Is pastoralism a viable livelihood option?

Debates about the future of pastoralism are re-emerging in the Greater Horn of Africa. Are there too many people and too few livestock? Should pastoralists pursue alternative market-based livelihoods, or can better policies help to maintain pastoral systems?

Pressure on pastoral livelihoods in the Greater Horn of Africa (GHA) has been increasing. Challenges include weather-related crises (such as drought or floods), conflict, livestock disease, disrupted access to markets and the loss of grazing land to agriculture. These problems leave many communities dependent on food aid and other relief.

Too many people, too few livestock

Some researchers argue that pastoralists need a certain number of animals per person to meet income and nutritional needs. As the human population in the GHA is growing at 2.5 percent each year, more animals are needed. However, herd sizes are limited by the amount of forage available and the loss of grazing land to other uses.

This argument concludes:

• There is an urgent need to reduce the number of people dependent on pastoralism. An 'exit' from pastoralism may be a good option for many.
• There is greater potential to increase the productivity of rainfed and irrigated agriculture than fodder and rangelands, making farming a better option than pastoralism.
• Diversified income-generating activities are needed, making at least some part of people's livelihoods not dependent on rainfall.

New challenges, new livelihoods

But is this argument too pessimistic? In some purely pastoral systems, there may be a minimum viable herd or flock size. However, this assumes a closed, isolated system; in reality, pastoral viability depends on wider economic and livelihood conditions, as well as mobility patterns. Today, many pastoralists across the GHA combine livestock keeping with agriculture and trade, and many also receive money from relatives living overseas. Assessments of 'viability' based simply on people to livestock ratios are therefore inappropriate.

Many pastoralists today combine livestock keeping with agriculture and trade, and many also receive money from relatives living overseas

'Traditional' semi-nomadic pastoral livelihoods are increasingly difficult, and alternative options are clearly needed. Abandoning pastoralism will be necessary for some, but often with a view to re-establishing a pastoral livelihood in the future. The key is to ensure that exiting from pastoralism does not increase poverty or destitution. Options include:

• Commercialisation: pastoralists can make more money from their existing herds, for example by exploiting local trade and export opportunities. This requires extra inputs (particularly veterinary care) that may only be available to a few.
• Diversification: pursuing different income-generating activities can reduce the number of livestock a family needs. These can be related to pastoralism (such as trading in livestock by-products) or separate (such as selling clothes or charcoal).

The future for pastoralism

Questioning the viability of pastoralism and suggesting its abandonment may be an argument used by governments who are suspicious of pastoralists. But talk of a crisis should urge constructive action, not pessimism, and should recognise the many options available to pastoralists.

Revitalising pastoral economies requires further support to encourage commercialisation and diversification. Policies should aim to increase income-earning options (for example through education) and remove the constraints that prevent pastoralists from fulfilling their undoubted economic potential.

Ian Scoones
Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Falmer, BN1 9RE, UK
T +44 1273 606261
F +44 1273 621202
i.scoones@ids.ac.uk