REGIONAL LIVESTOCK AND PASTOARALISM WORKING GROUP Agenda August … Presentation... · REGIONAL LIVESTOCK AND PASTOARALISM WORKING GROUP Agenda August 5, 2014 ... flagrantly ignored

REGIONAL LIVESTOCK AND PASTOARALISM WORKING GROUPAgenda

August 5, 2014Co-Chair: ICPALD & FAO

09:30-10:00 Livestock Regional Situation Update ICPALD, FAO

10:00 -10:30 Pastoral conflicts and lesson learnt in IGAD region CEWARN

10:30-11:00 Tea Break

11:00-11:30Experiences and lessons learnt on conflict sensitiveprogramming

VSF Germany

11:30-12:00 Discussion

Current Conditions: Regional Highlights

Many areas in the region are still in stressed condition and specific areas are under crisisor emergency. Food security situation started improving in Uganda, Ethiopia, Rwanda &

Burundi following season one harvest.

July

201

4

Recent disease picture in eastern AfricaFAO eastern Africa

Outline

• FMD outbreak in Uganda• Confirmed RVF cases in humans in Kenya• Suspected RVF cases (livestock)

– Kenya and– Tanzania

Livestock and disease situation in EA

FMD situation in Karamoja• Samples collected from Napak, Moroto, Kaabong and Mbale

Districts in July by NADDEC contained serotype O FMD virus• It is not safe to assume that the current epidemic is being caused by

the serotype O virus alone. Only few samples have been tested –possibly not representative of all the viruses circulating.

• Kenyan data provide clear evidence of widespread FMD infectionthroughout Kenya in 1994.

• Serotype O is predominant but serotypes SAT 1 and SAT 2 havebeen detected on numerous occasions

• SAT 1 in West Pokot, bordering Karamoja, in January 2014.• On two occasions two serotypes were detected in the same

outbreak.


Spatial and temporal distribution


FMD strain typing


Current FMD situation


• Type O serotype

• SAT serotype

Livestock movement and marketing

• Massive movements of livestock, for commercial trade andtranshumance, is a major factor in the rapid spread of FMD.

• Internal movements are essentially uncontrolled even when quarantinesare imposed, as at present.

• FMD control is a transboundary issue which requires a regional approach.• Quarantines cause serious stress to communities which rely on selling

livestock to generate income for daily needs. As a result, restrictions areflagrantly ignored despite establishment of road blocks and policereinforcement.

• Movement restrictions damage the veterinarian/farmer interface andalienate the livestock owners whose cooperation is essential for effectivecontrol.

RVF evidence - regionKenya• Disease has been confirmed in humans in

Muranga county (MoH)– IgM (ELISA)– RT-PCR

• Investigation on going in livestock where abortionstorm was noted clinically

Tanzania• Storm abortions in livestock (RVF +ve). Follow up

to be made (Temeke)


THANK YOU!


IGAD

ICPALD

Livestock & Pastoralism Working groupUpdates from ICPALD/IGAD

August 05, 2014Dr. Ameha Sebsibe

IGAD

ICPALDRegional Activities undertaken (June-July 14 )• AU-IBAR and IGAD/ICPALD have been

jointly implementing STSD in 8 IGADMember States and other projects;

• It is an EU funded project.• Under it, a regional training on epidemiology

and its techniques was undertaken;• Validation of the designs of cross-sectional

surveys on priority trade-sensitive animaldiseases conducted in June 2014

IGAD

ICPALDContd• A middle-level technical staff from the DVS in IGAD

region were trained and equipped with knowledgeand skills that would enable them address challengesassociated with delivery of animal health services;

• Control of TADs across the region was the focus thattraining, (Feb-March, 2014; by SMP-AH project)

SNET, KLMC to discuss & agree on thedraft outline and contents of the livestockadvisory

• Adaptation by other MS

IGAD

ICPALDNEALCO• North East Africa Livestock Council (EALCO)

supported by IGAD and AU-IBAR in the region;• A regional Livestock Stakeholders’ Association with a

mandate to promote, coordinate, share informationand advocate for enhanced livestock and livestockproducts trade within and outside the region

• It held a meeting in July 2014 to concretize itsStrategic (2014-2018) and action plans (2014);

• got officially introduced to partners & stakeholders,• Established a functional NEALCO secretariat,

developing concept note to to mobilize resources.

IGAD

ICPALDCoordination mechanism

• The Regional Coordination Committee for theControl of PPR and Technical Experts Committeehave just been launched;

• They support the control of PPR and other Smallruminant Diseases in the region (July 14-15,2014);

• Help develop a regional framework for control ofPPR and SRDs in the region;

• Memberships drawn from MS and technicalpartners (FAO, OIE, IBAR, IGAD, ILRI, PANVAC etc).

IGAD

ICPALD

IGAD future plans• IGAD/ICPALD’s proposal on Regional Animal

welfare got grant from VET-GOV (EU);• It covers situation analysis and compliance of

the MS on the AW standards;• Then Animal welfare action plan will be

developed and validated for further actionsand plans.

IGAD

ICPALD

Achieved under SMP-AH• That is Standard Methods and Procedures inAnimal Health Project (SMP-AH) managed by IBAR

• SMPs developed for nine priority TADs in the region,the four SMPS ( PPR, RVF, FMD and Brucellosis) gotvalidated in July/August, 2014.

• The SMPs are protocols designed to createuniformity in animal disease detection and controlprocedures;

• In line with OIE standards, that a given disease hasan individual SMP for its control outlining themeasures that must be undertaken.

IGAD

ICPALDOn-going activities

• Study on LITS in Sudan;• Development of the regional Animal Health and

Certification guidelines.• Development of the regional LITs guidelines.• Development of Regional Framework for

Progressive Control of PPR and other SmallRuminant Diseases.

• All to be validated by MS and stakeholders inworkshops by August-Sept-Oct. 014.

IGAD

ICPALD

Climate change is an issue

• IGAD continues to take climate change veryseriously;

• it has periodic updates that can bedisseminated and shared with MS;

• Climate affects livestock productivity, diseasepatterns and livelihoods.

IGAD

ICPALD

Thank you

Pastoral Conflict In the IGADRegion

Lessons Learnt

Pastoralism

• Pastoralism revolves around livestock and itsrelated productive assets - water, land andpasture

• Livestock possession plays multiple social andeconomic roles in pastoral livelihoods

Pastoral Conflict – centuries old violenceStructural Causes and Motives:

o Scarcity of the main productive assets related to livestock(pasture, land and water) - caused by impact of climatechange, overgrazing, insecurity, recurrent droughts, land use etc…

o Vulnerability to environmental changeso Poor governance, political incitation (marginalization, land

management/tenure, Impermeable & porous internationalborders, ineffective social and political organization)

o Cultural practice (heroism, dowry payment, retaliationetc…)

o Economic – accumulation of wealth, povertyo Fear, mistrust and perception among pastoral communities

includingo Accusation of expansions (Darfur nomads vs sedentary

farmers, Issa-Afar, Pokot-Turkana)o Militarization of communities

Impact:

• Losses – human, livestock and property• Insecurity: affecting resource utilization,

investment interests, use of social, economicand governance infrastructures and mobility

• Cycle of culture of violence and lawlessness

What is changing?

• New economic opportunities in pastoral areas(resources, investments, infrastructure developmentsand its interaction with existing realities such usmigration of skilled labour, cost of living rising …)

• Migration of unskilled youth to rural towns wherethere is limited employment opportunities exist

• The political and economic changes in these areas arealso now changing ‘traditional’ social construction. Ayoung educated man placed in political position canhave more political power than the ‘elders’ who usedto enjoy the package - age, political authority andcontrol over economic resources.

• Commercialization of raids (causing a shift from massraids to smaller but frequent raids/thefts)

What is changing?• Destitute youth ready to trade economic gains for

security (less and less governed by traditional gov.mechanisms and taking advantage of lawlessness thatexists)

• Expanding cultivation• Fast demographic changes – some ethnic group

population is increasing ex. Boran-Garri• Internal border demarcations – sometimes end up

creating minorities that brings about grievances andspill-over of conflicts

• Influence of armed groups movement and unstableneighbours (arms supply, radicalization…)

• Expansion of protected areas/parks in a highly mobilelivelihood

Changing Roles of Major Actors:• Elders

– In time of peace discourage raid or any other form of violence– In time of conflict they endorse it

• Youth– Less worried about security are the primary culprits. Willing to trade security

for economic gains• Women - play role in inciting as well as mitigators• Chiefs - undecided because they are part of the government and yet as

part of the community understand why the conflicts and the raids areoccurring

• State– The State role continues to be both negative and positive (supporting/

favouring one group, undermining traditional mitigation and administrativemechanisms). On the positive side – improving health and education socialinfrastructures, building roads, power devolution, promote investment etc…)

• Businessmen – less likely to take risk but return on investment is slowly changimgperception

• Criminal groups - Beneficiaries and live outside the community thus less affectedby the impact – future perpetrators of conflict

• NGOs – conflict sensitive approach to their programme and a trend to complimentthe development efforts of govt.

Lessons Learnt1. Contextualized responses• Initiative in Somali Cluster of Ethiopia and Somalia

should be contextually different in relation to existing/ongoing and projected security, social/ cultural andeconomic and development changes

• Policies on pastoral livelihood differ in differentcountries of the region. Thus what may work in SouthSudan may not apply in Ethiopia where for examplesedentarization is seen as one of the viable solution

• Conflicts in Ugandan side of Karamoja cluster has gonedown drastically. This can only be sustained if thebalance of focus and resources shifts from security todevelopment

Ugandan Side of Karamoja Cluster – Violent IncidentTrends

Lessons Learnt contd.

2. Early warning that focuses on long term impact, scenariobuilding and response recommendations should be part of allsectors programme/initiatives to project and prevent violence.Such projection should not be a one time effort during theconceptualization stage but continuous tracking is important. Westill have not solved the centuries old problems that are stillkilling people and yet we are adding new ones.

– Ex. Sedentarization of pastoral community: impact onenvironment, population growth, employmentopportunities, impact on livestock number etc…

– Impact of instability in Somalia, conflict in South Sudanshould be considered in regional or cluster focuseddecisions

Conflict Indicators

Vulnerability – Karamoja, Somali andDhikil Cluster

Lessons Learnt contd

3. Use and sharing of information and role of media• Information available but not fully being utilized to

inform decisions Ex. CEWARN• Cross-sectorial information sharing not well developed• Use of data for research need to be channeled into

products that support or come-up with innovativeideas to tackle the challenges

• Very poor use of media to promote peace, createawareness on positives, contribution to the economyand eco-system (most polluted areas are aroundsedentary) and understanding b/n pastoralcommunities. Pastoral areas based and focused media(karamoja/somali cluster TV station etc…)

Lessons learnt contd

Others…

• Resilience efforts in pastoral areas need to be part ofthe development programme of each country. Whilebuilding resilience is commended, balancing unequaldevelopment that exists b/n pastoral areas and otherdeveloped areas within each country should also begiven emphasis

• Due to the complexity of the problem, tacklingchallenges in stages and on different issues throughspecialized programmes (on security, livelihood,livestock etc….) are commendable. But these effortscan only be effective with coordination

• Low absorption capacity thus resources allocated areeither misused or under utilized

Lessons learnt contd

• Solutions should emanate from understanding thestructural instability causes and not with the misconceptionthat ‘pastoralism is not a viable livelihood/productionsystem/ – ex. poor governance should be tackled regardlessof any livelihood system

• While traditional mechanisms of conflict resolution areimportant we should also not totally assume that they areperfect. Some of these mechanisms are gender insensitive,susceptible to corruption and some of them are easilymanipulated by different interest groups

• Response capacities to conflict in these areas are very poor– not enough resources of both human and finance,unclear procedures and roles of different actors (ex.Military simulation of violence and response is done onregular basis but none is done on the civil response side –disaster management are much advanced than others)

Experiences and lessons learned on conflict sensitiveprogramming in Kenya and Ethiopia

Nairobi, 5th August 2014Regional Livestock and Pastoralism Coordination Working Group Meeting

1November 2011

Conflict sensitive programming in Kenya & Ethiopia

Conflict Sensitivity (CS): The ability of an organization to: a)Understand the context of conflict it operates in; b) Understand theinteraction between its intervention and the context of conflict; c) Actupon this understanding in order to minimize negative impacts andmaximize positive impacts on conflict

CS programming provides a systematic framework to undertakingthis process.

VSFG has been using Conflict Sensitive programming in its DRRacross border interventions between Kenya and Ethiopia targetingDasanech (Ethiopia and Kenya), Hammer and Gabra communitiesfor almost 10 years.

Targeted communities mainly have a pastoral based livelihoods withseasonal migration and they have a long history of conflict overnatural resources => conflict had been identified as a factor thatundermines their resilience to drought


LESSONS LEARNED 1/2CSP mainstreaming at institutional level: institutional commitment,appropriate policies and strategies, skilled human resource,learning and knowledge management system and integration ofCSP into programme cycle across all sectorsSustainability:• Integrating CSP into donor/ government programme policies andsystems contribute to sustainable impacts

• Communities empowered by CSP process are able to developtheir own peace initiatives based on context analysisEmpowering local institutions is crucial for government recognition,

application and replication of CSP. => Mechanisms exist atcommunity level for responding to drivers of peace, which withsupport of local authorities can sustain peace and development


LESSONS LEARNED 2/2CSP needs to be inclusive:Peace building activities have legitimacy only when broad communitypartnerships(different gender and age groups plays different role in theconflict) is established.

The involvement of relevant Government departments is crucial incatalyzing the CSP process

New approaches-e.g. HRM, VICOBA and PFS, livestock marketing- theintroduction of those approaches helped the CSP due to change ofattitude although this change required some time.


CHALLENGES

• Donor funding instruments often not conflict sensitive.

• Sometime CSP is not seen as a process but a quick fix

• Inter-community agreements were written in English and Amharic but

not local languages.

• Cross border areas are at the periphery and often marginalized: the

voice of the communities is no heard and there is no connection with

regional institutions.

• Some unfavorable and asymmetric government policies


RECCOMANDATIONS 1/2Need for harmonized CSP guidelines and assessment tools that linkconflict context analysis findings to strategy and project design.

Multi-sectoral approach: strong multi-sectoral linkages; promotecollaboration between different sectors.

Multi-stakeholders approach – develop strong multi scale linkages e.g.community, private sector, administration etc

Support to joint activities/ initiatives that can reinforce inter-communitiescohesion and reduce conflict


RECCOMANDATIONS 2/2

Promote IGAD presence and interventions at community level in order toformalize and reinforce community efforts

Develop common cross border CSP indicators for monitoring peace.

Decentralize management to lowest level to foster efficiency,effectiveness, equity and ownership.

Promote feed back, accountability and complains mechanisms


Nicoletta Buono: [email protected] Mob: 0716504524Website: vsfg.org

Documents

REGIONAL LIVESTOCK AND PASTOARALISM WORKING GROUP Agenda August … Presentation... · REGIONAL LIVESTOCK AND PASTOARALISM WORKING GROUP Agenda August 5, 2014 ... flagrantly ignored