1. How Pastoralists Perceive and
Respond to Market Opportunities:
The Case of the Horn of Africa
Peter D. Little, Emory University
Conference on “Mainstreaming Livestock Value Chains:
Bridging the Research Gap between Household
Analysis and Policy Modelling,” International Livestock
Research Institute, Accra, Ghana, November 5-6, 2013.

2. Objectives of Presentation
I. Provide background/context to the question of
‘how do mobile pastoralists perceive and interact
with markets.’
II. Summarize four critical challenges to increasing
livestock supplies from pastoralist areas of the
Horn of Africa, mostly with data from two projects:
Pastoral Risk Management (PARIMA) (1999-2004)
and Drought-induced Vulnerability: Pastoralism
and Livestock Marketing Chains in southern
Ethiopia and Northeastern Kenya (CHAINS)
Projects (2012-present). Also discuss some local
market adaptations.
• Policy implications of the findings.

3. I. Background: PARIMA Research Sites(> 125,000 sq km
Map by Joseph Stoll.
Source: McPeak, Little
and Doss (2012:3)

4. I. Background Context (cont)
• Approximate US $1 billion in exports of
livestock and livestock products from Horn of
Africa and >90 percent comes from pastoral
lowland areas
• In Ethiopia there have been rapid gains in
exports since 2005
• Most analyses of livestock trade focus on postproduction and little attention to producers.
As will be shown, the rationale and structure
of pastoralist household economy has not
changed significantly due to market exposure.

5. II. Four critical challenges to highlight:
CHALLENGE 1. Pastoralist herd structures
remain oriented toward dairy
production/female herd structures, but most
markets demand male animals. Milk income
value remains most important component:

6. Figure Relationship between herd size, income and livelihood activities
TLU per capita
**Source: Analysis by John McPeak

7. Dairy and breeding herds, Borana, Ethiopia, 2013
Male Female Male Female Male Female
camels camels cattle cattle goats goats
Total
number
% of
herd
35
26 %
100
74%
294
1313
18.5% 81.5%
SOURCE: DATA FROM CHAINS STUDY, 2013
246
964
20.5% 79.5%

8. Markets demand male animals? Southern
Ethiopian Livestock Markets, 2013
ANIMAL
Export
Regional Cross- National
Bordera
Domestic
Local Domestic
Cattle
1. Bulls 3-7 year
340-380 kg
1. Bulls < 3
years;
2. Large Oxen
and Bulls> 7
years
3. Heifers
1. Bulls > 7
years
2. Cows > 8
years
3. Oxen > 7
years
Camel
1. Males 3-8 years 1. Males 3-8
years
1. Males 18-24
1. Males 18-24 1. Males > 2
months and 24-32 months and 24- years
kg
32 kg
2. Females >4
years
1. Males 18-24
1. Males 18-24 1. Males > 2
months and 24-32 months and 24- years
kg
32 kg
2. Females >4
Goats
Sheep
1. Bulls (nonexport quality)
and oxen 3-7 yr.
2. Bulls > 7
years
3. Cows > 8
years
Minimal
Minimal
1. Males > 2
years
2. Females >4
years
1. Males > 2
years
2. Females >4

9. CHALLENGE 2. Mobility affects market access: Fixed
markets are not where best grazing is, esp in droughts
KENYAN
SITE
Avg per
capita
livestock
(TLUs)
(2000-02)
% decline
0300 to
1200 (due
to
drought)
% of
Households
relying on
satellite
camps (200001)
Mobility
Ranking
(1-6, with
‘1’ highest)
Kargi
North Horr
Logologo
Suguta
Marmar 1
6.98
3.61
2.49
1.14
0
-24 %
-46%
-33%
88%
45%2
81%
28%
1
2
3
4
Dirib
Gombo
Ngambo
0.97
-79%
46%
5
0.64
-50%
1%
6
Source: Based
on Little et el.
(2008:599)

10. Mobility, Milk Income and market access, northern
Kenya, 2000-2002
_______________________________________________________________________
SITE
Avg daily
value of milk
production
and herd
reproductio
n (USD)
Total
Mobility Market
daily
Rank
Access
value per (1-6)
person
(USD)
Kargi
North Horr
Logologo
Suguta Marmar
$0.97
$0.68
$0.40
$0.37
$1.13
$0.79
$0.77
$0.53
1
2
3
4
Low
Low
Medium
High
Dirib Gumbo
Ngambo
$0.22
$0.34
$0.33
$0.47
5
6
Medium
High
(Source: PARIMA household study, 2000-2002; Little et al. [2008])

11. Problems in Selling Livestock
35.00%
Transport constraint
30.00%
Percentage of Problems
Low price
25.00%
Low demand
20.00%
High taxation
15.00%
Markets are distant
10.00%
5.00%
Less bargaining power of sellers due to
interference of brokers
0.00%
No problem
Kanicharo
Dikale
Total
Research Sites
Livestock Buyers (Access issue)
Source: CHAINS Data, 2013;
Debsu 2013: 38.
Percentage Share of Buyers
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
Buyers
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Abattoirs
Export traders
Local traders
Buyers
Local pastoralists

12. LOCAL REPONSES:
Emergence of
“pastoralist/bush
Traders” who
collect market
animals in remote
areas; also graze
market animals on
local grazing; and
bush markets/
collection points!
Photos by Peter D.
Little

13. Commercialization Impacts on Land use and production--enclosures
Photo: Peter D. Little
Source: ILRI—CHAINS Project Technical Progress report, 2013

14. CHALLENGE 3. The ‘why’ & ‘when’ herders sell animals
Figure Reasons for Selling Livestock by Study Locations
50.0%
45.0%
To buy clothes for the family
40.0%
To pay tax
Percentage of HH Reasons
35.0%
To buy food for the family
To cover medication expense of the family
30.0%
To cover children's school expense
To build a house
25.0%
To buy water for livestock
20.0%
For ceremonial expense (wedding)
To buy other animal
15.0%
To pay back loan
10.0%
Animal's health problem/sick
To buy livestock feed (salt......)
5.0%
To buy farm tools
To pay for veterinary services/medicine
0.0%
Kanicharo
Dikale
Research Sites
Source: Debsu 2013: 34.
Total
To buy mobile phone

15. Timing in Drought cycle matters: 2000-2002 (% losses/gains)
20%
10%
0%
0300
0600
0900
1200
0301
0601
0901
1201
0302
0602
-10%
-20%
-30%
Left out
-40%
Moving From
Staying With
-50%
-60%
-70%
Source: McPeak, Little, and Doss 2012
Combining

16. Different Determinants of TLU changes during June 2000June 2002
1
0.9
0.8
Sale
0.7
Purchase
Slaughter
0.6
Borrow
Loan
Gift received
0.5
Gift given
received exchage
0.4
Borrow
stolen
0.3
lost
other
0.2
0.1
0
0600
0900
1200
0301
Source: McPeak, Little, and Doss 2012
0601
0901
1201
0302
0602

17. CHALLENGE 4. Availability of pastures/feed not markets
regulates herds (low market off-take rates!)
Source:
McPeak, Littl
e, and Doss
2012
Photo: Dejene
Debsu

18. Trader and HHs during droughts?
***38 % of traders say they profited during most
recent drought (2011).
Photo: Dejene Debsu

19. III. POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Improve local
bargaining/price –
auctions over dyadic
markets? Photo: Peter D Little
•
•Address feed problems
and value added
activities Photo: Peter D Little

20. 9
Policy Implications (cont)
• Support production and resource tenure
issues
Photo: Peter D. Little
• Will pastoralism be able to provide animals
based on projected future market growth?

21. Thanks to USAID and colleagues on
CHAINS and PARIMA project
These individuals include Layne Coppock, Chris
Barrett, John McPeak, Getachew Gebru, Abdullahi
Aboud, Solomon Desta, Waktole Tiki, Dejene
Negassa, Carla Roncoli, Workneh Negatu, Hussein
Mahmoud, Polly Ericksen, Uriel Kitron. The author
would also like to acknowledge the support of AID
Grant No. EEM-A-00-10-0001. The opinions
expressed herein are those of the author and do
not necessarily reflect the above individuals or the
views of the U.S. Agency for International
Development or the U.S. Government.