Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Regional Overview and Summary of the
Results of the 2015
Household Economy Analysis
Baseline Update
Somali Region, Ethiopia
Report Prepared by:
Regional Overview: Tanya Boudreau
Livelihood Zone Profiles: Tanya Boudreau, Jennifer Bush, & Abdifatah Ismael
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS TEAM MEMBERS .................................................................................................................. iv
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 Background to the 2015 Household Economy Analysis Baseline Update .................................................... 1
Somali Region context ........................................................................................................... 2 Overview of geography and rainfall patterns ............................................................................................... 2 Market Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 3 The Livelihood Zones .................................................................................................................................... 5
HEA Baseline Results ............................................................................................................. 7 Reference Years ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Wealth Breakdown and Asset Information .................................................................................................. 8 Sources of Food............................................................................................................................................. 9 Sources of Cash Income .............................................................................................................................. 14 Expenditure Patterns .................................................................................................................................. 19 Total Income and Household Livelihood Protection Scores ....................................................................... 20 Hazards........................................................................................................................................................ 24 Response (Coping) Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 26 Implications for Program Planning ............................................................................................................. 28
Changes over the past ten years .......................................................................................... 30 Rainfall trends ............................................................................................................................................. 30 Changes in household herd sizes ................................................................................................................ 32 Changes in area cultivated and agricultural production ............................................................................. 33 Changes in market conditions ..................................................................................................................... 33 Future considerations ................................................................................................................................. 34
Annex 1. Population by Livelihood Zone .............................................................................. 35
Annex 2. The Household Economy Analysis Framework and Methodology ........................... 38 Uses of HEA Baselines and the Livelihood Profiles ..................................................................................... 38
a) An Introductory Guide to Food Security and Livelihood Patterns in the Five Livelihood Zones .... 38 b) Early Warning and Food Security Monitoring .............................................................................. 38 c) Policy Development and Advocacy................................................................................................... 39 d) Content of the Livelihood Zone Profiles ........................................................................................ 39
The Household Economy Approach & Field Methodology ......................................................................... 40
Annex 3. Asset Comparison over three HEA Baselines .......................................................... 45
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Average Annual Rainfall by Livelihood Zone, 10-year mean, RFE (2004/5 – 2013/14) ................. 2
Figure 2. Seasonal rainfall patterns .............................................................................................................. 3
Figure 3. Breakdown of rural population by livelihood zone cluster ............................................................ 6
Figure 4. Reference years for the HEA baseline ............................................................................................ 7
Figure 5. Average livestock numbers by wealth group and livelihood zone cluster .................................... 8
iii
Figure 6. Average area cultivated by wealth group and livelihood zone cluster .......................................... 9
Figure 7. Source of Food - Pastoral Zones .................................................................................................. 10
Figure 8. Average number of camels - pastoral zones ................................................................................ 11
Figure 9. Sources of Food - Agropastoral Zones ......................................................................................... 11
Figure 10. Sources of Food - Farming Zones ............................................................................................... 12
Figure 11. Average Staple Grain Production - Agropastoral and Farming zones ........................................ 12
Figure 12. Sources of Food - average by livelihood zone cluster ................................................................ 13
Figure 13. Household annual milk production ............................................................................................ 14
Figure 14. Source of Cash - the Pastoral Zones ........................................................................................... 14
Figure 15. Sources of Cash - The Agropastoral Zones ................................................................................. 15
Figure 16. Sources of Cash - the Farming Zones ......................................................................................... 16
Figure 17. Sources of Cash - Average for the livelihood zone clusters ....................................................... 17
Figure 18. Annual cash income levels (average for wealth group) ............................................................. 19
Figure 19. Expenditure patterns by livelihood zone cluster ....................................................................... 19
Figure 20. An example of total income (GAP Livelihood Zone) .................................................................. 21
Figure 21. Annual total income - reference year ........................................................................................ 22
Figure 22. Total income vs the Livelihoods Protection Threshold .............................................................. 22
Figure 23. The Household Livelihoods Protection Score ............................................................................ 23
Figure 24. Household Livelihoods Protection Score - poor and better off households in the reference year ........................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 25. Comparison of HLPS to Total Income - Poor Households .......................................................... 24
Figure 26. Average rainfall anomalies over the last 16 years ..................................................................... 31
Figure 27. Average Annual Rainfall Anomaly, 10-year and 5-year average ................................................ 31
Figure 28. Select changes in household herd size in the last decade ......................................................... 32
iv
TEAM MEMBERS
OVERALL TEAM LEADER & FIELD COORDINATOR Abdifatah Ismael (Regional Aid Coordinator and Humanitarian Affairs Advisor to the president of Somali Regional State of Ethiopia)
BASELINE TRAINING, ANALYSIS SUPPORT, & LIVELIHOOD IMPACT ANALYSIS SPREADSHEET (LIAS) DEVELOPMENT The Baseline Training was led by Julius Holt (FEG) and Abdifatah Ismael
The Baseline Analysis (post field-work) was led by Alexandra King (FEG)
The LIASes were developed by Mark Lawrence of FEG
FIELD TEAMS
Afder Pastoral Team Leader: Wossen Getachew, Consultant Team Members: Mahamud Abdinur Sayid, DPPB Mahamed Abdi Barah, DPPB Abdi Mahamed Hasan,DPPB Mahamed Sheikh Basher,DPPB
Degahbur Agropastoral Team Leader: Huseen Warmahaye, DPPB Team Members: Ahmed Wali Huseen Haji, Consultant Abdi Asiis Dahir Sulub, DPPB Mohamed Adan Yusuf, Private Mukhtar Huseen Ali, DPPB Kamaal Ibraahim, DPPB Nuur Shuraako, DPPB
Dawa-Ganale Riverine Team Leader: Wossen Getachew, Consultant Team Members: Mahamud Abdinur Sayid, DPPB Mahamed Abdi Barah, DPPB Abdi Mahamed Hasan,DPPB Mahamed Sheikh Basher,DPPB
Filtu Dolo Pastoral Team Leader: Hassen Barud, DPPB Team Members: Bashir Hussein Ali, Consultant Badal Daahir, DPPB Mustafe Abdi Ali, DPPB
Fik Pastoral Team Leader: Huseen Warmahaye, DPPB Team Members: Ahmed Wali Huseen Haji, Consultant Abdi Asiis Dahir Sulub, DPPB Mohamed Adan Yusuf, Consultant Mukhtar Huseen Ali, DPPB Kamaal Ibraahim, DPPB Nuur Shuraako, DPPB
Gode Agropastoral Team Leader: Mohamed Mandiid, WFP Team Members: Abdi Ahmed, DPPB Mahamed mahamud Abdi, Consultant Barut Abdi Omar Axmed Nuur, Consultant Ibraahim Sheikh , DPPB
v
Harshin Degahbur Pastoral Team Leader: Huseen Warmahaye, DPPB Team Members: Ahmed Wali Huseen Haji, Private Abdi Asiis Dahir Sulub, DPPB Mohamed Adan Yusuf, Consultant Mukhtar Huseen Ali, DPPB Kamaal Ibraahim, DPPB Nuur Shuraako, DPPB
Jijiga Agropastoral Team Leader: Mahamud Muhumed, WFP Team Members: Hasan Reebe Wa Ays ,DPPB Marwo Abdi Asiiz , DPPB Muhumed Mahamud Elmi, DPPB Mukhtaar Muhumed, DPPB Hibo Tahir Sheikh, DPPB Abdiqadir Ahmed Hashi , DPPB
Jijiga Sedentary Farming Team Leader: Mahamud Muhumed, WFP Team Members: Hasan Reebe Wa Ays ,DPPB Marwo Abdi Asiiz , DPPB Muhumed Mahamud Elmi, DPPB Mukhtaar Muhumed, DPPB Hibo Tahir Sheikh, DPPB Abdiqadir Ahmed Hashi , DPPB
Korahe Agropastoral Team Leader: Kaafi Mohamed Gaarif , WFP Team Members: Abdi Rashiid Doolo, DPPB Abdul Ilaah Ugaas, DPPB Sadaq Ali Mahad Ale, DPPB Abdirisaq Korehe, WFP
Korahe Gode Pastoral Team Leader: Mohamed Mandiid, WFP Team Members: Abdi Ahmed, DPPB Mahamed Mahamud Abdi, Consultant Barut Abdi Omar Axmed Nuur, Consultant Ibraahim Sheikh , DPPB
Liban Agropastoral & Filtu-Dolo Pastoral Team Leader: Hassen Barud, DPPB Team Members: Bashir Hussein Ali, Consultant Badal Daahir, DPPB Mustafe Abdi Ali, DPPB
Lowland Hawd Pastoral & Korahe Agropastoral Team Leader: Kaafi Mohamed Gaarif , WFP Team Members: Abdi Rashiid Doolo, DPPB Abdul Ilaah Ugaas, DPPB Sadaq Ali Mahad Ale, DPPB Abdirisaq Korehe, WFP
Moyale Woyamo Pastoral Team Leader: Hassen Barud, DPPB Team Members: Bashir Hussein Ali, Consultant Badal Daahir, DPPB Mustafe Abdi Ali, DPPB
vi
Shinile Agropastoral Team Leader: Mahamud Muhumed, WFP Team Members: Hasan Reebe Wa Ays ,DPPB Marwo Abdi Asiiz , DPPB Muhumed Mahamud Elmi, DPPB Mukhtaar Muhumed, DPPB Hibo Tahir Sheikh, DPPB Abdiqadir Ahmed Hashi , DPPB
Shabelle Riverine Team Leader: Mohamed Mandiid, WFP Team Members: Abdi Ahmed, DPPB Mahamed Mahamud Abdi, Consultant Barut Abdi Omar Axmed Nuur, Consultant Ibraahim Sheikh , DPPB
Shinile Pastoral Team Leader: Mahamud Muhumed, WFP Team Members: Hasan Reebe Wa Ays ,DPPB Marwo Abdi Asiiz , DPPB Muhumed Mahamud Elmi, DPPB Mukhtaar Muhumed, DPPB Hibo Tahir Sheikh, DPPB Abdiqadir Ahmed Hashi , DPPB
1
INTRODUCTION
Background to the 2015 Household Economy Analysis Baseline Update
Household Economy Analysis (HEA) is a unique livelihoods-based analytical framework designed to
provide a clear and accurate representation of the inside workings of household economies at different
levels of a wealth continuum and in different parts of the world. This picture can be used for a wide
range of purposes, including development planning, emergency response, early warning, monitoring &
evaluation, poverty analysis and reduction, and policy analysis.
Somali Region’s first HEA baseline was developed in Somali Region in 2000/2001 with support from Save
the Children UK in partnership with the Somali Regional State Disaster Prevention and Preparedness
Bureau (DPPB) and the World Food Programme (WFP), with funding from USAID and ECHO. An updated
set of baseline information was published in 2008, drawing on field work that had been done in the
previous few years. The HEA Baselines in Somali Region have been used for the past decade as the
starting point for early warning estimates and annual needs assessments. They form an essential
component of the regional and national early warning system and help provide a rich source of
information on which to base development and disaster mitigation plans.
Given that almost a decade has passed since the last baseline, the Somali Regional State DPPB
determined that it was necessary to update the HEA baseline information and initiated discussions with
USAID and Mercy Corps, the prime contractor implementing the Pastoral Livelihoods Initiative (PLI),
towards this end. The baseline information was compiled through a combination of fieldwork and
reference to existing secondary data sources. The fieldwork to gather baseline HEA information was
undertaken by trained field teams of staff from the DPPB and WFP in January and February of 2015.
Most teams were led by an experienced HEA team leader and all of the teams were trained at the start
by a senior consultant from the Food Economy Group (FEG). The field data was collected at village or
settlement points through a tiered process of information gathering using structured and semi-
structured interviews. Wealth breakdown information was gathered at community level with elders and
local key informants. Information to put together the quantification of livelihood strategies was
gathered through focus group interviews with representatives of each wealth group. Eight
representative villages were visited in each livelihood zone. For more details on the Household Economy
Analysis (HEA) methodology, please see Annex 2. The Household Economy Analysis Framework and
Methodology1.
This report is divided into three sections: 1. The Somali Region Context section provides a background
for understanding differences in livelihood patterns discussed later in the overview, offering a brief
description of the geography of Somali Region, along with rainfall patterns that contribute to different
livelihood outcomes. These geographic and seasonal differences come together with variations in
market conditions, also discussed here, to produce the livelihood zones that act as the sampling frame in
1 More details on HEA can also be obtained by visiting http://www.foodeconomy.com/
2
which the HEA baseline work is conducted. 2. The HEA Baseline Results section lays out the findings of
the recent baseline update, covering the reference year, wealth breakdowns, sources of food and cash
and patterns of expenditure, total income and household livelihood protection scores, hazards, response
(coping) strategies, and implications for program planning. 3. The last section, Changes over the Past
Ten Years, attempts to highlight and make sense of a number of changes that have taken place since the
last baseline.
SOMALI REGION CONTEXT
Overview of geography and rainfall patterns
Somali Region comprises an area of around 250,000 square kilometers in the southeastern corner of
Ethiopia, bordering Djibouti to the north, Somalia to the east and north-east and Kenya to the south.
Oromiya Region (Ethiopia) forms its western border; Afar Region lies to the northwest.
The region lies between 200 meters above sea level in the southern and central parts and 1,800 meters
above sea level in Jijiga Zone. A mid-altitude plateau covers parts of Liban, Degahbur, Fik and Shinile
zones. The vast majority, around 80% of the region, is considered lowland. The lowlands are arid to
semi-arid, with rainfall in parts averaging less than 300 mm per year and hot temperatures, reaching 32-
40°C. The mid-altitude ‘areas account for approximately 15% of the region. Here rainfall ranges between
300 and 400 mm a year and temperatures are more moderate (20-28°C). In the higher altitude areas,
such as Jijiga, which are found in only around 5% of the region, rainfall averages 750 mm per year and
the temperatures are cooler, typically just below 20°. Figure 1 shows average annual rainfall (10-year
mean) by livelihood zone; the zones on the right are all in northern highland areas; those on the left are
in lowland southern areas.
Figure 1. Average Annual Rainfall by Livelihood Zone, 10-year mean, RFE (2004/5 – 2013/14)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
LHP AFP HDP DGR KAP GAP FDP KGP MWP DAP FKP LAP SHP JAP SAP JSF
mm
Livelihood Zone
Average annual rainfall by livelihood zonesource: USGS
3
Rainfall throughout the
region is bimodal, falling
during two distinct periods.
However, the occurrence of
these periods varies, and
the region can be divided
into two areas based on
seasonal rainfall patterns:
Shinile and Jijga zones to the
north, and the remaining
seven zones to the south.
Zones in the southern parts
have a gu season occurring
from April to June, and a
deyr season from October to
December. Zones with a
main rainy season starting in July/August (karan) and a secondary rainy season from March – May (dira’)
are found in the northern areas.
Most of the region is well-suited to livestock rearing, with camels, goats, sheep, cattle and donkeys
owned to varying degrees throughout the region. Hilly terrain covered with thick, thorny brush, which
provides good browse for camels and goats, is found in many areas. In other areas open plains with rich
grasslands provide ideal grazing opportunities for cattle and sheep.
Three permanent rivers offer up opportunities for both irrigated farming and flood recession agriculture.
These include the Dawa, the Ganale and the Shabelle river basins. There is also some rainfed agriculture
from around the latitude of Degahbur northward, often opportunistic because of large inter-annual
differences in precipitation, but capable of producing substantial yields in the few years when rainfall is
good.
A notable lack of groundwater throughout the region creates the need for collecting rain water in large
concrete tanks called berkads. This system replaces wells in many areas, and especially in the Haud,
which makes up the large southeastern ‘horn’ extension.
Market Overview
Livestock, sold on the hoof, are the foundation for the regional economy. According to Ethiopian
Government statistics, Somali region is estimated to have about 8 million sheep, 3.1 million goats, 2.3
million cattle, and 1.3 million camels2. Livestock provide milk, meat and cash, both from direct sales of
livestock and from sales of milk and ghee. Each livelihood zone relies on a network of markets, starting
2 http://www.ethiopia.gov.et/statesomali
Figure 2. Seasonal rainfall patterns
4
with local kebele and woreda centers which are connected to varying degrees with regional markets
servicing external markets, with particular demand from the Gulf states, along with Kenya and Somalia
and, to a lesser degree, other parts of Ethiopia. In these primary markets, livestock is sold to two groups:
local buyers who are purchasing animals for local meat consumption and/or restocking; and traders who
take animals on to bigger markets immediately or after fattening. The livestock market reaches its boom
during the pre-Haj season in August and September when livestock are exported to the Gulf from all
countries in East Africa. Livestock prices hit their lowest points during the peak of the long dry season
due to poor body condition and slower trade.
Most zonal capitals and woreda towns are important trading centers for the rural areas that surround
them. Through these corridors camels, cattle, goats and sheep leave the region, and rice, wheat, maize,
sugar, oil, new and second hand clothes, and all types of household items flow in. The most important
central market towns that serve as junctions between the local, regional and international markets
within Somali Region are Moyale, Dolo Ado, Cherati, Gode, Warder, Kebridehar, Degahbur, and Jijiga.
These markets have connection to central markets outside the region, such as Dire Dawa, Negelle, and
Meisso; or – more importantly – outside the country, such as Bossaso, Hargeisa, Beledweyne, and
Burao. The Mogadishu market, Djibouti market and Gulf States are critical end destinations.
In addition to selling livestock on the hoof, almost all households depend heavily on milk and ghee sales
– a source of income that has grown in value and importance over the past ten years, driven by the
increasing demand associated with a burgeoning urban population. Milk is sold exclusively to local
markets, since the means for storing and transporting milk are not in place; many pastoralists settle a
portion of the household, explicitly for this reason, on the periphery of towns in order to have access to
the town market. Other locally-sold commodities include bush products, like firewood, charcoal, gums
and resins. Agropastoralists also sell maize and sorghum with some riverine villages specializing in
fodder, fruits and vegetables (sold mainly to markets within the region) and sesame and onions (sold to
markets outside the region).
Somali Region is still poorly integrated with the rest of Ethiopia. Negelle, Diredawa, Meisso, Moyale and
Babile function as relay points for livestock bound for Addis Ababa and the Ethiopian highlands, and
some maize, sorghum and other cereals are supplied into Somali Region through these markets, but this
is not what fuels the local economy. It is the demand from Somalia, Kenya, and most importantly the
Gulf Arab states that creates real movement in the markets.
Market conditions in many areas have benefited from the construction of the asphalt road from Jijiga to
Gode which traverses key towns such as Kebridahar, Degahbur and Birkod. This has led to the growing
capacity and importance of the Gode and Degahbur markets in particular. In recent years, the Jijiga
market benefited from a number of improvements, including: a steady increase in the number of
licensed traders involved in import-export activities, close proximity to the border with Somaliland, the
burgeoning financial capacity of traders, linkages with other zones through an asphalt road that
connects to Berbera and other zones of the region; the development of telecommunication and various
banking services; and an increasing population of consumers.
5
However, throughout most of Somali Region transportation infrastructure is still very poor. There are
very few asphalt roads and the existing dirt roads are in bad condition; if bridges exist, they are in poor
repair. In the rainy season it is especially difficult to get from one village to another by vehicle; and
although the the dry season offers slightly better access, road conditions remain sub-standard. An
extreme example of this is found in Fik Pastoral Livelihood Zone, considered the most isolated livelihood
zone in Somali Region, where weeks, if not months, can pass without commercial trucks passing
through. The rocky terrain, combined with security concerns and very poor roads results in a failure of
both livestock and commodity markets for significant periods of the year and especially in the wet
season. Afder Pastoral Livelihood Zone is also known for having some of the worst roads in the region.
The Gode-Hargele, Charrati-Shakisa, Charrati-Gorobaqaqsa and Elkare-West Imey roads, most of which
are important trade routes for livestock and other commodities, are all bad. In the northern areas,
people are eagerly awaiting the completion of the renovation of the Ethiopia-Djibouti railway which
traverses the Shinile livelihood zones. Some woreda towns with train stations were previously major
marketing points, with onward transport by pack camel. Now that the railroad no longer functions, the
flow of commodities into and out of these zones has slowed.
Given the poor road conditions, most people reach market centers by foot. Animals are typically walked
along well-worn foot paths, and goods are transported either by donkey, camel or motorcycle. This
poses a particular challenge for people living far from market centers. And in the farming areas, such as
the Shabelle Riverine Livelihood Zone, poor transportation creates significant barriers to economic
growth. Perishable crops like tomatoes and bananas are mainly sold in local markets for local
consumption. Although some of these crops manage to make it to the central market in Gode, the
difficult roads between Kalafo, Mustahil, Ferfer and Gode, which have deteriorated in the last few years,
combined with the searing heat, which reaches levels close to 40 Co, mean that much of the produce
spoils along the way.
Tougher restrictions on unlicensed cross-border trade in recent years, the volatile security situation in
Somalia with the growth of Al-Shabaab, and the development of an asphalt road between Jijiga and
Gode town have changed the trade routes for imported food and non-food items in the southern zones.
Five years ago, most goods were coming across what was - at the time - a highly porous border with
Somalia; but today most goods come through a single route (Wajale-Jigjiga) via licensed traders and
associations. From Gode market goods are distributed onward throughout the southern livelihood
zones. On the Somalia side, products which used to flow smoothly across the border to markets like
Beletweyne and Mogadishu are now less likely to be transported due to the changing security situation
at the border. Trade routes for livestock have shifted to Gode-Degahbur, from which most are exported
to Somaliland through Wajale or taken directly to Hargeisa.
The Livelihood Zones
Livelihood zones are homogenous areas within which people share broadly the same means of
production and the same access to markets. The geographical features discussed above, combined with
seasonal variations and market conditions all contribute to determining the outlines of these zones,
6
shown in the map on the following page. For a complete list of the woredas and population for each
livelihood zone, please see Annex 1. Population by Livelihood Zone.
In Somali Region there are three main livelihood zone ‘clusters’, or groupings of livelihood zones that
share a common base pattern of livelihood: 1. Pastoral; 2. Agropastoral; and 3. Farming.
The pastoral livelihood zones predominate, making up around
59% of the rural population. In these zones land is
communally owned and various sub-clans traditionally
exercise control over territories they perceive as their areas of
origin as dictated by clan settlement history. This does not,
however, place practical restrictions on livestock movements
by any clan into or out of different livelihood zones, and in
times of low clan conflict, there is unrestricted sharing of
grazing and water resources. Because the rains are essential
to replenishing the pastures and browse on which pastoralists
depend, and the rains shift in location and intensity from
season to season, mobility remains an essential characteristic
of life throughout much of the region. Where people move
their livestock is determined by changes in pasture and water
availability, disease outbreaks, market access, and service
availability like livestock vaccination campaigns at particular times of the year. Other factors such as
localized conflict and insecurity also influence the direction and destination of these decisions. Long
Population in Somali Region broken
down by livelihood zone cluster
Figure 3. Breakdown of rural population by livelihood zone cluster
7
distance migrations do not take place in normal years, and are undertaken only when necessary in a bad
year.
Agropastoralists account for around 26% of the total rural population, and pursue a mixture of extensive
livestock rearing and rain-fed crop production; some agropastoralists may be better described as
pastoralists who engage in opportunistic farming activities – as in Fik and some parts of Liban Zone.
Others are more committed to farming, but nevertheless continue to place a large emphasis on livestock
rearing. In most of these areas agriculture is undertaken as a means of securing food, rather than cash
income. By growing crops, people reduce the number of animals they need to sell to purchase food. This
lowers their vulnerability to food price shocks, and helps them to keep herd sizes relatively high.
Around the Dawa, the Ganale and the Shabelle river basins, irrigated agriculture is practiced. In these
areas, as well as in Jijiga, where rainfall levels are relatively high, one finds the farming-oriented
livelihood zones. The population living in the farming zones comprises around 16% of the rural
population in Somali Region.
HEA BASELINE RESULTS
The HEA information collected during field work is presented below. The section begins with discussion
of the reference year chosen in each livelihood zone, followed by a summary of the wealth breakdown
and asset information. The sources of food and cash and patterns of expenditure are presented next,
followed by an analysis of total income (food plus cash) in relation to the livelihoods protection
threshold. Finally, a summation on hazards, response (coping) strategies and program implications is
provided.
Reference Years
Each baseline assessment refers to a very specific time period called the reference year. In HEA, the
reference year is a recent consumption year, starting with the month when own household production
starts, usually marking the end of the
main hunger season. In pastoral
zones this is when milk production
starts to peak, typically at the start
of the main rainy season. In areas
where a crop harvest was important,
the main harvest starts the reference
year. The reference year in all
pastoral zones and most
agropastoral zones was the
consumption year between mid-April
2013 and mid-April 2014. The Figure 4. Reference years for the HEA baseline
8
Shabelle Riverine Livelihood Zone was an exception – the consumption year here was mid-June 2013 to
mid-June 2014. Jijiga Sedentary Farming & Shinile Agropastoral Livelihood Zones were two other
exceptions. The reference year in these zones was October 2013 to September 2014. Provided there are
no fundamental and rapid shifts in the economy, the information in these HEA baseline profiles is
expected to remain valid for between five and ten years (i.e. until at least 2020 and possibly beyond).
Wealth Breakdown and Asset Information
HEA baseline information is gathered and
stored by wealth group. Wealth is a critical
factor in determining how households obtain
their food and cash income, and it is one of
the two most important ways that HEA data
is disaggregated (the other being by
livelihood zone).
In the pastoral zones, wealth is determined
by the type and number of livestock owned.
Camels are a particularly valuable asset in the
pastoral and agropastoral livelihood zones,
providing milk throughout the year, and
worth the most per animal of any livestock
category. They are not kept in the farming
livelihood zones. Cattle are owned in all of
the pastoral livelihood zones except for the
Lowland Hawd Pastoral Livelihood Zone,
where conditions are too dry. Cattle numbers
per household are actually highest per
household in agropastoral areas, where they
can be fed with crop residues as well as
pasture. Goats and sheep combined make up
the largest herd sizes, averaging just under
120 animals per combined herd for better off
households in pastoral areas and over 80
animals per combined herd for households in
the same wealth group in agropastoral
livelihood zones.
In the agropastoral and farming zones,
wealth is determined both by the amount of
land cultivated and the type and number of
Average number of livestock by wealth group
and livelihood zone cluster
Camels
Cattle
Goats and sheep combined
Figure 5. Average livestock numbers by wealth group and livelihood zone cluster
9
livestock owned. The average area
cultivated by wealth group and
livelihood zone cluster is shown in
Error! Reference source not found..
Household size is both an indicator of
wealth group, with better off
households having more members on
average; and a contributing factor to
wealth since it is necessary to have a
bigger labor pool to help manage
larger herds. On average, poor
households have around 7 members;
middle households have around 8;
and better off households have around 10 members. Better off and some middle households also have
more than one wife.
The percentage of households and the percentage of the population falling into each wealth group
(average by livelihood zone cluster) is shown in Error! Reference source not found.. Since better off
households have multiple wives
and larger household sizes, the
percent of the population (as
opposed to the percent of
households) falling into the
upper wealth groups is larger
than the percent of households
in each wealth group.
In five of the livelihood zones
the poor group was split into
two (very poor and poor), but
for the most part the differences between these two bottom groups were not substantial. In the rest of
the overview information for three wealth groups is presented (poor, middle, better off) in order to
allow for comparisons across all livelihood zones.
Sources of Food
Understanding how people obtain their food is essential for determining what will limit - or potentially
expand - this access. A fundamental component of the HEA baseline, therefore, is a detailed set of
information on the sources of food for each wealth group in each livelihood zone. This information is
shown below. For ease of presentation and interpretation, the zones have been grouped into three
clusters: the pastoral zones, the agropastoral and the farming zones. This allows for a comparison of like
Table 1. % of households and population falling into each wealth group, average for livelihood zone cluster
% of hhs pastoral agropastoral farming
poor 36% 33% 39%
middle 45% 48% 41%
better off 19% 19% 20%
% of pop
poor 21% 17% 25%
middle 42% 44% 38%
better off 37% 37% 39%
Figure 6. Average area cultivated by wealth group and livelihood zone cluster
10
to like, and points up differences in patterns within each of these groupings. A graph showing the
average for each of the zone clusters is shown in Figure 12, providing a summary statement about the
differences across the zones.
The Pastoral Zones
Sources of Food in the Reference Year
Percentage of Annual Minimum Calorie Requirements
Figure 7. Source of Food - Pastoral Zones
The graphs in Figure 7 show us the relative importance of sources of food for all wealth groups in the
pastoral livelihood zones. From these graphs we see there are two main sources of food for pastoralists
and two minor ones: their own milk and purchased grains, sugar and oil are the two main sources; food
aid and gifts contribute food for poorer pastoralists.
If we take a look at the breakdown for better off households shown in the graphs above, we see what the other wealth groups are aiming to achieve: around half of annual food needs coming from milk, and the rest made up of purchased grains, sugar and oil. Poorer households do not have enough milking animals to meet this goal, even in a relatively good year like the reference year, so they rely also on gifts of food from better off neighbors and relatives and food aid from the Productive Safety Nets Programme (PSNP). Middle households, however, in all but three livelihood zones, come very close to meeting all their needs with their own herds, and for the most part do not need external support to meet their minimum needs; they do not consume as many calories as better off households, and their reliance on the market is heavier since they have less milk, but they still manage to meet over 100% of their minimum calorie requirements. Korahe Gode Pastoral (KGP) Livelihood Zone provides a good example of one of the zones where middle households meet all of their needs without external assistance, allowing us to see what it takes to achieve this minimum subsistence threshold. A middle household here typically owns 4 milking camels which generate over 2,000 liters of milk in the gu season and around half of that in the deyr season, providing over 3,000 liters annually. Just over a third of this is sold, leaving these households with enough to cover 20% of their minimum calorie requirements with camels’ milk. Added to the camels’ milk is that of around 3 lactating cows and 12 goats. The milk from these animals provides an additional 2,200 liters, around a
11
fifth of which is sold, leaving enough for consumption to cover 20% of the households’ minimum calorie needs. Having met just over 40% of their food needs with their own milk, middle households turn to the market for the rest. Around 36% of the remaining calories come in the form of sorghum, maize, wheat and rice; 23% comes from sugar, and the remaining 5% from oil. To buy this food these households need to come up with around 12,000 ETB, which is covered (and slightly exceeded) with the sale of one camel and one bull. The importance of camels is highlighted through this example. In zones where households own camels, milk production is generally higher. By comparing camel numbers per household (by wealth group and livelihood zone, shown in Figure 8) with the ‘Sources of Food’ graph above, we can see the higher contribution of milk to the annual diet for all wealth groups in KGP and LHP, and the lower contribution in SHP.
The Agropastoral Zones
Sources of Food in the Reference Year
Percentage of Annual Minimum Calorie Requirements
Figure 9. Sources of Food - Agropastoral Zones
In the agropastoral zones, as illustrated above, own crop production provides an additional source of food, covering 20 - 40% of minimum calorie needs across the board. Maize makes up over half of this in a year with good rainfall, like the reference year. Rain fed, flood recession and small amounts of irrigated agriculture are the basis for this production. Sorghum becomes more important in bad years when maize
Figure 8. Average number of camels - pastoral zones
12
fails. In all agropastoral zones gu season maize is primary. Sorghum is cultivated as well, but often more heavily in the deyr season since it is capable of withstanding longer periods of dryness.
The Farming Zones
Sources of Food in the Reference Year
Percentage of Annual Minimum Calorie Requirements
Figure 10. Sources of Food - Farming Zones
In the farming zones, agriculture takes on increasing importance, and the larger contribution of own
crops is reflected in the graph above. While agriculture is given greater emphasis, livestock are
nevertheless still a significant component of the local economy in the Shabelle Riverine (SHR) and Dawa-
Ganale Riverine (DGR) Livelihood Zones. The Jijiga Subsistence Farming (JSF) Livelihood Zone, on the
other hand, is in a different category from the rest of Somali Region, almost fully dependent on farming,
with only minor contributions from livestock. Maize and sorghum are the only crops of note grown in
SHR. In JSF we see a much larger portfolio of crops, with wheat a major crop, followed by sorghum,
barley and maize.
Figure 11 shows
combined staple
grain production
in the agropastoral
and farming
livelihood zones.
Lower production
in zones like the
Liben Agropastoral
and Shinile
Agropastoral
zones does not
result in lower
contributions of own Figure 11. Average Staple Grain Production - Agropastoral and Farming zones
13
crops (i.e. crops produced and consumed by the household) to food income (which is everything
generated for consumption by the household); rather it is reflected as an almost total absence of cash
income generated from crop sales (See Figure 15). In these zones, crops are grown to be consumed,
helping offset the needs to purchase grain, which allows households to forego selling additional
livestock and protect their herds. In the Gode Agropastoral (GAP) Livelihood Zone, as well as the three
farming zones (DGR, JSF and SHR), crop production functions not just as a source of food, but also as a
source of cash, as seen in the next section.
All Livelihood Zones – Average for the Livelihood Zone Cluster
Sources of Food in the Reference Year
Percentage of Annual Minimum Calorie Requirements
Figure 12. Sources of Food - average by livelihood zone cluster
Comparing across the three livelihood zone types, we can see more clearly the patterns highlighted
above. Own milk and purchased food are the primary sources of food in pastoral zones; own crop
production is the most important source of food in farming livelihood zones. And the agropastoral zones
are somewhere in the middle, resulting in a more balanced reliance on the three main sources.
Figure 13, which presents milk production by household (combined camel, cow, and goat milk), makes
the point that in all livelihood zones (with the exception of the Dawa-Ganale Riverine and Jijiga
Subsistence Farming Livelihood Zones) milk provides a significant resource for all wealth groups to draw
on.
Household annual milk production (average per wealth group)
in reference year by livelihood zone – combined camel, cow, goat
14
Figure 13. Household annual milk production
Sources of Cash Income
Food is only part of the story; there are a range of essential goods and services that require cash to
cover, and it is important to understand how people get their cash so that we can get a handle on both
what will potentially undermine the access as well as how we might strengthen these cash flows. The
graphics below compare the sources of cash income in the reference year for households in all three
wealth groups, at first by livelihood zone cluster, and then as an average across the clusters.
The Pastoral Zones
Sources of Cash in the Reference Year
Percentage of Annual Cash
Figure 14. Source of Cash - the Pastoral Zones
15
The most striking thing to note about the graphs above is the very large contribution made by milk sales. In six of the eight pastoral zones, the sale of milk covers 30 - 60% of the annual cash generated by middle households. In the two livelihood zones where milk sales are lower - SHP and LHP - marketing conditions and the distance from urban markets are constraints to generating more from milk sales. What milk was marketed within the region was sold by households living fairly close to the woreda capitals. In the last HEA baseline, conducted around ten years ago, milk sales for middle households did not exceed 30% of annual cash income. This represents a large increase, and suggests either that households are strategically targeting the local woreda towns in a more deliberate way, perhaps settling closer to them or to important through-roads to ensure access to the local urban market; and/or that milk prices have increased as a result of a growing urban population. Another point highlighted by the compilation of data shown in the graphs above, is the difference between better off and poor cash income sources and patterns: being richer means that you can derive all the cash you need from your livestock herd, in the form of milk/ghee sales and livestock sales. Being poorer means you are forced to look for a number of options outside your own herd, since your livestock numbers aren’t sufficient to cover food and cash needs. The most important of these options is self-employment, a category that includes collecting and selling bush products, such as construction poles, firewood and making and selling charcoal. In some areas, where Acacia, Boswellia and Commiphora trees are present, collecting and selling gum Arabic and incense is an option. Casual employment, some of it in the form of construction jobs found in local towns and some in salt mining areas, fills another part of the gap.
The Agropastoral Zones
Sources of Cash in the Reference Year
Percentage of Annual Cash
Figure 15. Sources of Cash - The Agropastoral Zones
The graphs above illustrate how households in agropastoral areas obtain their cash income. Crop sales
are a meaningful source of cash in only three of the zones. Given that the reference years were at least
average, and in some cases good years, this is a picture that conveys the upper range of what we might
16
expect to see from crop production. As such, it seems to suggest that households do not expect to gain
much value in cash terms from their crops; the value comes on the food side. Every kilogram produced is
a kilogram that doesn’t need to be purchased. The less grain that needs to be purchased, the fewer
livestock that need to be sold to finance food acquisition. In other words, agriculture is pursued at least
in part as a means of protecting herds.
In all but one livelihood zone, milk sales are an important means of generating cash, at least for middle
and better off households. In GAP and DAP the contribution is comparable to the pastoral livelihood
zones, saying as much about the growing demand of the Degahbur and Gode markets as it does about
the importance of livestock in these areas.
Livestock sales are the most important means of generating cash in these livelihood zones, accounting
for 45 - 65% of annual cash income on average. (See Figure 17 below.) The importance of livestock sales
in Korahe Agropastoral (KAP) Livelihood Zone is especially striking. The proportionally smaller amount of
cash income earned from crop sales in this livelihood zone reflects a growing problem of gully erosion
and the steady invasion of Prosopis juliflora, an invasive tree species that has taken over large swaths of
cropping and grazing land. This area has also seen an increase in livestock numbers, and high exports of
goats and sheep, which helps boost livestock income. The absence of self-employment or petty trade
activities on the poorer end of the wealth spectrum is notable.
The Farming Zones
Sources of Cash in the Reference Year
Percentage of Annual Cash
Figure 16. Sources of Cash - the Farming Zones
In the farming livelihood zones, crop sales appear as a significant source of cash income. Surprisingly,
however, the relative importance of crop sales is higher in DGR and SHR, both of which continue in
many ways to be more agro-pastoral than farming, than it is in JSF, which is a real farming zone. This is in
part because production levels are higher in SHR (see ‘Average Staple Grain Production’ graphs in Figure
17
11); but more importantly it is because in SHR sesame, a high value crop, is grown, as well as onions (in
the upper wealth group). These two crops together more than double the income from staple grains for
better off households in SHR, and sesame sales make an important contribution to annual cash for all
wealth groups. In DGR bananas, watermelons and tomatoes are important high-value cash crops,
allowing households on the upper end of the wealth spectrum to earn substantial cash income. In JSF,
on the other hand, it is only lower value staple grains that are sold, which limits the cash income that
can be generated from crop sales alone. Better off households in JSF turn, instead, to their livestock
herds for the remainder of their cash needs, selling both milk and livestock. PSNP cash transfers make a
significant contribution for poor households here, helping them to preserve their livestock assets and
meet minimum food and cash needs. Self-employment is the most important source of cash for poor
households in DGR; this category includes sales of firewood and charcoal, the demand for which is
fueled by the burgeoning refugee population resident in the Doloado camps. The extensive clearing and
deforestation associated with the camps has also led to a high demand for fodder, an important source
of cash income for poorer households in DGR (included in crop sales).
All Livelihood Zones – Average for the Livelihood Zone Cluster
Sources of Cash in the Reference Year
Percentage of Annual Cash
Figure 17. Sources of Cash - Average for the livelihood zone clusters
The summary graphs above, which show the average result for three wealth groups within the livelihood
cluster, highlight once again the fundamental importance of livestock sales and milk sales everywhere,
the relatively higher reliance on crop sales in the farming areas, and the large role that self-employment
plays for poor households.
While the cash income graphs above give us a sense of the relative importance of each income option,
the total cash income levels below in Figure 18 provide a sense of which wealth groups generate the
most income in absolute terms, and which the least. Amongst the poor wealth group, households in the
Jijiga Agropastoral Livelihood Zone had the lowest cash income levels during the reference year; those in
18
Degahbur Agropastoral Livelihood Zone had the highest. Both the middle and better off households in
Gode Agropastoral Livelihood Zone have the highest levels of cash income in those wealth groups;
whereas both the middle and better off households in Jijiga Subsistence Farming Livelihood Zone had
the lowest levels of cash income in those wealth groups. There are a number of potential explanations
for the variations in levels of cash income, including the preponderance of recent bad years (e.g. 2011
and 2012 were reportedly bad years in JAP, which has led to a decline in large livestock, and subsequent
reduced income from livestock sales); differences in market access and livestock prices (e.g.
infrastructural improvements in parts of DAP during the past six to eight years have resulted in the
growing capacity and importance of the central Degahbur market, leading to improved access and
prices); and differences in types and numbers of productive assets. In JSF, despite relatively high crop
production levels, households consume much of this production, leaving less for sale; and high value
livestock, such as camels, are not a feature of local household economies, like they are in a zone like
GAP. At the same time, households in JSF do not grow high value cash crops, like sesame or onions as
they do in SHR, which again limits their cash income.
Annual Cash Income Levels (Average for Wealth Group)
Ethiopian Birr
Poor Households
Middle Households
19
Better-off Households
Note: Each figure represents the mid-point of a range
Figure 18. Annual cash income levels (average for wealth group)
Expenditure Patterns
The graph below presents expenditure patterns for the reference year by livelihood zone cluster and wealth group. While absolute expenditure increases with wealth in line with total cash income, the expenditure breakdown by percent in this graph shows the relative amount of income spent on different categories as an average across the wealth group and for the livelihood zone cluster.
Expenditure Patterns by Livelihood Zone Cluster in Somali Region
Percentage of Annual Expenditure
Average for wealth group and livelihood zone cluster
Figure 19. Expenditure patterns by livelihood zone cluster
20
There are five points to make about the information presented above. First, relative expenditure on
staple food decreases as you move up the wealth spectrum. The reduced need to purchase food is
related directly to the amount of milk and/or crops generated by the household on its own. Better off
and middle household in all areas produce more of their own food than poorer households, leaving
them with less of a requirement to buy staple foods.
Second, in general, the expenditure on staple and non-staple foods combined is highest in pastoralist communities, where all staple grains need to be purchased, and lowest in farming zones, where households are growing as much of their own grains as they can. The range of staple and non-staple foods purchased throughout Somali Region is relatively limited, comprised – for the most part - of maize, rice, sugar and oil. Sugar consumption is very high, with many households purchasing enough to cover around one kilogram a day, mixed in with the milky tea that is taken throughout the day.
Third, all households spend a sizeable proportion of their cash income on household items, such as tea, salt, soap, utensils, jerry cans and kerosene. This category also includes the cash spent on milling grain at woreda centers. Tea takes up a particularly large proportion of household item expenditures, more than any other single category. Tea is consumed every day with large amounts of sugar and milk, helping reduce feelings of hunger and carry households through the leaner months of the year.
Fourth, poor households are more likely to have to spend money on water than better off households. This is because better off households often own berkads – concrete cisterns constructed to collect and store water. Critical water shortages throughout many zones are a major threat to lives and livelihoods.
Fifth, the relative proportion of annual cash spent on ‘inputs’, including seeds, tools, labor hire, livestock drugs, salt for animals, ploughing, etc. increases in line with wealth, and is highest in the farming zones. In these zones, in addition to paying for all the costs associated with keeping livestock, households need to put money into agricultural production, which can include things like tractor hire, oxen rental and labor hire – all things that take a sizeable proportion of the annual budget. Notably, this leaves households in the farming zones with less of a budget for discretionary items (‘other’) and less of a buffer to draw down on in bad years.
Total Income and Household Livelihood Protection Scores
The graphs in the previous section provided a comparison of food and cash income separately. In this
section we look at total income (food plus cash) levels. Total income is a composite of food and cash
income. It adds up all the sources of food and all the sources of cash income households generate in the
reference year and uses either a food or cash equivalent to express the total value. The total income
amount is a more complete representation of ‘real’ income than cash income alone, especially in areas
where people produce a significant proportion of their own food. (For example, in the ‘Annual Cash
Income Levels’ graph in Figure 18, poor households in JSF have the lowest cash income levels; however
these households do not have the lowest total income because the value of the own crop production
they consumed, which isn’t accounted for with cash income, is included in total income.) An example
from GAP (expressed in cash terms) is presented in Figure 20. We can see from this example the
21
cumulative values of all food
and cash sources,
highlighting again the
importance of milk sales
(‘milk meat sold’), crop sales
(‘own crops sold’) and
livestock sales (‘livestock
sold’) for middle and better
off households. We can also
see from this graph that
better off households’ total
income was over 50,000 ETB
in the reference year,
whereas poor households’
total income was less than
30,000 ETB. Detailed total
income graphs like the one
to the right can be found in each Baseline Storage Spreadsheet (BSS).
Figure 21 shows total income levels for the poor and better off wealth groups in all the livelihood zones
for the reference year. In areas where milk and/or crop production levels are higher, more valuable
livestock are owned, markets are accessible and well-connected to export opportunities, and recent
years have been relatively good, allowing people to build up their livestock herds, we see higher total
income levels. In areas where one or more of these criteria cannot be met, total income levels are
lower. Therefore, in GAP, where crop and milk production levels are relatively high; where households
own high value livestock, like camels and cattle, and herd sizes have increased over the past ten years;
and where people have access to the Gode market, which sells on to Jijiga and to export markets
beyond, total income levels are high. AFP, on the other hand, is known for having some of the worst
roads in Somali Region; recent years have seen declining herd sizes at the household level due to a
series of bad seasons in the last five years; and while milk production levels were relatively high in the
reference years, there is no crop production to boost total income, like in GAP.
Annual total income (food & cash combined) expressed in cash terms
Reference Year - ETB
Poor & Better off Households
Figure 20. An example of total income (GAP Livelihood Zone)
22
Figure 21. Annual total income - reference year
Total income tells us how much people are able to generate. But in order to understand what this
means in terms of livelihood security,
we also need to know the cost of
maintaining their livelihood. This is
shown by the Livelihoods Protection
Threshold (LPT). The LPT is the cost of
covering minimum food and non-food
requirements for the household,
including the total cost of covering
minimum survival requirements (such
as food, basic hygiene and food
preparation costs) as well as the cost
of maintaining livelihoods (productive
input costs, education costs, health
costs and basic household items). By
comparing these costs with total income we have a sense of how close to the edge households are. If
households have almost no gap between their total income and their Livelihoods Protection costs, any
small disruption in cash or food income can result in a deficit. A bigger gap between total income and
the Livelihoods Protection Threshold means households will tend to be far more more resilient in the
face of shocks.
Figure 22. Total income vs the Livelihoods Protection Threshold
23
We can compare the levels of reference year livelihoods security for all wealth groups in these zones by
using a standard livelihoods protection score. This is another way of expressing - with one number - the
information contained in the graphic above, essentially showing the size of the ‘gap’. It is calculated by
dividing a household’s total income in the reference year by the Livelihoods Protection Threshold for
that household in the same year. The Household Livelihoods Protection Score (HLPS) is essentially a ratio
of what households generate in cash and food income in the reference year to what they need in order
to cover all their survival and livelihood requirements. A score above 1 means households are able to
cover their livelihood protection
needs. The closer to 1 you get,
the less of a ‘buffer’ the
household has. Figure 24 shows
the Household Livelihoods
Protection Scores for poor and
better off wealth groups in the
reference year. Better off
households in GAP have the
highest HLPS of all households in
Somali Region. This outcome is in
line with total income levels,
which are also highest for better
off households in GAP.
Household Livelihoods Protection Score
Reference Year
Poor & Better off Households
Figure 24. Household Livelihoods Protection Score - poor and better off households in the reference year
Figure 23. The Household Livelihoods Protection Score
24
For poor households in LHP, on the other hand, their standing at the bottom of this ranking requires a
bit more explanation. In fact, if we compare the HLPS to total income levels (Figure 25 below), we see
that poor households in LHP have the second-highest total income among poor households in Somali
Region. With such a high level of total income, why are these the least livelihood secure households in
the region? The reason has to do with the remote location of the zone; its reliance on imported food
combined with its distance from Ethiopian markets means that prices for many commodities are higher
here than in many other zones. The main staple (wheat) costs over 200% more in LHP than in GAP. This
is a good example of why income levels on their own tell us little about whether or not people are food
and livelihood secure. We need to know not just how much people can generate in terms of food and
cash income, but also what they need to spend to meet their minimum requirements.
Household Livelihoods Protection Score compared to Total Income: Poor Households
Figure 25. Comparison of HLPS to Total Income - Poor Households
Hazards
Change is a constant feature of people’s lives, and in this region a number of chronic and intermittent
hazards work against efforts aimed at building assets and securing livelihoods. Chronic hazards are
those that have become part of the landscape people live with every year, and that people need to find
ways to cope with on an annual basis. Intermittent hazards may not happen every year, but when they
do occur, they can cause devastating damage.
The chronic hazards noted by households throughout the region include the following:
Water shortages - Many of the pastoral livelihood zones face problems obtaining secure access to clean,
safe drinking water, which - among other things - leads to losses in productivity as people need to walk
25
long distances to get water, loss of livestock condition, as well as illnesses from drinking impure water.
This was noted by households as a particular issue in Filtu-Dolo Pastoral, Fik Pastoral, Harshin Degahbur
Pastoral, Afder Pastoral, Liban Agropastoral, Lowland Hawd Pastoral, and Moyale Woyamo Pastoral
livelihood zones.
Livestock diseases - Livestock diseases cause major economic losses for all households in Somali Region, reducing the price people get for their animals, increasing the costs of care, and in some cases, leading to the loss of animals through death. Lumpy skin pox, tick-borne diseases, like heartwater, Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP), and Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP) are especially problematic in Filtu-Dolo Pastoral, Afder Pastoral and Liban Agropastoral livelihood zones.
Wild animals: Animal attacks on humans and livestock have significantly increased in many rural areas
over the past ten years, causing deaths and injuries. This is a particular problem in Gode Agropastoral,
Korahe Gode Pastoral, and Lowland Hawd Pastoral livelihood zones. Wild animals also destroy crops in
some zones, such as Korahe Agropastoral livelihood zone.
Malaria and other human diseases – Malaria is especially problematic in many of the agropastoral
lowland areas and the riverine zones, but it is a threat everywhere, creating additional stress on
expenditure budgets, losses in productivity and threats to human lives.
Poor access to markets: Poor market access is a problem in many of the zones, leading to deflated prices for locally produced commodities and high prices for goods and services that people need to buy. Afder Pastoral, Fik Pastoral and Korahe Gode Pastoral livelihood zones have chronic market access problems.
Crop pests and diseases – Crop production is undermined by crop pests and diseases in the agropastoral
and farming livelihood zones. These include stalk borer, weevils, Army worm (Spodoptera exempta), and
covered smut in Gode Agropastoral, Jijiga Agropastoral, Jijiga Sedentary Farming, Shinile Agropastoral,
and Shabelle Riverine livelihood zones.
Environmental degradation/deforestation/gully erosion – The landscape of many zones has been altered for the worse in recent years. In Harshin Degahbur Pastoral Livelihood Zone, trees and natural bush have been systematically cut down, transforming the landscape into extended open plains, with less browse for camels and goats and reduced shade for people. The rapid deforestation of this area, spurred on by the massive levels of charcoal production to feed the demand in Somalia, is leading to an environmental disaster. In Korahe Agropastoral Livelihood Zone, gully erosion increasingly funnels water into rivers and out of the livelihood zone, whereas this water once stayed in the livelihood zone.
Prosopis juliflora – The steady invasion of Prosopis juliflora, a mesquite tree (known as the ‘devil tree’ by pastoralists) which takes over grasslands and uses scarce water, is posing a threat to livelihoods in some areas, mentioned as a particular issue in the Korahe Agropastoral, Dawa-Ganale Riverine and Shabelle Riverine livelihood zones. This invasive tree forms impenetrable thickets around water points, with its many low branches and thorns, preventing livestock from reaching watering holes. Livestock that consume too much of the seed pods from this tree can be poisoned.
The main intermittent hazards mentioned by households throughout the region are listed below:
26
Drought – The lowland areas are more likely to experience drought than those higher up, but this threat
is relevant for all livelihood zones. On average a drought occurs once every four to five years. Although
households expect to face seasonal ups and downs, drought years are those in which back-to-back
below average seasonal rainfall occurs, causing households to move long distances to find water and
pasture for their animals, reducing milk production, increasing livestock mortality, and – in agropastoral
and farming areas – significantly reducing crop outputs.
Conflict – Recurrent inter-clan conflict driven by competition over natural resources (mainly water and
pasture) and inter-ethnic conflict – most notably between the Somali and Borana (Oromo) ethnic groups
to the west over territorial boundaries, undermine access to grazing areas and markets in some years.
Conflict and resulting insecurity were noted as concerns in Filtu-Dolo Pastoral, Degahbur Agropastoral,
Fik Psatoral, Harshin Degahbur Pastoral, Jijiga Agropastoral, Liban Agorpastoral, Lowland Hawd Pastoral
and Moyale Woyamo Pastoral livelihood zones.
Price shocks – Related to the issue of poor market integration and inadequate market infrastructure,
price shocks occur every few years, with the cost of imported food items rising and the price for local
livestock and agricultural produce dropping, resulting in disadvantageous terms of trade for local
households. Given the heavy dependence on market purchases almost everywhere in Somali Region,
this hazard has especially acute consequences when it occurs.
Border closures – Much of Somali Region is poorly integrated with the rest of Ethiopia, and highly
dependent on the income from exported livestock, as well as the household goods and food items that
are imported from Somalia and Kenya. Border closures and restrictions on cross-border trade can
seriously undermine local livelihoods. This is particularly the case in zones like Moyale Woyamo Pastoral
and Lowland Hawd Pastoral, which rely almost exclusively on cross-border trade, however, the demand
from Somalia and Kenya fuels the economy everywhere, and a breakdown in international trade has dire
consequences throughout the region, as was seen with the Gulf livestock import ban in 2001/2002.
Intermittent crop hazards – Frosts in Jijiga Agropastoral Livelihood Zone, and flooding in Shabelle
Riverine Livelihood Zone are intermittent hazards unique to these two areas.
Response (Coping) Strategies
Households engage in a number of strategies in response to bad years, when things like drought or conflict occur. These strategies are listed below:
Shifting expenditure away from more expensive foods (like rice and beans) and cutting out non-essential items in order to purchase cheaper staple food grains and other basics necessary for sustaining life and livelihoods is a common strategy for all households. This can free up extra cash to spend on basic food and livelihood needs.
27
Increasing livestock sales is a key coping strategy for all wealth groups during bad years. This is the most important coping strategy for all wealth groups but its effectiveness is determined by market conditions, which are not ideal in many zones, and which deteriorate rapidly in bad years. In addition, poorer households have fewer livestock to sell, and their capacity to retain a viable herd while at the same time covering their minimum requirements is limited.
Moving livestock to areas outside the livelihood zones where pasture and water conditions are better or away from conflict is common. Pastoralists commonly move livestock to areas with relatively better rains and hence better pasture and water availability. The first priority during bad years is to protect livestock from food and water stress deaths and secondly to reduce the impact of the hazard on milk production and livestock reproduction.
Increasing the collection and sale of firewood, charcoal and other bush products is common for poorer households. Poorer households, especially, increase the collection and sale of bush products like charcoal and firewood; but increasing supplies of these products tends to push prices down, reducing the effectiveness of this strategy.
Seeking gifts and loans (both financial and in-kind) from wealthier relatives, friends and neighbors is pursued by poorer households. The poor and some of the middle seek gifts and loans from their better off and middle relatives. In especially bad years better off households have less to give, thereby limiting the effectiveness of this option. Related to this, it is common to send children from poor households to wealthier relatives for stay during the bad year, helping reduce the strain on poor households.
Increasing livestock and petty trade is pursued by middle households, who may attempt to enter into livestock brokering and trade, and increase petty trade activities. Poor and middle households try to engage in petty trade activities like selling food items and milk in semi-urban areas. It is usually men who undertake this activity, splitting from the household and leaving the women and children behind while they attempt to generate cash in nearby urban and semi-urban markets.
Increasing the collection and consumption of wild foods is done wherever possible, but this does not result in a significant contribution to filling a calorie gap in most cases. People commonly collect and consume wild foods in bad years, but these tend to be low in caloric contribution, and the effectiveness of this strategy is very limited.
Seeking employment is another option pursued by poorer households. Young members of poor households may send one member to woreda or regional towns or to riverine areas to find work. These household members send back remittances to help support the family if they can find employment.
Postponing the use of berkads to the critical months is done to conserve water. In the event of poor rainfall performance, households in many livelihood zones try to delay the opening of the berkads for public consumption to months in which water scarcity is highest. This is done by exploiting temporary sources in the wet season and sending livestock to other places to reduce pressure on local water sources.
28
Community-funded water trucking takes place in some zones. This is done to reduce the trek between water and pasture areas in the late dry season, or during droughts, when these distances can double.
Digging of roots occurs in extreme situations. Herders dig the roots of certain plant species to maintain milk production, particularly of camels, which are often the only species capable of producing milk during a drought. These roots are known locally as andat, robis, rary and armo.
Slaughtering livestock for meat consumption occurs in situations where staple food prices are very high or there is difficulty in accessing food through the market.
Implications for Program Planning
The longer-term development priorities suggested below include those that were highlighted by the wealth group interviewees themselves and those made by the assessment team following detailed discussions and observations in the field. All of these suggestions require further detailed feasibility studies.
Improved animal health services: Livestock remain the economic backbone of this region and therefore have to be protected through establishing more rural service provision centers, training and supporting animal health workers, providing a regular supply of essential livestock drugs, combating the entry, distribution and usage of fake livestock drugs, and upgrading the knowledge of existing veterinary technicians.
Improved livestock and crop markets: Stabilizing and developing livestock markets is important for strengthening food and livelihood security for all wealth groups in all livelihood zones. Improving the condition of roads, transport and communication services, and the dissemination of market information would increase households’ ability to generate cash income. Establishing internationally recognized livestock certification bodies and facilities and signing bilateral agreements with countries importing livestock from Ethiopia would also contribute to this goal. Organizing farmers into marketing cooperatives that are licensed and have the capacity to negotiate prices formally and to link effectively with bigger traders could help improve producer prices.
Improved access to water: Water is a chronic problem in many livelihood zones, creating hardships for the all wealth groups. Access both in terms of quantity and quality can be improved through the construction of river-intake water schemes, boreholes in off-river areas and surface-water reservoirs in areas where ground water remains too saline or lies beyond the reach of local capacity.
Environmental protection and rangeland management: Deforestation, gully erosion, and rangeland degradation are growing problems throughout the region. Population growth, destructive economic practices, over-grazing, intense demand for charcoal and firewood, and other factors are at the root of this trend. Key strategies might include awareness raising, maintaining the traditional culture of wet and dry season grazing, locating water points strategically in areas where they will have the least negative impact on key rangelands, pasture re-seeding initiative including by aerial means, undertaking gully control measures like the construction of check-dams and river diversion, and
29
protecting forest resources through the use of targeted policy instruments and traditional enforcement.
Protecting people and livestock from wild animals: Measures aimed at protecting people and livestock from attacks by wild animals is required in a number of livelihood zones. Local administrations need to make this a priority.
Financial services: Increasing the availability of financial services like banks and credit-giving institutions would help pastoralist better manage their resources, providing more flexibility in terms of asset transfers and allowing them to accumulate wealth both on and off the hoof.
Diversification of livestock: Combining both nugul (cattle and sheep) with drought resistant species like camels helps reduce the risk of losing an entire herd. This strategy is employed by the better off and some of the middle households, but not the poor.
Linking livestock products with industrial processing: The market for livestock products like milk, ghee, meat, hides and skins should be promoted through encouraging more investment into industrial processing and quality improvement.
Introduction of dry land agricultural extension: Introducing crop technologies and techniques to increase production and diversify crops in the agropastoral zone could help improve food and cash income.
Expanded access to education: Education is essential for the many young people who are born into a pastoral system that may be increasingly threatened in the near future given the mounting frequency and severity of drought events due to climate change. There is a pressing need to develop the minds and capacities of young people in this region so they can better adapt to changes in the future.
Improved human health services: Poor access to health services limits human productivity by reducing working hours and undermining the capacity of economically active members of households. The problem of malaria is particularly acute in lowland and riverine areas. Increasing the coverage of health services to remote rural areas should be seen as a priority.
Rehabilitation of pastoral ‘drop-outs’: The presence of pastoral drop-outs poses a big challenge for the region. Desperately poor, these households who have lost their herds increase deforestation (overexploiting firewood and charcoal sales), raise the levels of urban unemployment and end up begging in the streets of local towns. Because this region is located along a volatile international border where terrorist groups operate, a high risk of exploitation exists, with the disaffected, poor readily recruited in exchange for economic benefits. Rehabilitation in the form of skills development and training, job creation, and provision of productive assets is critical.
Strengthen conflict prevention and mitigation: Strengthening the role of the guurti (traditional leadership), complemented with other legal enforcement mechanisms may help improve the security situation in the region.
Timely response during emergencies: With timely responses to humanitarian crises, local communities can avoid the worst outcomes of droughts, maintaining their asset base and bouncing
30
back quickly from bad years. Early contingency and response plans, logical trigger mechanisms tied to the reality of people on the ground, and the release of humanitarian funds in time to help people make it through the worst months of a bad year are essential components of an effective response system.
Improve local grain storage facilities: Developing a regional network of grain storage facilities that can help reduce seasonal price fluctuations would protect pastoral incomes.
Curbing the spread of Prosopis juliflora: This predatory plant has displaced natural vegetation and is causing considerable damage to a number of zones. Its seed spreads rapidly through cattle and donkey dung, run-off, floods, and wind and can grow opportunistically in even harsh, dry environments. It is also difficult to clear and control once it grows. A concerted and collective effort on the part of the government, the public and NGOs is required.
CHANGES OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS
With two previous HEA baselines on hand, one based on a reference year from 1996/1997 and one from
2004/2005, we are now in a position to make some preliminary statements about what has changed
over the years. We can compare the baseline results from these previous datasets to the current
2013/14 reference year results, and we can also take a look at changes in rainfall over the past few
decades to help put the current reference year in context. This, combined with reports on changes in
the natural resource base and new emerging threats can help indicate what the next five years might
have in store.
Rainfall trends
Rainfall in this mostly lowland region is variable at best. The graphic below shows rainfall anomalies for
the region, taking the average across all livelihood zones, with 100% being the ten-year average
(2004/05 – 2013/14) and departures from this average shown as bars above or below this baseline on
the graph. Each season is shown as a separate bar. For example, in the first season of 2001, rainfall
levels for the region as a whole were only around 39% of the 10-year average; in the next season they
were 51% of the average. On the other hand, the first season in 2010 saw rainfall levels were 161% of
the 10-year average followed by a season in which rains were 61% of average. This pattern of ups and
downs is part of a normal and expected seasonal variation, and it is one to which pastoralists have
generally become well-adapted, although the unusual drought, such as 2001/2002, can still cause
terrible consequences.
If we take a closer look at Figure 26 we can see that from 1996 – 2005 (inclusive) there were 20 seasons.
Of these, 3 seasons were especially bad, with rainfall 50% or less of the 10-year average. Eight seasons
were below average, (64 - 84% of average rainfall); in 9 seasons rainfall was at or above the 10 year
average, with 2 of these seeing very high rainfall (146 - 238%). The worst seasons were 2001 (both the
gu and deyr were well below average - 39% and 51%, respectively, resulting in a severe food crisis
throughout the region) and the 2005 deyr (50%). The highest rainfall occurred in the 1996 gu (146%) and
1997 deyr (238%).
31
Average rainfall anomalies for Somali Region over the last 16 years (38 seasons) based on RFE
Source of rainfall estimates (RFE): USGS
Analysis: Mark Lawrence, FEG
Figure 26. Average rainfall anomalies over the last 16 years
Over the last nine years, from 2006 - 2014 (inclusive) there were 18 seasons. Of these, none was as bad
as 2001 or 2005, however 7 were below average (63 - 85% of average), and a number of these below
average seasons were sequential (2010 deyr, followed by 2011 gu; and the 2012 gu and 2012 deyr). Of
these 18 seasons, 4 were well above average (124 - 178% of average). Within the region there were
some bad seasons in specific livelihood zones; for example, the 2008 gu season in HDP, the 2009 gu
season in LHP, and the 2010 deyr season in a number of zones were well below average. However,
overall the last 10 years have seen much better rainfall than the previous decade. This trend, captured in
the graphics below, highlights even higher rainfall over the past five years.
Average Annual Rainfall Anomaly, Somali Region, Ethiopia
10-year Avg (2005-2014) against Historical Avg (1981 – 2005)
Average Annual Rainfall Anomaly, Somali Region, Ethiopia
5-year Avg (2010-2014) against Historical Avg (1981 – 2005)
Source: USGS, Analysis by James Rowland
Figure 27. Average Annual Rainfall Anomaly, 10-year and 5-year average
32
Changes in household herd sizes
The nature of a pastoral livelihood system is that it only exists because it is able to accommodate shocks.
It fits into an environment where it has to adapt continuously to changing rainfall and resource levels.
One year there is plenty; the next there is dearth. The pattern of expansion and contraction of herds
responds to the fluctuating resource base. On a per household basis, one doesn’t actually expect to see
a trend of increasing livestock over time, but rather an undulating wave of ups and downs.
What one does expect to see is an increase in the population – and to that extent, the question
becomes to what extent the market is able to add value to each livestock unit – because an increasing
population can only be supported by a herd that continues to grow in value – especially given the ups
and downs of the rainfall situation. In order to remain a viable pastoralist, you need a certain minimum
number of livestock. Once you no longer have that, you either become an agro-pastoralist or a settled
farmer or you move to an urban area and try your luck with other options.
Having said that, as shown in the rainfall analysis above, the last ten years have not been bad in terms of
rainfall. In fact, the 2015 HEA baseline update took place at a time of relatively good extended rainfall.
This has – with some exceptions – especially been the case in the past five years.
Figure 28. Select changes in household herd size in the last decade
With the HEA baseline data we have three points in time, but there is no way of knowing whether a
change from point A to C represents a consistent decline or increase or just one point along a fluctuating
33
line. All we can say is that, based on what was reported in the field, herds per household have increased
or declined, but these changes should not be seen as representative of a trend. In each of the livelihood
zone profiles, more details are provided about changes in household assets. Here we provide a brief
overview of the changes. Overall, herd sizes in many zones increased over the past ten years, although
there are many exceptions to this. Camels have become more important and are kept in relatively large
numbers in all pastoral zones now. Cattle are increasingly important in agro-pastoral zones, where
people take advantage of crop residues to feed their livestock. In some cases, these changes in herd size
have to do with market conditions and a shifting profit calculation, rather than rainfall and pasture
conditions. For a more detailed record of changes in household herd sizes, please see Annex 3. Asset
comparison over three HEA baselines.
Changes in area cultivated and agricultural production
Over the past ten years households have increased the area they are cultivating in three of the four
agropastoral livelihood zones, including Degahbur Agropastoral (especially for poor and middle
households), Gode Agropastoral (especially for middle and better off households), and Shinile
Agropastoral livelihood zones. In the Liban Agropastoral Livelihood Zone the story is mixed, with the
better off households increasing the area under cultivation, but middle and poorer households
cultivating less. In Korahe Agropastoral Livelihood Zone all wealth groups are cultivating less than they
did ten years ago, perhaps due to the encroachment of Prosopis juliflora into agricultural land as well as
the decreasing extent of the flood plains as a result of the deepening river course.
In the two farming zones the story is mixed; there were very large increases in area cultivated in the
Jijiga Sedentary Farming (JSF) Livelihood Zone, but in the Shabelle Riverine zone there was a general
decline in area cultivated, except among the better off. Wheat production in Jijiga Sedentary Farming
Livelihood Zone has increased more than five-fold in the last four to five years due to an expansion of
mechanized agriculture, funded by investors from urban areas who rent large tracts of land for periods
of five to twenty years. This development of large scale commercial farming, which has taken over many
areas that traditionally served as grazing areas for livestock, may begin to undermine the capacity of
local households to keep livestock in the future. Urban investors are buying up land in the Jijiga
Agropastoral Livelihood Zone, and in the last five years an increasing amount of land is being sold to
those outside the traditional lineage circle. In the best case scenario, the influx of new people and
money will lead to more investment and increased production potential, and a gradual transfer of
knowledge. The worst case scenario, however, is that a new population of diaspora and urban elite
entering a rural economy where the population density is already high will sow the seeds of future
conflict over land, resources and the rights of sub-clan and clan entities.
Changes in market conditions
Market conditions in many areas have benefited from the construction of the asphalt road from Jijiga to
Gode which traverses key towns such as Kebridahar, Degahbur and Birkod. This has led to the growing
34
capacity and importance of the Gode and Degahbur markets in particular. In recent years, the Jigjiga
market benefited from a number of improvements, including: a steady increase in the number of
licensed traders involved in import-export activities, close proximity to the border, the burgeoning
financial capacity of traders, linkages with other zones through an asphalt road that connects to Berbera
and other zones of the region; the development of telecommunication and various banking services;
and an increasing population of consumers.
Tougher restrictions on unlicensed cross-border trade in recent years, the volatile security situation in
Somalia with the growth of Al-Shabaab, and the development of an asphalt road between Jigjiga and
Gode town have changed the trade routes for imported food and non-food items in some of the
southern zones. Five years ago, most goods were coming across what was - at the time - a highly porous
border with Somalia; but today most goods come through a single route (Wajale-Jigjiga) via licensed
traders and associations. From Gode market goods are distributed onward throughout the southern
livelihood zones. On the Somalia side, products which used to flow smoothly across the border to
markets like Beletweyne and Mogadishu are now less likely to be transported due to the changing
security situation at the border. Trade routes for livestock have shifted to Gode-Degahbur, from which
most are exported to Somaliland through Wajale or taken directly to Hargeisa.
Future considerations
Oil and gas exploration is slated to take place in the near future in Somali Region and it is likely to affect
pastoralists’ mobility, access to seasonal grazing and watering areas, and their settlement patterns,
particularly if oil or gas is discovered, as this will lead to the creation of inaccessible buffer zones to
protect installations. The livelihood zones most likely to be affected by this development are Korahe
Gode Pastoral, Afder Pastoral, Korahe Agropastoral and Degahbur Agropastoral livelihood zones.
Another major regional issue is the rate of deforestation due to charcoal production and firewood sales.
This is a particular problem in Filtu-Dolo Pastoral and Dawa-Ganale Riverine livelihood zones, where the
presence of the huge refugee camp in Dolo Ado Woreda places an increased strain on local resources.
The availability of fodder and browse has been severely diminished as a result.
35
ANNEX 1. POPULATION BY LIVELIHOOD ZONE
Pastoral Livelihood Zones
Woreda Livelihood Zone
SHP
Afdem 68,242
Aysha’a 61,241
Denbel 33,528
Erer 63,461
Mulo 69,030
Shinile 80,842
Hadhagaala 50,400
TOTAL 426,743
HDP
Aware 97,068
Daroor 51,000
Yocaale 49,145
Gunagado 95,918
Degahbur 31,295
Birqod 15,660
Araarso 16,500
Gashamo 108,076
Harshin 79,160
TOTAL 543,821
FKP
Degahmado 27,886
Duhun 23,701
Fik 115,102
Gol Janno 39,200
Qubi 45,415
Garbo 42,464
Hamero 68,643
Segag 20,246
TOTAL 382,658
Woreda Livelihood Zone
Woreda LHP
Bookh 114,600
Danod 56,212
Geladi 108,225
Warder 59,558
Daratoole 49,210
Dhoboweyn 29,608
Kabridahar 52,136
Marsin 25,981
Shilabo 64,192
Ferfer 14,223
TOTAL 573,944
KGP
Dhoboweyn 14,804
Kabridahar 26,068
Marsin 12,991
Sheykosh 38,318
Dhanan 12,919
Imaybari 12,875
Gode 28,378
Beercaano 20,343
Kallafo 8,080
Mustahil 5,271
TOTAL 180,047
AFP
Bare 88,173
Weyib 81,548
Dollo Bay 56,357
Serer 20,476
Gorro Bakeksa 34,504
Guradamole 20,721
Qarsadula 43,017
Afker 70,428
Imaygalbed 12,261
Raaso 12,386
Adadle 61,530
TOTAL 501,400
36
Pastoral Livelihood Zones - continued
Woreda Livelihood Zone
FDP
Dollo Ado 27,167
Filtu 115,268
Dheka Suftu 38,372
TOTAL 180,806
Woreda Livelihood Zone
MWP
Huddet 47,240
Moyale 279,365
Mubaarak 51,462
TOTAL 378,067
Agropastoral Livelihood Zones
Woreda Livelihood Zone
SAP
Denbel 50,291
Erer 15,865
Mulo 17,258
Shinile 20,210
Hadhagaala 12,600
TOTAL 116,225
JAP
Awbare 219,593
Babile 92,933
Gursum 29,992
Harshin 8,796
Jig-jiga 18,532
Tuli Guuleed 5,634
Kebri-Beyah 171,049
TOTAL 546,529
KAP
Dhoboweyn 29,608
Kabridahar 52,136
Marsin 25,981
Sheykosh 16,422
TOTAL 124,146
LAP
Bare 15,560
Dollo Bay 9,393
Serer 47,778
Gorro Bakeksa 23,002
Guradamole 2,302
Qarsadula 4,780
Dollo Ado 9,056
Filtu 30,738
Dheka Suftu 10,232
Moyale 31,041
Mubaarak 5,718
TOTAL 189,600
Woreda Livelihood Zone
DAP
Gunagado 31,973
Degahbur 73,021
Birqod 36,540
Araarso 38,500
Degahmado 41,829
Fik 28,776
Gol Janno 9,800
Qubi 11,354
TOTAL 271,791
GAP
Duhun 4,183
Garbo 4,718
Hamero 3,613
Segag 3,573
Adadle 23,666
Dhanan 8,613
Imaybari 12,875
Ferfer 8,127
Gode 32,432
Beercaano 23,250
Kallafo 16,161
Mustahil 10,541
TOTAL 151,750
Farming Livelihood Zones
Woreda Livelihood Zone
JSF
Awbare 146,395
Jig-jiga 166,790
Tuli Guuleed 50,706
TOTAL 363,891
SHR
Adadle 9,466
37
Imaybari 60,082
Ferfer 18,286
Gode 20,270
Beercaano 14,531
Kallafo 56,562
Mustahil 36,893
Imaygalbed 36,782
Raaso 37,157
TOTAL 290,030
DGR
Weyib 27,183
Dollo Bay 28,179
Afker 17,607
Dollo Ado 54,335
Filtu 7,685
Dheka Suftu 2,558
TOTAL 137,546
38
ANNEX 2. THE HOUSEHOLD ECONOMY ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY
Uses of HEA Baselines and the Livelihood Profiles
The livelihood profiles presented here offer an analysis of livelihoods and food security on a
geographical basis. A portion of southern Bangladesh was divided into homogeneous zones defined
according to a livelihoods framework. A description of two of these zones is provided here, including an
analysis of the position of different wealth groups within the zones. It is envisaged that this product will
be useful on three levels, as follows.
a) An Introductory Guide to Food Security and Livelihood Patterns in the Five Livelihood Zones
The profiles should form a useful briefing for a newcomer to these areas who needs to get a grasp of
food security conditions. Development planners can also benefit from using the livelihood profiles. One
objective of development is to reduce people’s vulnerability to hazards and to increase their capacity to
cope. An important first step is to understand who is vulnerable, to which hazards, and why. Likewise,
efforts to reduce poverty require an understanding of how the poorest households normally survive in
different areas and the reasons for their poverty.
b) Early Warning and Food Security Monitoring Most early warning and food security monitoring systems draw heavily from two information sources: (i)
crop and/or livestock production data, and (ii) market price information. Given the predominance of
production data, local food security is often equated with production outcomes. Hence, a chronic or
temporary production shortfall is immediately translated into chronic or temporary food insecurity.
This is almost never the whole story. A full account of the household economy includes both what food
people produce, and what cash people earn to purchase food and other essential items. Thus, data on
casual employment or self-employment or charity from relatives or the sale of handicrafts may be
equally important to the livelihood story as data on crop and livestock production. The HEA baseline
information can therefore be used to identify a fuller set of appropriate key indicators for monitoring.
Using a baseline livelihood profile, we can explore household capacity to adapt to economic stress,
especially failed crop or livestock production; and we can appreciate household activities at different
periods in the yearly cycle. All of this feeds directly into our analysis of need, helping to answer key
questions such as: which areas and what types of household are likely to cope should a hazard strike and
which will need assistance? What types of intervention will be most appropriate, and when and for how
long should they be implemented? All of this is done through modeling scenarios and understanding
their potential impact on households.
39
Thus, for instance, one could point to the position of poor households in a given geographical area who
are highly dependent on charcoal sales. If charcoal sales are outlawed (and the law is enforced), their
income will be dramatically reduced: can they find alternative income elsewhere – and will they be
competing with people from other zones in these activities?
c) Policy Development and Advocacy Disaster management has been the main impetus to the spread of early warning systems. The rationale
in early warning is to improve the efficiency in the scale and timing of emergency assistance. However,
increasingly planners are looking at alternatives to food aid in early emergency intervention - and this
often requires changes in policy and practice. A case in point is the stabilization of market prices for
basic foods. Livelihoods analysis can expose the likely effects of such interventions on different
households’ capacity to survive a crisis. The analysis can also recommend the optimum timing for
intervention.
Livelihood analysis can also be applied to other policy changes. For example, if government taxes on
trading of a cash crop were reduced, or new charges were made for government veterinary drugs, what
would be the impact on households? More generally, the household viewpoint offers a more secure
footing for looking at the increasingly voluminous discussion of poverty alleviation and safety nets. HEA
baselines can be used to measure the impact of response programs or policy changes on household
economies. It is particularly relevant to assess effectiveness and appropriateness. Of particular
relevance for decision-making, it enables ranking of needs and comparison of populations.
d) Content of the Livelihood Zone Profiles
The profiles are divided into a number of sections:
Zone Description offers a general description of local livelihood patterns (livestock rearing, crop
production, off-farm income generation etc.).
Markets contains basic information on the marketing of local production and on any
importation of staple food into the zone.
The Reference Year section explains the one-year period for which information has been
gathered in each livelihood zone.
Seasonal Calendar sets out the timing of key activities during the year. This is useful in a variety
of ways, e.g. to judge the likely impact of a hazard according to its timing during the year, or to
assess whether a particular activity is being undertaken at the normal time in the current year.
This is followed by four sections that provide the core information on the ‘Household Economy’ of the
zone.
40
The Wealth Breakdown section describes four main wealth groups (‘very poor’, ‘poor’, ‘middle’
and ‘better-off’), explaining the differences between these groups and how this affects potential
access to food and cash income.
The Sources of Food and Sources of Cash sections examine patterns of food and income access at
each level of wealth, relating these to the characteristics of each group. An annual picture is
presented, with food expressed as a percentage of 2100 kcals per person per day. The Sources of
Food section also contains production data (by kg or liter) for the main crops and, where relevant,
milk, to provide another set of information by which to understand households’ production
potential. The sources of cash income are presented in absolute Bangladesh Taka earned per
year. The Expenditure Patterns section is of interest in showing what proportion of their annual
cash budget households at the different wealth levels spend on food, on household items, on
production inputs, etc.
The section on Hazards provides information on the different types of hazard that affect the zone,
differentiated by wealth group where this is appropriate.
Response Strategies describe the various strategies available to different types of household in
the zone, together with a judgment of the likely effectiveness of the strategies.
The section Key Parameters for Monitoring suggests the key indicators to monitor in each
livelihood zone, based upon an understanding of local livelihood patterns.
The final section, Program Implications, outlines some ideas for longer-term programming.
The Household Economy Approach & Field Methodology3
A livelihood is the sum of ways in which households make ends meet from year to year, and how they
survive (or fail to survive) through difficult times. There is increasing interest in using livelihoods analysis
as the lens through which to view a number of subjects. These subjects range from emergency response
to disaster mitigation to longer-term development. The interest rests upon two basic observations:
Information about a given area or community can only be properly interpreted if it is seen against the
context of how people live.
Interventions can only be designed in ways appropriate to local circumstances if the planner knows
about local livelihoods and whether or not a proposed intervention will build upon or undermine
existing strategies.
3 For a more detailed description of the HEA field methodology, please refer to Chapter 3 of The Practitioners’ Guide to the Household Economy Approach, Boudreau, T. et al, The Food Economy Group (FEG) and Save the Children UK, 2008. The guide is available at: http://www.feg-consulting.com/resource/practitioners-guide-to-hea
41
The profiles in this report describe the major characteristics of two livelihood zones in southern
Bangladesh. The information for these profiles was gathered using the Household Economy Approach.
The remainder of this section explains some of the terms used in HEA and throughout the report.
Livelihood Zone: A livelihood zone is an area within which people share
broadly the same patterns of access to food (i.e. they grow the same
crops, keep the same types of livestock, etc.). They also share broadly
the same access to markets. Patterns of livelihood clearly vary from one
area to another. Local factors such as climate, soil, access to markets,
etc. all influence livelihood patterns. The first step in a Household Economy Analysis is therefore to
prepare a livelihood zone map. This map delineates geographical areas within which people share
basically the same patterns of access to food and have the same access to markets. A rapid livelihood
zoning was conducted before the HEA Baseline Training in Bangladesh. The initial results of this exercise
are presented in the first part of the next section (Overview of the Livelihood Zones).
Wealth Breakdown: Where a household lives is one factor determining
its options for obtaining food and generating income. Another factor is
wealth, since this is the major influence on that household’s ability to
exploit the available options within a given zone. It is obvious, for
example, that better off households owning larger farms will in general
produce more crops and be more food secure than their poorer neighbors. Land is just one aspect of
wealth, however, and wealth groups are typically defined in terms of their land holdings, livestock
holdings, capital, education, skills, labor availability and/or social capital. Defining the different wealth
groups in each zone is the second step in a Household Economy Analysis, the output from which is a
wealth breakdown4. For the purpose of this assessment, a household was defined as people eating from
the same pot and also sharing the same resources. The wealth breakdown information can be found in
each of the individual profiles as well as the Baseline Storage Spreadsheet (BSS).
Quantification of Livelihood Strategies: Having grouped households
according to where they live and their wealth, the next step is to
generate quantified Household Economy baseline information for typical
households in each group for a defined reference or baseline year. Food
access is determined by investigating the sum of ways households obtain
food – what food they grow, gather or receive as gifts, how much food they buy, how much cash income
is earned in a year, and what other essential needs must be met with the income earned. A central
aspect to HEA is that quantification takes place by converting all food and cash sources to a standard
measure, represented in relation to minimum calorie requirements for a household for the year. The
4 It is important to bear in mind for this analysis that we are thinking of wealth in relative (and local) terms. Statistical data may
indicate that 80% or even 90% of the population in a particular area lives below the national poverty line, but this is measuring poverty on a national, absolute scale. In a livelihoods analysis we are interested in understanding the differences in the ways that people within a livelihood zone obtain access to food and cash income and the reasons for these – in which case it is not particularly useful to lump 80% or 90% of the population together into one group, especially if there are differences in terms of food and cash income access within that larger group.
42
graph below illustrates this point. By converting to a common currency, we are able to compare food
access across wealth groups, livelihood zones, and even countries.
Household Response (or Coping) Strategies: Once this baseline is established, an analysis can be made
of the likely impact of a shock or hazard in a bad year. This is done by assessing how food access will be
affected by a shock, what other food sources can be added or expanded to make up initial shortages,
and what final deficits emerge.5
Outcome Analysis: There is a basic principle underlying the Household Economy Approach which states
that: an analysis of local livelihoods is essential for a proper understanding of the impact – at household
level – of hazards such as drought or conflict or market dislocation. Total crop failure may, for example,
leave one group of households destitute because the failed crop is their only source of staple food.
Another group, by contrast, may be able to cope because they have alternative food and income
sources. These alternative sources – such as livestock to sell or relatives elsewhere who can assist – can
make up the production shortfall. Thus, effective hazard impact assessments must be based on
livelihood analysis, and livelihood analysis itself involves several steps.
The objective of Outcome Analysis is to investigate the effects of a hazard on future access to food and
income, so that decisions can be taken early on about the most appropriate types of intervention to
implement. The rationale behind the approach is that a good understanding of how people have
survived in the past provides a sound basis for projecting into the future. Three types of information are
combined: (i) information on baseline access, (ii) information on hazard (i.e. factors affecting access to
food/income, such as own production or market prices) and (iii) information on response strategies (i.e.
the sources of food and income that people turn to when exposed to a hazard). The approach can be
summarized as follows:
Baseline + Hazard + Response = Outcome
5 The term response strategy is preferred to coping strategy for two reasons. Firstly, the term coping strategy is often used to refer to regular components of everyday livelihood (e.g. firewood sale), which strictly speaking are only coping strategies when intensified in response to a hazard. Secondly, ‘coping’ can be taken to imply that the strategy in question is cost-free, which is not always the case.
43
Furthermore, in order to determine whether the total income after coping is sufficient to meet needs, it
is necessary to define what those needs are. In HEA there are two thresholds that are used for this
purpose. The first is the Survival Threshold. This represents the costs to cover minimum survival
requirements, including minimum food (2100 calories per person per day), water (if purchased in the
zone) and the means to prepare food. If people cannot meet the Survival Threshold, their lives are at
risk. This threshold is fairly standard across livelihood zones with the exception of water, which is often
not purchased but collected. The second threshold is the Livelihoods Protection Threshold, which
includes the cost of both survival (as just discussed) as well as basic education, health, productive inputs
and minimum household items purchased in an average year. This threshold will vary across livelihood
zones and wealth groups because of differences in production costs (e.g. a wealthy pastoralist with 100
cattle will have very different input requirements than a poor household living in a cropping area.) The
Livelihoods Protection Threshold is the standard threshold used to determine whether humanitarian
assistance is required. If households cannot cover these costs an intervention to protect livelihoods
(which is crucial for next year’s survival) should be launched.
44
The idea is that once the baselines have been compiled they can be used repeatedly for this type of
Outcome Analysis over a number of years until significant changes in the underlying economy render
them invalid. A good HEA baseline will generally be valid for between 5 and 10 years. What varies is the
prevailing level of food security, but this is a function of variations in hazard, not variations in the
baseline. Put another way, the level of crop or livestock production may vary from year to year (hazard),
but the underlying pattern of production (the baseline) does not usually change very rapidly.
45
ANNEX 3. ASSET COMPARISON OVER THREE HEA BASELINES
AFP poor middle better off
2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015
% of hh 40 40 36 50 50 44 10 10 20
hh size 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 8.5 9
camels 7 4 5 17 35 20 45 70 40
cattle 5 8 3 12 15 6 25 40 15
shoats 25 29 21 60 70 50 90 150 68
donkeys 1 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 1.5 0 2
DAP poor middle better off
2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015
% of hh 30 35 34 50 45 46 20 20 20
hh size 7 7.5 7 8 8.5 9 9 9.5 11
area cultivated 0.5 0.55 0.75 0.9 1.25 1.5 1.4 1.9 2
camels 0 1 3 17.5 22.5 21 35 42.5 40
cattle 6.5 3.5 4 25 13.5 11 50 29 20
shoats 20 50 44 50 70 89 90 110 125
donkeys 1.5 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 1 2
DGR poor middle better off
2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015
% of hh 50 30 29 35 35 30 15 15 20
hh size 7 7 6 7 10
area cultivated 2.3 1.25 1.5 3.25 2 3 5.3 2 4
camels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cattle 2 2.5 2.5 5 7 7 3.5 13.5 10
shoats 5 22 6 25 35 25 65 60 38
donkeys 0.5 1 1 1.5 2 2 2 0 3
FDP poor middle better off
2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015
% of hh 30 35 27 50 45 38 20 20 16
hh size 7 7.5 6 8 9 8 8 11 9
camels 7.5 10 5 20 30 16 45 50 30
cattle 4.5 6 5 17.5 20 11 35 25 21
shoats 30 38 24 65 82 53 130 144 85
donkeys 1 2 2.5
FKP poor middle better off
2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015
46
% of hh 35 40 35 50 45 45 15 15 20
hh size 8 7 7 8 8 8 8 10 10
camels 7.5 5 4 25 30 24 50 62.5 47
cattle 3 5 3 10 10 6 20 15 13
goats 35 40 37 70 74 90 130 170 123
donkeys 1 2 2.5
GAP poor middle better off
2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015
% of hh 25 35 26 50 45 53 25 20 21
hh size 7 7 7 7 7 8 10.5 10 10
area cultivated 0.66 0.5 0.5 0.66 0.75 1 1.25 1 1.5
camels 0 2.5 3 0 19 19 10 20 38
cattle 12.5 6 6 60 15 20 95 35 38
shoats 45 25 40 120 65 80 250 115 125
donkeys 1.5 1.5 1 2 2.5 2 2.5 2.5 4
HDP
poor
middle
better off
2005 2015 2005 2015 2005 2015
% of hh 32.5 32 50 48 17.5 20
hh size 6 6.5 8 8 9 10
camels 2.5 4 20 20 40 42
cattle 1.5 2 5 5 5 12
goats 35 48 90 86 160 170
donkeys 2 1 1.5 2
JAP
poor
middle
better off
2005 2015 2005 2015 2005 2015
% of hh 40 27.5 45 52.5 15 20
hh size 6 6.5 7 8.5 10 11
area cultivated 0.9 1.5 2.1
camels 0 0 6 4 18 8.4
cattle 3 4 11 8 17 14
shoats 8 15 24 29 45 44
donkeys 1 1 1 1 1 2
JSF poor middle better off
2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015
% of hh 25 30 26 50 45 50 25 25 24
hh size 6 6 6 6 6 8 7 7 10
area cultivated 1.5 1 2 3 2 3.6 5.5 3 5.8
camels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cattle 1.5 2 1.5 5 8 5.5 10 9 9.5
47
shoats 3 3 7 7 12 14.5 12 18 22
donkeys 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
KAP poor middle better off
2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015
% of hh 31 31 35 52 50 45 17 20 20
hh size 7 7 7 9 9 9 11 11 10
area cultivated 0.5 0.5 0.215 0.75 1.3 0.23 1 2.3 0.27
camels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cattle 4 3 8 10 7 20 20 11 32
shoats 24 17 36 44 30 65 60 40 93
donkeys 1 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 2.5 3 2.5
KGP poor middle better off
2005 2015
2005 2015
2005 2015
% of hh 35 27 45 51 20 22
hh size 7 7 9 8 11 9.5
camels 5 7 17 25 32.5 50
cattle 6 6 13 11 29 21
shoats 40 48 72 100 120 170
donkeys 1 1 0 2.5 0 3.5
LAP poor middle better off
2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015
% of hh 30 35 25 50 45 40 20 20 16
hh size 6 6.5 6 7 7.5 7 9 10.5 9
area cultivated 0 0.75 0.35 0.75 1.5 0.7 1.15 1.5 1.2
camels 3.5 5.5 3 12.5 12.5 10 32.5 30 21
cattle 3.5 5 4 11 17.5 11 25 20 19
shoats 12 30 25 25 50 48 85 80 69
donkeys 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 2 2
LHP poor middle better off
2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015
% of hh 30 37.5 35 47 40 45 23 22.5 20
hh size 6 7 7 8 9 8 9.5 10 10
camels 8.5 11 7 47.5 52.5 23 85 47.5 50
cattle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
shoats 145 75 54 110 140 106 150 194 132
donkeys 1.5 1 1 1 1 1.5 0 1 2
MWP poor middle better off
2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015
48
% of hh 30 35 27 55 50 38 15 15 15
hh size 6 7.5 7 8.5 8.5 8 11.5 10.5 10
camels 11 7.5 5 30 20 13 65 40 25
cattle 11.5 7 5 27.5 15 11 1 27.5 18
shoats 20 30 28 55 40 44 95 65 63
donkeys 1 0 1 1 1.5 1 2.5
SAP poor middle better off
2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015
% of hh 30 35 31 50 45 51 20 20 18
hh size 6 6.5 6.5 6 7 8 6 9 11
area cultivated 0.5 0.7 0.65 0.8 1.2 1.25 1 1.4 1.5
camels 1 0 0 3.5 7 3.5 7.5 10 10
cattle 3.5 2.5 3 7.5 7 6 11.5 15 11
goats 7 7 18 15 25 40 25 110 66
donkeys 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 2.5
SHR poor middle better off
2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015
% of hh 35 40 25 48 45 44 17 15 15
hh size 7 7.5 7 6 8.5 8 8 10 10
area cultivated 0.75 0.75 0.8 2.25 1 1.5 3.5 2 2
camels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cattle 2 4 5 4 8 11 8.5 12.5 21
shoats 7 7 14.5 13 13 33 20 20 60
donkeys 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.5 3.5 2
SHP poor middle better off
2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015 2000 2005 2015
% of hh 30 26 48 54 22 20
hh size 7 6 10 7.5 16 10
camels 5 4 1 12.5 13 7.5 33 30 15
cattle 10 4 5 25 9 9 60 20 12
goats 25 40 24 85 85 58 174 150 133
donkeys 2 1.5 1 3 2.5 1.5 3 2.5 2.5