Evolving Livelihoods in a Risky Environment

530 views
483 views

Published on

Evolving Livelihoods in a Risky Environment. Presented by John McPeak (Syracuse University) at the GL-CRSP "End of Program Conference" on June 19, 2009, Naivasha, Kenya.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
530
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
13
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Evolving Livelihoods in a Risky Environment

  1. 1. Changing Livelihoods in a Risky Environment: some findings from the PARIMA data<br />John McPeak<br />Department of Public Administration<br />Syracuse University<br />
  2. 2. Key Message<br />Despite considerable change, livestock are and will be the foundation of the economy and people’s livelihoods in this area.<br />Access to livestock combined with access to ways to earn cash is the most rewarding outcome <br />Diversification and education will allow people to build livelihood strategies not directly reliant on livestock and livestock products<br />Some will be indirectly based on livestock and livestock products.<br />
  3. 3. Overview of PARIMA research<br />Core repeated survey (quarterly 2000-2002, annually 2003-2006)<br />Modules in between rounds of surveys (fuelwood, female headed household follow up, development rankings…)<br />Qualitative case studies (poverty trajectories, disputes and conflicts, cross border trade…<br />Community level surveys (monthly report, land use change,…)<br />Student studies (Hussein’s Marketing, Sharon’s microfinance,…)<br />A full description, codebook, and data sets available at: http://aem.cornell.edu/special_programs/AFSNRM/Parima/projectdata.htm<br />
  4. 4. Overview of the PARIMA Survey work<br />PARIMA repeat round survey work<br />Baseline March 2000<br />330 Households, individuals within households<br />11 sites in Kenya and Ethiopia<br />Quarterly (3 month periods) June 2000 – June 2002<br />Area sampled was a location / kebele<br />
  5. 5. PARIMA Research Sites<br />
  6. 6. PARIMA<br />First, a note on the ‘RI’ in PARIMA- Risk. What is the nature of risk in this area? Here is transformed NDVI satellite data for a 30km radius around North Horr by rainy season / dry season pair.<br />
  7. 7. Number of and reasons given for livestock deaths in PARIMA survey by round<br />
  8. 8. Besides the risk of livestock loss, other risks were identified<br />For the 11 communities’ monthly reports over the study period March 2000-June 2002:<br />24% of months were identified as having security problems, 5% reported raids <br />20% of months were identified as having widespread human health problems<br />14% of months were identified as having widespread animal health problems<br />6% of months were identified as being under a market quarantine. <br />
  9. 9. We asked people in each round to rank the risks they perceived they faced in the coming season<br />Most variation in ranks is across time and across sites. Within sites and within periods, individual and household characteristics have a small, generally not statistically significant, impact.<br />
  10. 10. Household Livelihood Groups<br />
  11. 11. Livelihood Groups<br />Using the median value of the household herd size per capita (1.25 TLU) when we first surveyed the household, we can divide into ‘lower livestock’ and ‘higher livestock’.<br />Using the median value of cash income per capita per day ($0.0437) in the household when we first surveyed them, we can divide households into ‘lower cash’ and ‘higher cash’<br />
  12. 12. Livelihood Groups<br />Total income per household per person per day as expressed in USD = <br /> cash income <br /> + cash value of home produced and consumed goods (milk, meat, crops)<br /> + net gifts (including the cash value of food aid) <br />cv is coefficient of variation, higher means more relative variability over time in the flow of income for the average household in the livelihood group<br />
  13. 13. Livelihood Groups<br />(By using medians in both variables to categorize, the symmetry is ‘built-in’.)<br />
  14. 14. Livelihood Groups: Total income sources<br />
  15. 15. Mean total income by round inclusive of and excluding food aid’s value <br />
  16. 16. Livelihood Groups: Total income over time<br />Mean income per household in livelihood groups over time<br />
  17. 17. Patterns in Livestock Across Groups<br />
  18. 18. Patterns in Herds Across Groups<br />
  19. 19. Cash Income by Livelihood Group<br />
  20. 20. Distribution of Cash Income by Source<br />The lower 51% controls 10% of livestock and related cash, the upper 49%, 90%<br />The lower 79% controls 10% of wage and related cash, the upper 21%, 90%<br />The lower 89% controls 10% of water and related cash, the upper 11%, 90%<br />
  21. 21. Patterns in Education<br />Higher cash and higher enrollment and higher spending on education appear to be related. <br />
  22. 22. Categorizing the sites<br />Category one (KA, NH, LL): <br />Low to medium market access, <br />low cultivation potential, <br />10%-20% of ‘lower-lower’ group, <br />Largest share in the ‘higher cash-higher livestock’ group.<br />Category two (SM, NG, FI): <br />High market access, <br />medium to high cultivation potential, <br />20% - 40% share of ‘lower-lower’, <br />largest share in the ‘higher cash-lower livestock’group.<br />
  23. 23. Categorizing the sites<br />Category three (QO, WA): <br />Low to medium market access, <br />low to medium cultivation potential, <br />20% - 40% share of ‘lower-lower’ group, <br />Largest share in ‘lower cash-higher livestock’ group.<br />Category four (DG, DH, DI): <br />Low to medium market access,<br />Mixed cultivation potential<br />Largest (50%) share in the ‘lower cash-lower livestock’ group.<br />
  24. 24. Spatial patterns in Livelihood Groups<br />
  25. 25. Part of the story behind the spatial patterns in cash income<br />
  26. 26. Total Income by site and site characteristics<br />
  27. 27. Key messages<br />Livestock and livestock products continue to be the foundation of the economy.<br />Improving livestock marketing has the potential to have the broadest impact for improving cash income.<br />Milk is the largest contributor for all groups. Improving milk productivity has the most potential for having the broadest impact on improving total income.<br />Animal health (mastitis) improvements?<br />Targeted supplemental feeding?<br />Conservation of milk products / better milk marketing?<br />
  28. 28. Key messages<br />There is already significant diversification out of the livestock production system, especially as seen in the generation of cash income.<br />Spatial differences in access to markets and education need to be recognized and addressed if possible<br />‘Market integrated’ / ‘Diversified pastoralism ‘ is more successful than ‘diversification out of pastoralism ‘.<br />Diversification out of pastoralism is happening.<br />‘Poverty in pastoral areas’ is a different concept than ‘pastoral poverty’.<br />Places with extensive rangelands are on average supporting the highest incomes.<br />
  29. 29.
  30. 30. Logologo,<br />Rendille<br />settlement<br />Il Chamus<br />irrigation<br />
  31. 31. This is the highest average income site in the sample? <br />Kargi, Kenya. <br />
  32. 32. This research was made possible through support provided to the Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program by the United States Agency for International Development under terms of Grant No. PCE-G-00-98-00036-00 and by contributions of participating institutions. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development.<br />

×