas have largely focused on relief and emergency. On the other hand, long term development projects have been based on inappropriate policies which have proved inadequate in addressing the problems besides generating an array of social and cultural problems. One of such policy is that which is focused on sedentarizing pastoralists and privatizing land tenure. However, it is now clear that only integrated development approach can be more effective in supporting pastoral livelihood systems and enabling pastoralists to recover and maintain their inherent resilience and self-reliance. This sections looks into some suggestions that were given as possible solutions to production process in pastoral areas.

4.3.1 Restocking

Throughout history traditional pastoral cultures have managed, through their own empirically- developed techniques of herding, to wrest a living from the hostile environment that forms pastoral areas and at the same time maintain the productivity and resilience of their rangelands. But for now the various challenges discussed could be disrupting this system and slowly getting people out of production as confirmed by those interviewed. However, they are still upbeat and most of them are of the opinion that this is what they know best as a livelihood system. Therefore, restocking was one of the solutions suggested by most of those interviewed, both dropouts and hosting communities. There is no doubt that this is still viable process despite recurrent drought cited since pastoralists have been known to take advantages and opportunities offered by changing climatic and episodic conditions. For those who are already out of the system, restocking could be one of the best solutions to get them back to gainful livelihood process. Restocking has been tried in some areas by some organizations with relatively good level of success. Viability of this process was investigated by talking to some past beneficiaries of restocking programme during this study (Box 2). However, for restocking to sustainably bring back dropouts to meaningful production process it has to be combined with sound management of the fragile natural rangeland resources as discussed in section 4.3.2 below.

4.3.2 Rangeland Management

Pastoralists have over the years applied traditional rangeland management skills to exploit the fragile rangeland resource. However, the emerging challenges are overwhelming to these traditional ways. Resultantly, rangeland production has been on the downward trend as discussed before. What therefore needs to be done now is to enhance these traditional skills by putting in place systems that could increase rangeland pasture productivity and water conservation. Most critical is controlled grazing in areas that have been made bare through

41 overgrazing to allow for recovery of natural vegetation, and where possible enhance this through reseeding. This can be achieved by reviving traditional systems that ensured controlled grazing in different areas.

Deliberate efforts must be made to control soil erosion so that floods from flash rains can effectively spread to pastureland and increase productivity. Like pasture water is an important component in livestock production. Whereas heavy erratic rain may not be useful to pasture productivity, it can provide enough water to last for substantial period of time if well harvested. Different water harvesting techniques should be employed to ensure maximum storage in times of rain. If these measures are taken and those willing and ready to get back into the system are given animals, it is possible that they can be brought back into effective rangeland production.

Box 2: Building Wealth from Restocking

Forty-year old Nema Mohammed lived with her husband and one daughter in Danka Village of Fik district five years ago. Although she only has one child who is sixteen years old now, she has given birth eight times but lost seven of her children when they were still young. Back in the village they had 50 camels, 20 cattle, over 100 shoats and 3 donkeys that enabled them live a descent pastoral life. Between 2004 and 2005 there were major droughts that wiped out their entire livestock. At the close of 2005, the entire family moved to Fik town where she started a small business of selling traditional bread (anjera) and firewood. Later, they also opened a tea kiosk to supplement the other petty businesses they were having. Proceeds from the businesses they were engaged was only enough for their daily upkeep and could not be used to build up meaningful livelihood assets.

In 2008 SC UK came up with asset development programme which Nema was a beneficiary. The restocking project involved provision of 20 goats and 10 sheep to each benefiting household. From the original 30 animals, she has built the herd to the current 55 within the last fourteen months. This number excludes several animals that she has sold to buy other essential items, but she cannot remember the exact numbers. Even if the animals sold is accounted for on the lower side, it means that from the 30 shoats provided she has managed to double the number within the first year giving herd growth of 100%. She hopes to continue building the herd until she gets back to where the family was before they dropped out. Nema is continuing with her petty trade as she builds the herd. Her recommendation is that in future, restocking programme should provide at least one milking cow to provide milk as the shoats multiply. They should also give pack animal such as donkey so that the household can use it for petty trade to ease the pressure on shoats before their numbers grow to threshold level where the household can start relying on them for food.

Even though Nema’s nuclear family is small, they offer support to a number of extended family members and pressure on the household is just as much as if she could have been having many children of her own. Her case is an indication that with determination and diversification of livelihood strategies, restocking can still be a viable option of bringing back dropouts to gainful production activities.

Story narrated by Nema Mohamed, A former dropout and restocking beneficiary in Fik town, Fik zone of Somali Region, Ethiopia. .

4.3.3 Diversification of Income Source

42 Dropouts pursue different livelihood strategies, but opportunity for each of them depends on the area and type of settlements. Sale of charcoal and firewood is the most popular in all areas and both rural and urban. This is because wood based fuel is the most important source of energy for majority of people and demand for it is always high in all settlement areas. Use of specific fuel type such as charcoal may vary in urban and rural settlement, but its production is mainly in rural areas, and then taken to towns for sale. This is why proportion of those involved appears to be evenly distributed in both urban and rural areas. However, due to environmental concerns, sustainability of this activity is on the spot, and as a matter of fact, a number of dropouts in areas bordering large towns such as Babile, reported restriction on these activities as people feel they are destroying the environment. This concern is not far- fetched because demand for wood based energy in towns such as Babile and Diredawa means cutting of more trees and because of slow rate of regeneration of indigenous trees, environmental degradation is evidenced around these areas due to this activity.

This problem is not unique to Somali region or to Ethiopia, but to all African countries where governments have been found in tight situation when they issue policies on conservation preventing cutting of trees for fuel, but do not have any policy on alternative sources of energy. Therefore, as long as there are no alternative sources of energy these activities will continue regardless of environmental concern. One way of solving the problem could be exploitation of trees which are not utilized more as browse for firewood and charcoal. One such tree species is Prosopsis juliflora, which is a known invasive plant, and therefore its massive utilization for firewood and charcoal could have double benefit of regulating its spread and at the same time providing valuable energy source.

The other livelihood strategy that most of dropouts engage in is petty trade involving myriads of activities that include, sale of water, salt, sugar, tobacco, fruits, vegetable, chad and small make shift tea kiosks. Except for sale of chad, petty trade is mainly dominated by women. A good number of dropouts particularly men are also involved in livestock brokerage/trade as well as provision of manual labour especially in towns. However, there are a few women who are now venturing into livestock trade which traditionally has been men’s domain. Rain-fed farming as an alternative livelihood activity seems to be more important in Babile than other areas because it has better climatic conditions than other districts. However, due to the same reason land is more inaccessible to dropouts because locals are already cultivating most of the arable land. Even though dropouts are involved in various livelihood strategies discussed, in most cases, the activities are carried out at micro-level and the earnings are meagre and cannot be enough to allow for descent living. Resultantly, they rarely improve their life and wealth conditions substantially. However, because opportunities exist and dropouts have demonstrated their potential, these activities can be targeted for enhancement so that the returns can be increased.

The other way by which income can be diversified is through capacity building, especially in trade skills. Good opportunities exists for different trade areas such as masonry, welding plumbing, electrical and carpentry work due to fast growth of towns within the region. It may not be practical for the old people to learn trade skills at the moment, but these could be good opportunities for their children who are graduating from primary schools and have no opportunities to proceed to secondary schools. There therefore be a long term plan to establish vocational training centres where such skills can be learnt. But before this happens, young people can take advantage of the on-going construction work where they can learn through job apprenticeship.

43 The other area of diversification is farming; however there are some areas that are too fragile and permanent cultivation could lead to more degradation and permanent damage. This should be done after careful assessment of climatic, topological and edaphic factors of the area in question. More to this, the population needs to be informed of the appropriate crops to grow and correct crop husbandry for the plant of choice. If this is not done, successive poor harvests will discourage people and they will drop out of farming system even before it picks up. The other problem that may arise with farming is conflicts arising from those interested to use land as pasture verses those who want to farm. According to Marxian model of nomadic pastoralism, competition for land use is one of the major disruptive forces between the nomad and the sedentary villager (Barth 1961)18. Therefore, such land use changes may lead to conflicts even in places where there were none. This is particularly so because the new non- traditional land use patterns are not governed by established community norms and there are no dispute resolution mechanisms. For instance, establishments of farms in river valleys that are traditionally used for grazing will lock out animal owners and at the same time animals will destroy crops thus breeding more conflict. Assessment should therefore be done especially where there is involvement of communal land before farming is implemented on a wide scale.

Education to good levels that can allow for well paying employment is a way that many communities both pastoral and non pastoral have used elsewhere as investment alternative. Many households in Africa sell their assets both land and livestock to see their children through school system. This is usually viewed as a deferred investment as the children usually reciprocate by sending remittances back to their parents once they get good jobs after going through education system. In many circumstances, such returns are way above the initial investment. Box 3 narrates a long story of an offspring of a pastoral dropout who got opportunity for education. Through him the family can now live a descent life. Boarding schools at both primary and secondary level have been known to provide education opportunity for settlements where schools are sparsely distributed, especially pastoral areas. This is an option that has not been exploited in Somali region.

Box 3: Education as a Deferred Investment

Omar was born 29 years ago in Gobyar village in Aw-barre district where he lived with his parents and six other siblings. His family was pure pastoralist and the father supplemented family income by engaging in livestock trade. In 1990 they lost all their animals due to drought and insecurity, and the family migrated to Salahley Kebele where they had relatives. Between 1990 and 92 the family survived through informal social support system getting help from relatives and occasionally receiving food aid from agencies. In 1993, a programme by SC UK restocked the displaced families and together with animals given by their relatives, Omar’s family managed to recover, building their herd size to a threshold number that could support their subsistence.

For Omar, the displacement was a blessing in disguise because he got the opportunity to enrol in school which was available in the new location. Existence of school and other social services around the new location influenced the parent’s decision to permanently stay in Salahley. In 1998 his father passed away and the family burden was left to his mother. Upon completion of his primary education, Omar was admitted to Jijiga Secondary School and his

18 Barth 1961

44 mother had to sell many animals to meet his school expenses. From Secondary school, Omar proceeded to a tertiary college to pursue a diploma course in Animal Health. This further continued to deplete family stock as the mother sold more animals to pay his college fees and to cater for other expenses. By the time he was through with his college the family had very few animals left. Fortunately for Omar he got his first job with the government immediately after graduating from college. One year later a vacancy was advertised by SC UK and Omar was listed for the job.

The employment put Omar in a good position to help his mother and his siblings. He managed to buy land in Jijiga town and built a house for his mother so that his younger brothers and sisters can also access education in the town. He also bought animals and established a small business for the family so that they could continue being productive. With his help, one of his younger brothers who is 23 years old is currently at the University. He is also supporting a sister who is in grade 7 and a last born brother who is in grade six both in Jijiga primary school. From investment in his education, the family has received back much more than what was sacrificed to take him to school and the spiral benefit will continue if the other siblings also successfully complete their education and get employed.

Story by narrated by Omar Abdulahi, Former employees of SC UK Somali Region Ethiopia

4.3.4 Nomadic Pastoralism versus Sedentarism

Many governments are now inclined towards sedentary settlements in favour of mobile ones. This is not due to perception of ecological damage caused by pastoral nomads to rangelands through excessive use leading to land degradation, but due to the political reality of governments preferring settled farmers who could be conscripted to the nomads who are outside the political community and might presumably pose a danger to order. Sedentary life on fragile pastureland and land demarcation and fencing has been reported in some pastoral areas to drastically reduce rangeland productivity and increase environmental degradation. Therefore, migration is a key element in sustainable pastoral livelihood and it is expected that under normal circumstances, pastoral households migrate from one place to the other in search of water and pasture. These movements are usually directional and within a given timeframe so that it is clear in the minds of those migrating that they will be at a given place in a given time, and after sometime get back to their original homes. These movements are therefore inevitable if household are to save their animals and if maximum benefits are to be derived from rangelands.

The two systems can easily be integrated and in a manner which will not conflict with interest and perception of pastoralists’ communities. One way of doing this is to develop basic infrastructure such as schools and health facilities in satellite pastoral areas that will convert them to more permanent settlement areas. Under such circumstances, it is possible that some members of a household would want to remain behind to exploit alternative livelihood activities such as trade and to provide education opportunity for their children. At the moment, such services are not available in pastoral areas and the reason given by a good number people who don’t want to go back to their original homes were services such as education for their children. Beside these, policies should be developed that seek to protect pastoral production system. Such policies should emphasise more on integration as opposed to substitution of pastoralism by other production process.

45 4.3.5 Social Protection Instruments

According to World Bank definition, social protection is informal, market based and public interventions that assist poor individuals, households and communities to reduce their vulnerability by managing their risks better. Providers of such protection can be divided into two categories one formal and the other informal. Formal providers of social protection are governments, private sector, humanitarian organizations and local and international donors. Informal providers of social protection are communities and external social networks like family members, relatives and other social systems outside pastoral systems.

When social protection instruments are designed and implemented appropriately, it enhances the quality of life of individuals and societies by developing and unleashing human potential, increasing stability, advancing social justice and equity and promoting economic dynamism. Establishing social protection instruments in pastoral areas would therefore make a significant contribution to reducing multi-dimensional vulnerabilities. Better designed, more innovative and efficient implementation of social protection is vital, not just to provide a safety net in times of crisis, but also to provide reassurance that it will be there when needed”.19. Ensuring social inclusiveness that contributes to the process of policy development as well as interventions that respond to the impediments of economic, social, political and security risks is critically important for the future of pastoral communities.

However, it is unfortunate that pastoral communities have largely been left out of national discussions relating to social protection and this may lead to inappropriate national instruments being imposed on them. Policy makers should therefore ensure that pastoralists’ communities are fully involved when discussing social protection issues and policies so as to capture them through pastoralists’ lens. In any case informal social protection system is much stronger among pastoralists communities compared to other communities and a lot of ideas can be borrowed from them and transferred to formal concept of social protection.

19 Is Pastoralism Still Viable in Horn of Africa? ( PCI-OCHA 2006).

46 SECTION 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

The ability of the Somali Region economy to generate wealth is not in doubt. It is the variability of income generation and asset ownership, and the consequent vulnerability of groups of people within the region, that must be addressed. With the right support, the pastoral economy can thrive and contribute extensively to the national economy. But pastoralists, agro-pastoralists, farmers and traders have suffered from a series of livelihood shocks, some natural others political (crackdowns on informal trade, bans by Gulf states on livestock imports, banditry and conflict). As a result, and because rainfall in the Horn has been low in recent years a number of people are indeed out of pastoral system while many more are on their way out of it. From the logical argument on effective utilization of the fragile and hostile range areas and, response of majority of the people interviewed in this survey it is clear that this system cannot be left to go. However, to take it back to gainful production process, support and diversification is required. This support should be based on home grown solutions which are not alien to cultural believes and social structure of the pastoralists communities. It should also take cognizance of the prevailing environmental conditions and their variabilities which past interventions have always assumed to be homogenous.

In this case, such support will look into specific cause of decline in pastoral productivity in the context of ecological, social, economic and political environments of the areas of study and other areas with similar characteristics. This should be followed by proper natural resource mapping before long term intervention can be implemented. The livelihood strategies applied in different areas should help in identification of viable alternative livelihood activities particularly those which are environmentally safe and socially acceptable. However, pitfalls that have been associated with past failed interventions should be avoided at all cost. One such pitfall is in beneficiary targeting where for instance, people have been given seed money to start business only to use it for other purpose. Cases have also been noted where some people in IDP camps have been restocked and repatriated only to come back to the camps after a short period of time.

Interventions should also take into consideration secondary interests of beneficiaries as this may be in some cases too strong to a point where they are ready to sacrifice benefits of an intervention programme. For example, parents who feel that the new environment they moved to after dropping out has created good opportunity for education for their children may not be ready to go back to their original homes. What will happen is that the person will readily receive a repatriation package and then continue staying where they were. If the package is in form of livestock for rebuilding of herd, it would have gone to waste as this person will not go back to production process instead he will continue being a burden to the support system, whether government, NGO’s or relatives. Some of the possible ways by which dropouts can be helped and range production improved are given in the recommendations below.

5.2 Recommendations

From the findings of this study and the foregoing discussions based on the contributions of members of Focused Group Discussions, Key Informants and household respondents, there are a number of solutions that were suggested that could reverse the negative trend of pastoral

47 production and solve dropout problems at the same time. From these suggestions, the study recommends the following actions:

5.2.1 Immediate Solutions

In order to solve immediate problems associated with dropouts, the following actions are recommended:

• There should be awareness creation on proper range utilization based on modern knowledge to complement traditional system of rangeland management. • Those willing to go back to pastoral production should be restocked, but with proper targeting to ensure success. One way of identifying those who are likely to keep in the system is where they are relocated to. People who are being hosted by relatives in rural areas where there are no attractive services that may prevent them from getting back are more likely to succeed than those in areas with services and more livelihood alternatives. • Viable petty trade should be identified and those involved given funds to start revolving funds that can enable them enhance their businesses. Trading could be further improved by linking pastoral dropout petty trade with value chain off take activities as indicated in the RAIN proposal. • Carryout assessment to establish areas with agricultural potential, and without possibility of conflicts. People in these areas can be facilitated by being given agricultural inputs and training on crop husbandry. Farming activities can be enhanced further by forming cooperatives for marketing and linking them to value chain system. • Even though not mentioned as a livelihood strategy in this study, bee keeping is one activity that is known to be viable in many range areas. Possibility of this activity should therefore be explored and enhanced where it is viable. • Link the results of dropouts with that of value chain addition to establish where dropouts can fit along the chain to bring them back to gainful production. • Discourage pastoral communities from demarcating land and restricting movement through land they consider to be personal/private. • Young people who are not attending school should start training through apprenticeship in construction projects, welding and carpentry workshops. • Food aid support should continue but only as a temporary solution as other permanent alternatives take root and could be better implemented within the social safety net frameworks

5.2.2 Long term Solutions

• There should be development of infrastructure in such as schools, health centres and provision of clean water in pastoral areas to minimize need to migrate to urban centres in search of these services. • Boarding schools at both primary and secondary levels should be established to ensure that children of pastoralists are not forced to abandon schools when their parents migrate. • Credit system that does not require collateral should be established to allow pastoralists communities to access fund for improvement of productivity and businesses. In order to avoid failure through defaulting, a micro finance system can be established where self-help groups or cooperative members guarantee each other. In this system, the finance guaranteed is against collective savings of members.

48 • Establish vocational training centres where trade skills can be developed. Courses should be established based on needs assessment. The study has identified a number of areas which have job opportunities within the region. These include masonry, carpentry, plumbing, painting, electrical work and welding. • Establish middle level industries that can add value to livestock products in order to increase earnings from livestock. • Develop policies that seek to protect interest of pastoralists communities, such policies should seek ways of enhancing pastoral production and minimizing conflicts arising from contradictions of pastoralism and other processes of production. • There should be advocacy work to governments to have policies that protect the interest of pastoralists. Key among these should be comprehensive safety net programmes in pastoral areas that ensure poor pastoralists are able to sustain their assets. These could be in form of social services, social assistance or social financing.

ANNEX 1: PASTORAL DROPOUTS HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE

49 GENERAL INFORMATION

Name of Name of Name of the Food Economy Zone Name of Team Leader the Zone the Village/Town (Tick) District Pastoral Agro- Date of Survey pastoral

Name of Interviewer

Respondent Migration Status Non Migrant Migrant

If Migrant, Where did He/She Migrate From

1.0 GENERAL AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS

1.1 Gender of the respondent

1) Male 2) Female

1.2 Marital status of the respondent

a) Married b) Single c) Widowed d) Divorced

1.3 Age of respondent

a) 20 – 30 b) 31 – 40 c) 41 – 50 d) Above 50

1.4 How many children do you have?

Boys______

Girls______

1.5 How many of them are under 18 years old______

1.6 Do you have formal education?

50 1) Yes 2) No

1.7 If your answer is Yes in question 1.6 above, what level of literacy did you attain?

a) Can read and write b) Quaran school c) Completed grade 1 -6 d) Completed grade 7 – 9 e) Other levels, Specify______

1.8 Do your children go to school?

1) Yes 2) No

1.9 If your answer is Yes in 1.8 above, what level of literacy have they attained?

a) Can read and write b) Quaran school c) Completed grade 1 -6 d) Completed grade 7 – 9 e) Other levels, Specify______

1.10 Do you have any skill?

a) None b) Masonry c) Carpentry d) Craft e) Others, Specify______

1.11 What is the staple food in this area?

a) Maize b) Sorghum c) Wheat d) Rice

1.12 Where do you get your staple food from?

a) Purchasing e) Own farm f) Food aid g) From relatives

2.0 PASTORAL DROP OUT AND WEALTH GROUP INFORMATION

51 2.1 Have you practiced pastoralism at any time in your life?

1) Yes 2) No

2.2 Do you still practice pastoralism?

1. Yes 2. No

2.3 If your answer is No in question 2.2 above, for how long have you stayed without practicing pastoralism?

a) Less than 1 year b) 1 - 5 years c) 6– 10 years d) 11 – 15 years e) 16 – 20 years f) Over 20 years

2.4 Did you drop out of pastoral livelihood by choice or you were forced by certain circumstances?

1) By Choice 2) Not by choice

2.5 If your answer in 2.4 above is “Not by choice”, what circumstances forced you out of pastoral livelihood?

a) Loss of animals due to insecurity b) Loss of animals due to drought c) Loss of animals due to diseases d) Loss of animals due to pressure of large family e) Mismanagement of heard f) Other reasons, Specify______

2.6 Did you lose your heard gradually or suddenly?

1) Gradual 2) Suddenly

2.7 If your answer is Yes in question 2.2 above, how many animals do you have?

a) Camels______b) Cattle______c) Goats______d) Sheep______

2.8 Are the animals enough to sustain your livelihood as a pastoralist?

52 1) Yes 2) No

2.9 If you are no longer having animals of your own, or if the animals are too few to sustain your livelihood, what do you do to earn a living?

a) Herding and trekking animals for others b) Charcoal burning c) Firewood collection d) Manual labour e) Working as house help f) Working as watchman g) Petty trade h) Selling of chart i) Tea shop j) Farming k) Others, specify______

2.10 Do you experience problems with livelihood activities you are currently involved in?

1) Yes 2) No

2.11 If your answer in 2.10 above is Yes, can you list down important problems that you face in the livelihood activities you are involved in?

1.______

2. ______

3. ______

4. ______

2.11 Have you ever received any donations in terms of animals from other members of your community when you lose all your stock?

1) Yes 2) No

2.12 If your answer in question 2.11 above is Yes, how long did it take before you received help?

Years______

Months______

2.13 Were the stock given for rebuilding of heard adequate?

53 1) Yes 2) No

2.14 Do you get any support from agencies?

3) Yes 4) No

2.15 If Yes in question 2.14 above, which agencies offer support?

a) Government b) International NGOs c) Local NGOs d) CBOs e) Others, Specify______

2.16 What kind of support do you receive from the agencies?

1.______

2.______

3.______

4. ______

2.17 Do you belong to any cooperative society?

1) Yes 2) No

2.18 Are you a member of a self help business group?

1) Yes 2) No

2.19 If Yes in 2.18 above, what businesses is the group involved?

1.______

2. ______

3______

4______

2.20 Are you originally from this area where you are currently living or did you migrate from somewhere else?

54

1) Original occupant 2) Migrant

2.21 If you migrated from somewhere else, what were the reasons that made you move from the original home?

a) Lose of animals b) Insecurity/conflicts c) Drought d) Animal diseases e) Others, Specify ______

2.22 How long did it take you to move out after losing your heard?

a) Less than 1 years b) 1- 2 years c) 3 – 4 years d) 5 years e) Above 5 years

2.23 Are there people who are still living in the area you moved from?

1) Yes 2) No

2.24 If answer is Yes in question 2.23 above, do you still maintain contact with people where you came from?

1) Yes 2) No

2.25 Do you intend to go back to where you migrated from?

1) Yes 2) No

2.26 If your answer in question 2.25 above is Yes, under what conditions would you move back to your original home?

1.______

2.______

3.______

4.______2.27 If your answer in 2.25 above is No, what are the reasons that stop you from going back?

55

1. ______

2. ______

3. ______

4. ______

2.28 What influenced your movement to the current location?

a) Access to social services b) Opportunities for labour c) Opportunities for non pastoral opportunities d) Availability of cultivable land e) Affinity to relatives

2.29 For how long have you lived in the current location after migration?

a) Less than 1 year b) 1 – 2 years c) 3 – 4years d) 5 – 6 years e) 7 – 8 years f) 9 – 10years g) Above 10 years

2.30 Did you move to the new location alone or with others?

a) Alone b) Alone but joined with family members later c) With family members d) With family but who have since left e) With other members of the community

2.31 Who made the decision for movement out of original home?

a) Personal b) Family c) Clan d) Local Government

2.32 Who influenced your decision to stay in your current location?

a) Personal b) Family c) Clan d) Local Government 2.33 How would you rate the reception given to you by the host community?

56 a) Very good c) Good d) Average e) Not good

2.34 What are the challenges that you face in the new community where you have settled?

1.______

2.______

3.______

4.______

2.35 How do you find the new environment compared to where you moved from?

a) Better b) Same c) Bad

2.36 Are there some advantages that the new environment has compared to where you migrated from?

1) Yes 2) No

2.37 If your answer in question 2.36 above is Yes, can you list down some of the advantages in the new environment.

1.______

2.______

3.______

4.______

3.0 PERCEPTION OF THE COMMUNITIES HOSTING DROP OUTS AND MEMBERS WITH FEW STOCK

3.1 Have you accommodated any pastoral drop out?

1) Yes 2) No

3.2 If your answer in 3.1 above is Yes, are the people you have accommodated related to you?

57

1) Yes 2) No

3.3 What influenced your decision to accommodate the drop outs? ______

3.4 How have the drop outs in your community influenced your life?

1) Positively 2) Negatively 3) Neutral

3.5 If the drop outs have affected your life either positively or negatively, can you give some reasons for your answer?

1 ______2. ______3. ______4 ______

3.6 For how long have you accommodated pastoral drop out?

a) Less than 1 year b) 1 – 2 years c) 3 – 4years d) 5 – 6 years e) 7 – 8 years f) 9 – 10years g) Above 10 years

3.7 Do you contribute money or animals to help bail out pastoral drop outs?

1) Yes 2) No

3.8 In your opinion, what do you think are the major causes of pastoral drop out?

1.______2.______

3.9 How can pastoral drop outs be helped?

1.______

2. ______4.0 SOLUTION AND WELFARE OF PASTORAL DROP OUTS

58 4.1 What livelihood activities have you ever engaged in since you stopped practicing pastoralism) Tick under activity in the box below:

Activity Yes No

Milk sales Water sales Firewood sales Charcoal sales Sale of salt and sugar Sale of tobacco Sale of chad Pushing of hand carts Broker in livestock sale Farm produce sale Manual labour Livestock trade Remittances Tea shop

4.2 How many times do you visit the market in a week?

a) Once a week b) Twice a week c) Three times a week d) Four times a week e) Five times a week f) Six time a week g) Everyday

4.3 What activity takes you to the market?

a) Buying goods b) Selling of goods c) Buying and selling of goods d) Others, Specify______

4.4 Have you acquired cultivatable land?

f) Yes g) No

4.5 If Yes in 4.4 above, what is the annual harvest of staple crops grown? Fill the table below:

59 Crops Gu’ Dye Sorghum Sacks/Ha Sacks/Ha Maize Sacks/Ha Sacks/Ha Groundnuts Kg/Ha Kg/Ha Wheat Kg/Ha Kg/Ha

4.6 Do you grow any other crops?

1) Yes 2) No

4.7 If yes question 4.6 above, which additional crops do you grow?

a) Fruits b) Vegetables c) Others Specify______

4.8 If Fruits and vegetables are among the crops in question 4.7 above, which fruits do you grow? Fill the table below:

Types of Fruits and Assessment of Harvest Types of Diversified Vegetables and Assessment of Harvest 1. a) Good 1. a) Good b) Average b) Average c) Bad c) Bad 2. a) Good 2. a) Good b) Average b) Average c) Bad c) Bad 3. a) Good 3. a) Good b) Average b) Average c) Bad c) Bad 4. a) Good 4. a) Good b) Average b) Average c) Bad c) Bad 5. a) Good 5. a) Good b) Average b) Average c) Bad c) Bad 6. a) Good 6. a) Good b) Average b) Average c) Bad c) Bad

4.11 Are there certain services that you were not able to access, but the new livelihood has enabled you to get?

60 1) Yes 2) No

4.12 If your answer in question 4.11 above is Yes, can you select the services that you receive now but did not receive before? Mark appropriately in the table below:

Services Before Moving After Moving

Access to education Access to health services Access to savings and credit facilities Access to clean water Access to farming plots Access to employment Access to food aid Others, Specify

4.13 Are there some assets that you have acquired now which you did not have before moving?

1) Yes 2) No

4.14 If your answer is Yes in question 4.13 above, can you list down the assets?

1.______

2.______

3.______

4. ______

4.15 What is your proposal on livelihood changes strategy?

a) Continue living as now b) Make newer sources of income c) Build heard and go back to pastoral livelihood d) Grow more crops e) Send family members to look for employment elsewhere

4.16 What do you think can be done to improve your livelihood?

a) Give food aid

61 b) Restocking c) Development of skills d) Provision of rural finance e) Support public service f) Provision of farm input g) Build peace so that pastoral lifestyle can be restored h) Development of markets i) Improvement of market information system j) Creation of jobs

5.0 CHILD HEALTH AND WELFARE

NB: This checklist is to be administered to households with children below 5 years. It is highly recommended that the key respondent to this checklist is the mother of the child and or female guardian responsible for the day to day care of the child. Male spouses should be encouraged to support the mothers with the interview.

5.1 Child health

5.1.1 Has your child had diarrhea in the last two weeks?

1) Yes 2) No

5.1.2 Has your child had malaria in the last two weeks?

1) Yes 2) No

5.2 Birth spacing

o How many times have you given birth? o How many children have died before the age of 5 years______o How old (years) is your first born? o How old (months) is your most recently born child?

5.3 Hygiene

(Interviewer) observe/ examine the child and tick appropriately for presence of:

Ringworm or scabies

Lice/ lice eggs on the child’s clothes

5.3.1 Do you use any form of bathing soap and or washing detergent in this family?

1) Yes

62 2) No

5.3.2 If yes question 5.3.1above, did you used soap or washing detergent yesterday?

1) Yes 2) No

5.3.3 If yes question 5.3.2 above, what did you use the soap and or detergent for?

a) Washing clothes b) Washing children’s body c) Washing children’s hands d) Washing hands before feeding child e) Other (Specify)______

5.3.4 If No in question 5.3.2 above, explain briefly why you are unable to use soap and washing detergent. ______

5.3.5 Do you purify drinking water for the household?

1) Yes 2) No

5.3.6 If Yes Q 5.3.5 above, what methods of purification are you using?

a) The traditional pot system b) Sedimentation c) Boiling d) Others Specify

5.4 Knowledge about diarrhea and the use of oral rehydration salts (O.R.S)

5.4.1. What in your opinion causes diarrhea among children and adults?

a) Dirty water b) Flies on food c) Poor hygiene d) Others, Specify______

5.4.2 Have you heard of O.R.S?

1) Yes

63 2) No

5.4.3 If the answer is yes 5.4.2 above, have you ever used ORS to manage your children’s’ diarrhea?

1) Yes 2) No

5.5 Child feeding practices

5.5.1 How many times do you feed your children under the age of five in a day?

a) Once b) Twice c) Three times d) Four times e) Others Specify______

5.5.2 At what age did you start feeding your child on foods other than breast milk?

a) Immediately after birth b) At weeks old c) At one month old d) After 4 weeks e) After six months f) Others specify______

Annex II: FGD QUESTIONS FOR HOSTING COMMUNITIES

1. Are there people within the community who do not have their own livestock?

64 2. What proportion of the population do you estimate this category of people? (Proportional piling) 3. What do you think are the main causes of pastoral drop out in this area? 4. Are the numbers of people without herds increasing or decreasing and by what proportion? 5. What types of assistance does the community give to those who have lost their herds? 6. Is the assistance adequate? 7. Are there people who have lost their herds and fully recovered back to pastoral livelihood, in that case how have they managed to rebuild their stock? 8. What economic activities are pastoral dropouts or those with few animals engage in to survive? 9. What is the perception of the community to those who have dropped out of pastoral livelihood? 10. Do children of dropouts have equal opportunities for education and other social services compared to those of other pastoralists? 11. What problems do the drop outs face within the community where they live? 12. For how long does a person stay within the community after losing their herds before they decide to move? 13. In case dropouts move out, where do they usually go? 14. Once a person has left, do they ever come back, or keep in touch with their relatives who have remained in the village? 15. Are there people who migrate then rebuild stock while away and come back to the village? 16. Are there agencies both government and non-governmental who offer support to pastoral dropouts? 17. Are there problems that the community is facing as a result of pastoral dropout? 18. In your opinion what can be done to help those who have dropped and those likely to drop out pastoral livelihood.

Annex II: FGD QUESTIONS FOR DROPOUTS

65 1. You people no longer practice pastoralism, what are the main reasons that lead to this situation? 2. What proportion of the population do you estimate not to be practicing pastoralism or have very few animals to sustain pastoral livelihood? (Proportional piling) 3. Are the numbers of people without herds increasing or decreasing and by what proportion? 4. What types of assistance do you get from the community since you lost your herd? 5. Is the assistance adequate to sustain your livelihood? 6. Are there people who have lost their herds and fully recovered back to pastoral livelihood, in that case how have they managed to rebuild their stock? 7. What economic activities do you engage in to survive? 8. What is the perception of the community towards you now that you are not having animals of your own? 9. Do children your children have equal opportunities for education and other social services compared to those of other pastoralists? 10. What problems do you face within the community where you live? 11. Do those who lose their animals stay within their communities, or do they migrate and if they migrate where do they go? 12. What influences their decision to migrate to specific locations? 13. For how long does a person stay within the community after losing their herds before they decide to move? 14. Once a person has left, do they ever come back, or keep in touch with their relatives who have remained in their original villages? 15. Are there people who migrate then rebuild stock while away and come back to the village? 16. Are there agencies both government and non-governmental that offer support to pastoral dropouts? 17. Are pastoral dropouts willing to get back to their original livelihood or are they interested in alternative livelihoods, and if that is the case which livelihood activities? 18. Are there certain social services that dropouts can now access with the new alternative livelihood or the new location that they could not have before dropping out, and if that is the case which services? 19. Are there some assets that dropouts have acquired which they did not have before, and if so which assets? 20. In your opinion what can be done to help those who have dropped and those likely to drop out pastoral livelihood.

66