This publication was made possible through support provided by the Office of Agriculture and Food Security, Global Bureau, United States Agency for
International Development, under Grant No. DAN-1328-G-00-0046-00. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
                                                        Contents

Background and Purpose of Workshop

Session 1: Opening of Workshop and Overview of Goals

Opening of Workshop by Ato Retta Badada

Overview of the GL-CRSP and Goals for this Workshop by Dr. Layne Coppock

Pastoral Development in Northern Kenya by Mr. Vincent Lelei

Pastoral Development in Southern Ethiopia by Dr. Tafesse Mesfin

Session 2: Research and Training, Phase I Review

Risk Mapping for Northern Kenya and Southern Ethiopia by Dr. Kevin Smith et al.

Cattle Herd Dynamics and Need for Asset Diversification Among the
Boran of Southern Ethiopia by Dr. Solomon Desta et al.

Sources of Risk and Risk Management among the Gugi of Southern Ethiopia by
Wzo. Tihut Yirgu Asfaw

Livestock Markets and Risk Management among East African Pastoralists:
A Review and Research Agenda by Dr. DeeVon Bailey et al.

Cross-border Livestock Trade and Food Security in the Southern Ethiopia
Borderlands by Ato Ayele Gebremariam et al., presented by Ato Alemayehu Azeze

Pastoral Income Diversification and Risk Management by Drs. Peter Little
and Kevin Smith

Changing Policies for Pastoralists in Northern Kenya and Southern Ethiopia,
1963-98 by Dr. Jon Moris

Post-Graduate Training in Natural Resources at Egerton University, Kenya by
Prof. Abdillahi Aboud

Post-Graduate Training in the USA by Dr. Layne Coppock

Session 3: Outreach Phase I Review

Review of progress in phase I outreach for Ethiopia and Kenya by Dr. Layne Coppock

New Concepts for Pastoral Cooperative Associations in Southern Ethiopia by
Ato Tewodros Fessaha

K-REP's Recent Experience with Rural Finance in Arid and Semi-Arid Regions
of Kenya by Ms. Miriam Cherogony, presented by Mr. Golich Sora

Recent Experiences with Community-Based Animal Health Care in Pastoral
Africa by Dr. Chip Stem

Up-date on Pending Feasibility Study to Improve the Road Between Isiolo,
Kenya, and Moyale on the Kenya-Ethiopia Border by Mr. Francis Chabari
 

Session 4: Phase II Research and Outreach Moving Forward

Livestock Research Strategy for Pastoral Systems in Ethiopia by Dr. Zinash Sileshi

Rangeland Research in Kenya: Risks, Challenges, and Opportunities by Dr.
Henry Cheruiyot and Mr. Godana Doyo

Original Research Plan for Phase II of the GL-CRSP by Dr. Chris Barrett

Evolving Outreach Plan for Phase II by Drs. Layne Coppock and Solomon Desta

Need for Stronger Links to Policy Makers in Kenya and Ethiopia by
Dr. Layne Coppock

Open Discussion of Phase II Plans for Research and Outreach 29
 

Session 5: Phase II Moving Forward Synthesis and Recommendations and
Closing of Workshop

Take-Home Lessons for Research, Outreach, and Training for Phase II by
Dr. Peter Little et al.

Proposed Phase II Training Plan at Egerton University by Prof. Abdillahi Aboud,
et al., presented by Mr. Frank Lusenaka

Closing of Workshop and Any Other Business by Dr. Layne Coppock
 

Annex A (Figures)
Annex B (List of Participants)
Annex C (Contact Details for Speakers)
Annex D (Key Questions Proposed for Phase II Research)

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
 

FIRST BIENNIAL RESEARCH AND OUTREACH WORKSHOP FOR ETHIOPIA AND
KENYA
 

"Improving Pastoral Risk Management on East African Rangelands"
 

Held July 27-29, 1999, at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 

This summary of proceedings was compiled and edited by D. Layne Coppock (Utah State University), based in part on contributions from the following
people who recorded notes from oral presentations: Drs. Cheryl Doss (Yale University), Michael Fleisher (Utah State University), John McPeak (Cornell
University), and Peter Little (University of Kentucky). Material from some submitted papers was also used in the compilation process.
 

This workshop was sponsored by the Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program (GL-CRSP) of the Office of Agriculture and Food Security, Global Bureau, United States Agency for International Development, under the terms of grant no. DAN-1382-G-00-0046-00.
 
 
 

Background and Purpose of Workshop

The workshop was held to facilitate communication among scientists and development agents who work in the GL-CRSP project region of northern Kenya
and southern Ethiopia. See Figure 1 in Annex A for a map of the study region.
 

The goal of the GL-CRSP project, "Improving Pastoral Risk Management on East African Rangelands," is to affect positive change in the welfare of
pastoral and agropastoral peoples through the identification and implementation of risk management interventions that promote food security, economic
growth, and reduce the likelihood of resource-based conflicts. Interventions could include means to diversify pastoral economies and encourage
non-livestock investment, improve marketing efficiency, enhance the availability and use of market and climate information for planning purposes, and
improve access to, or rehabilitate, natural resources for production or conservation purposes.
 

Successful implementation of risk management interventions has local and regional aspects. Local aspects include building awareness and opportunities so
people can be educated and empowered to better manage risks. Regional aspects include issues such as markets, infrastructure, and trade and how these, in
turn, control the success of local risk-management initiatives.
 

The GL-CRSP project deals with research, training, and outreach. Research helps to identify cause and effect of risk management processes while outreach
seeks to facilitate implementation of pilot project activities by development agents.
 
 
 

Participants

About 83 people attended the workshop, with 20 representing nine Kenyan projects or institutions and 51 representing 20 Ethiopian projects or institutions.
Another 12 participants represented five institutions from the United States. A list of participants and their contact details is attached as Annex B. Interested
persons may examine our up-dated list of outreach participants via our web site http://www.nr.usu.edu/~sanduku/crsp.
 
 
 

Purpose of Summary Proceedings

Given the high diversity of presentations, we decided to organize this report as a series of brief summaries for technical presentations and discussion
sessions. Speakers were not required to submit full papers in support of their work. Some presentations are documented as full papers elsewhere. Readers
interested in obtaining copies of full papers, or other details of presentations, are urged to directly contact speakers. Contact details for speakers are listed in
Annex C. Alternatively, some materials can be downloaded from our GL-CRSP web site at http://www.nr.usu.edu/~sanduku/crsp. Questions or comments
can be forwarded to Dr. Layne Coppock by email at Lcoppock@cc.usu.edu, fax at (435) 797-3796, or the post c/o Department of Rangeland Resources,
Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA 84322-5230.
 

The brief summaries were interpreted and compiled by largely on the basis of oral presentations. Some inaccuracies may occur, but hopefully they are
minor. Please notify Dr. Coppock of important inaccuracies or omissions from presentations.
 
 

TUESDAY, JULY 27
 
 

Session 1: Opening of Workshop and Overview of Goals. Chair: Dr. Layne Coppock (GL-CRSP and Utah State University)

Opening of Workshop, by Ato Retta Badada (Head of the Economic Sector, Council of Oromia, Ethiopia)

Welcome to all. Agriculture is the backbone of the economy in Ethiopia. An important goal of the Oromia State Government is to strengthen subsistence
farming and livestock keeping. Livestock have a complex, multifaceted role in rural production systems. Many constraints to improving the role of livestock
exist. Problems include resource conflicts, environmental degradation, declines in livestock productivity, and an increased reliance on food aid. These
conditions are getting worse. The challenges are immense. The priority is to reverse this situation. Thus, this conference is timely in terms of the risk
management topic. I declare this workshop officially open and wish you success in deliberations.
 

Overview of the GL-CRSP and Goals for this Workshop, by Dr. Layne Coppock (GL-CRSP and Utah State University)

The Collaborative Research Support Programs (or CRSPs) of the USAID Global Bureau have been on-going for over 20 years. In the past few years the
former Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program (or SR-CRSP) has been transformed into the Global Livestock Collaborative Research
Support Program (or GL-CRSP). The SR-CRSP was devoted to production-oriented research and post-graduate training dealing with production problems
of sheep, goats, and other marginalized livestock species in the developing world. Real impact on producers of those species, however, was limited. The new
GL-CRSP includes all species of livestock. It has been broadened to deal with development and policy concerns and covers outreach as well as research and
training. There are currently seven GL-CRSP projects world-wide, with four in East Africa. The Pastoral Risk Management Project has a focus on northern
Kenya and southern Ethiopia as one intact ecological and economic region. As will be shown, the Kenyan and Ethiopian sides of the border have interesting
similarities and differences. To illustrate differences, it is clear that the strongest demand for range livestock and their products is in Nairobi, but Kenya has
a poorer infrastructure in the rangelands compared that for Ethiopia. See Figure 1 in Annex A for a map of the project region.
 

The goal of our GL-CRSP project is to better protect pastoralists in the region from economic and ecological shocks. Now we are in a situation where
people in the region need to have emergency food aid every few years. This indicates the systems no longer function well. We believe that crisis has
resulted from human population growth in the absence of development of the rural economy and human capital. Overall, we see the "boom and bust" pattern
for livestock herds becoming more pronounced. Herds appear to grow and crash on a more regular basis compared to 20 years ago, and crashes are not just
due to drought. We believe that higher stocking rates, in combination with loss of traditional grazing areas, leads to herd crashes even when only a small
drop in rainfall occurs. This has contributed to a "vicious cycle" of poverty and food insecurity in the region. We propose, however, that a "virtuous cycle"
is possible instead. The "virtuous cycle" could be initiated by helping pastoralists diversify through modest investments into non-livestock assets. Millions
of USD could be invested in rural communities with benefits to pastoralists and townspeople alike. Pastoralists and townspeople need each other to be
strong for economic prosperity. They also need efficient marketing systems and an absence of conflict. See Figure 2 in Annex A for an example of the
proposed "virtuous cycle."
 

We have several goals for this workshop. First we want to review progress in research and outreach for phase I of the GL-CRSP project, which roughly has
occurred in the field from March, 1998, to June, 1999. Second we want to present some ideas for phase II research, outreach, and training, which is planned
to commence in August, 1999, and continue for another two to three years. Lastly, we want to debate the ideas for phase II and come up with a modified
plan based on the input of this group, which includes researchers as well as very experienced development agents. We will begin the workshop with two
overview presentations on pastoral development issues in the region.
 
 

Pastoral Development in Northern Kenya, by Mr. Vincent Lelei [Office of the

President (Kenya) and Director of the Arid Lands Resource Management Project (ALRMP)]
 

The core issues for northern Kenya are extensive poverty, low levels of resilience to droughts, and the frequent collapse of rural livelihoods. Marketing and
infrastructure are poor. Ethiopia and Kenya are connected in many ways, but one way that is very relevant to this workshop is in terms of the marketing of
range livestock--a large proportion of beef consumed in Nairobi comes from the southern Ethiopian rangelands. There has been a collapse of traditional
social structures in Kenya, and the Kenyan government is unable to provide a functional alternative. In some cases government and development partners
have disrupted traditional processes that used to work. Combine this disruption with growth in the local human population and a stagnant pattern of
economic growth, and the framework is clear. There are more frequent conflicts in which heavy armaments are used, and this has increased the size of areas
located between various factions that cannot be used (no-man's lands). There has also been the advent of what we call the "hydro-illogical" cycle. Re-current
effects of drought on rural livelihoods, and subsequent government intervention, are a drain on the economy. We now wait for the next crisis to occur.
During 1993-6 about USD 42 million was spent in Kenya to cope with this cycle. Long-term drought cycles are important, as is the ability of communities
to manage services and resources under stress.
 

Drought management involves 70% of Kenya's land area, and these arid and semi-arid areas are home to about 1.5 million people. Social welfare indicators
are very low in these areas (i.e., absolute poverty, illiteracy, health, education). The ALRMP was created to deal with drought management, community
development, marketing, and infra-structure. The drought cycle underpins all activities. The ALRMP has been designed to legitimize and strengthen
traditional institutions. Human development has a focus on education (particularly for females) and the use and management of land. Some actions taken
include legal reform to better empower pastoral groups, land-use planning at the community level, and environmental and process monitoring at the district
level. The way forward is to continue a focus on capacity building at community and district levels. National and regional policy actions are needed in the
form of legal issues, resolution of international cross-border problems (i.e., livestock marketing and disease control), and more pro-active policies to better
manage drought.
 
 

Pastoral Development in Southern Ethiopia, by Dr. Tafesse Mesfin (Head of the Pastoral Development Unit, Ethiopian
Federal Ministry of Agriculture)

Sixty percent of Ethiopia's land surface is dry and suited for pastoral uses. This area has 29 ethnic groups. Past government efforts to develop pastoralism
include the Third Livestock Development Project (TLDP) in the 1970s and 1980s which worked in three regions to the south (Southern Rangelands
Development Unit or SORDU), northeast (Northeast Rangelands Development Unit or NERDU), and east in the northern Ogaden (Jijiga Rangelands
Development Unit or JIRDU). The Southeastern Rangelands Project (SERP) has more recently focused on a large portion of the Ogaden region. The main
issues include sustainable pastoral development, coping with drought and food insecurity, a growing human population, range degradation (i.e., overgrazing,
bush encroachment, decreases in populations of wild animals, water scarcity, and increased cultivation and charcoal making). The current government has
recognized the problems of pastoral areas and in 1991 designated these as "areas with special problems." In 1992 the government focused on
decentralization, in 1993 it gave more attention to disaster prevention, population policy, and policies for women. In 1995 another focus was property rights.
Within the federal Ministry of Agriculture, an extension team was formed to deal with issues concerning nomadic pastoralism. In 1998 a national marketing
authority was formed.
 

For pastoral extension, a holistic and flexible approach has been adopted that recognizes the large role climate variability has in affecting pastoral
livelihoods. The extension system has been planned to have mobile and stationary elements. A study financed by the African Development Bank (ADB) of
all pastoral areas will begin in the first quarter of 2000. Needs include more pastoral advocacy and sensitization of decision-makers to pastoral problems,
strengthening traditional pastoral institutions, strengthening local NGOs, increasing the focus on gender issues and the environment, strengthening
non-violent (negotiation) skills with respect to resource use conflicts, increasing the foundation of indigenous knowledge (with local specificity),
participatory development approaches, and strengthening participation of the private sector in pastoral development. Some activities of the pastoral extension
include livestock health and marketing, range management, management of cultivation, and consideration of the economic development values for incense
collection, fishing, charcoal production, handicraft production, mining, hunting, water development, education, human health, infrastructure, and drought
early warning systems. The SORDU is the main focus of past experience and will be a cornerstone for the future. The formation of marketing cooperatives
(i.e., stocker/feeder, dry-meat processing) will also be considered. More study is needed on camel husbandry and improvement of water quality and quality.
How to better deal with human health, animal health, education, and family planning all need attention. Manpower training is still an important gap.
 
 

Session 2: Research and Training, Phase I Review. Chair: Dr. Chris Barrett (GL-CRSP and Cornell
University)
 
 

Risk Mapping for Northern Kenya and Southern Ethiopia, by Drs. Kevin Smith (GL-CRSP and Utah State University),
Chris Barrett (GL-CRSP and Cornell University), and Paul Box (GL-CRSP and Utah State University)
 

(For a copy of a report covering risk mapping, contact Drs. Barrett or Coppock. Contact details can be found in Annex C. Alternatively, download a
copy of a technical report from our GL-CRSP web site. Draft color risk maps are also posted on the web site.)
 

The purpose of this work was to better identify the important risks that pastoralists face throughout our project area. We wanted to see if our ideas of
relevant risks were indeed most important in the opinions of local people. By mapping out patterns we hoped to see how prominent risks varied over space.
The relatively short duration of the study (from March, 1998, to March, 1999) limits our ability to see how risks change by season, but some data on
temporal dynamics were collected. The data base for this research resulted from about one year of traversing the project region by road. Groups of
pastoralists were interviewed on an opportunistic basis. Data were collected for over 100 groups throughout the year. Locations of groups were mapped
using a Geographical Positioning System (GPS) unit.
 

We defined risk as "exposure to undesirable consequences that people would avoid if they could." Overall, the most frequent risk was found to be lack of
food and lack of water. Although mentioned largely during the wet season, risk of human disease such as malaria was very important in certain locales. Risk
of violent conflict was also commonly mentioned. There is much reliance on food aid, and many people are impoverished. Many new towns have developed.
The pattern of conflict risk was especially related to location, as people living near ethnic borders more commonly mentioned risk of conflict.
 

When we compared Ethiopia with Kenya a few patterns emerged. First, Ethiopians were more concerned with food shortages, while Kenyans were more
concerned with water shortages. Ethiopians were more concerned with lack of schools and poor availability of farming inputs, while Kenyans were more
concerned with the risk of wild animals raiding their crops.
 

When we made gender comparisons, males were more concerned with livestock prices and access to grazing, while women were more concerned with
shortages of human food . Males and females were equally concerned about human health, access to clinics, and violent conflict.
 

When we made comparisons based on wealth class, the wealthier pastoralists were more concerned with water shortages for their herds. The poorer
households, in contrast, were more concerned with lack of food, scarcity of clinics, prevalence of human sickness, and access to schools. Conflict tended to
be ranked higher by the poor compared to the wealthy, probably because the poor can lose all their livestock assets in one raid.
 

When agropastoralists or farmers were compared to pastoralists, the farmers were not as concerned with food scarcity. People involved in cultivation were
more concerned with crop failure, availability of crop inputs and tools, and access to schools.
 

Our methodology is obviously imperfect. The work, however, has yielded some valuable information on the types of risks most commonly perceived by our
target population and their occurrence throughout the study region.
 
 

Cattle Herd Dynamics and Need for Asset Diversification Among the Boran of Southern Ethiopia, by Drs. Solomon
Desta (GL-CRSP and Utah State University), Layne Coppock (GL-CRSP and Utah State University), and Chris Barrett
(GL-CRSP and Cornell University)
 

(For a copy of a two-page version of this paper, based on work reported in a PhD dissertation, contact Drs. Desta or Coppock. See Annex C for contact
details. Alternatively, download a copy from our GL-CRSP web site.)
 

One purpose of this research was to see how the Borana pastoral system of southern Ethiopia was currently functioning in terms of socio-economic trends.
It was predicted that the system would be in decline due to population growth and lack of economic diversification. Another purpose was to characterize the
effects of rainfall and stocking rate on cattle mortality over the past 17 years (1980-97) and analyze whether adding simple savings accounts in banks could
be a beneficial investment for the people. In other words, what is the most risk-efficient system: (1) the traditional cattle system alone; or (2) cattle plus a
simple, non-livestock investment option? The costs of cattle are the risk of death, while the returns are in terms of productivity. The costs of banking are in
terms of losing one's assets in cash, while the returns are in terms of accrued interest. Data for all aspects of the study were collected using randomly
selected Borana households within 35 km of Arero, Negelle, Yabelo, and Mega towns. Over 300 were interviewed. The risk/return analysis was conducted
using analytical software.

The vast majority (over 90%) of Borana herdowners perceive that the traditional system is now failing to provide a secure livelihood for them. They believe
that the human population is growing, grain dependency is increasing, cultivation is increasing, etc. Most households have declined in wealth over the past
decade. Over 80% of the herdowners interviewed have some knowledge of local banks, but only 20% have ever used banking facilities.
 

A graph of cattle herd dynamics from 1980-97 shows crashes in 1984-5 and 1990-1 preceded by herd growth phases. See Figure 3 in Annex A for a graph
of herd dynamics. The crash in 1990-1 does not appear to be as clearly a result of drought as the previous one was--we suspect that a high stocking rate
pre-disposed the system to crash again by the early 1990s. The average cattle holding per household declined from more than 90 head in 1980-1 to less
than 65 head in 1996-7. The cumulative mortality loss was 140 head per household, equivalent to USD 9,000. Extrapolated to the whole community over
the 17 years, this adds to USD 380 million. Mortality loss was over ten times the marketed throughput, illustrating bottlenecks in the marketing system
during times of stress.
 

The risk/return analysis was interpreted to suggest that access to a secure financial system could reduce risk for the Boran in terms of better conserving
assets. Even having some assets as cash in an unsafe bank-- that is a bank having about a one-in-six chance of failure and total loss of cash deposits-- was
superior in most instances to having all assets in the form of cattle. This illustrates the high risk of cattle mortality in the system. A cow-calf production
system, in tandem with a safe rural financial system and improved market access, was the most efficient portfolio combination found in our analysis.
 

We concluded that the Borana production system is indeed perceived to be increasingly unstable. Losses of cattle assets have been large and represent a
substantial loss of wealth for pastoral households and the community. Both rainfall and stocking rate affect cattle mortality rates, so cattle death is not
merely a "drought" phenomenon. Finally, development of rural financial institutions and improved markets could help stabilize pastoral asset accumulation
and this deserves attention.
 
 

Sources of Risk and Risk Management among the Gugi of Southern Ethiopia, by Wzo. Tihut Yirgu Asfaw
(CARE-Ethiopia and formerly of Norwegian Agricultural University) and Kirsi Saaristo (formerly of Norwegian Agricultural
University)
 

(For details of this paper, based on a master's thesis, contact Wzo. Tihut. See Annex C for her contact details.)
 

This study identified the types and frequency of risks faced by the Gugi pastoralists, who live in the northern portion of the GL-CRSP study region. The
Gugi are a relatively large population of pastoralists and agropastoralists with roots in the Oromo language and culture. Unlike the Boran, the Gugi have
been rarely studied.
 

We interviewed 46 households using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods over several months in 1998. There were 199 households in the
immediate study area, which consisted of four Pastoral Associations (or PAs) at Tulawayu, Bilidim Rasso, Burkitu Magada, and Finchewa.
 

Nearly all households were dependent on both crop (e.g., maize) and livestock production, with only a few totally reliant on cattle. Cattle provided the most
important source of income followed by sheep. The cattle population was reportedly still low in 1998 as a result of high rates of mortality caused by the
1991-2 drought. In 1998 each household had an average of 2.4 milking cows and three goats. About one-third of households had sheep. The low number
of milking cows was also reportedly due to tick-borne diseases. There were 9.8 people per household, so ratios of livestock:people were very low. We
concluded that livestock holdings were below subsistence levels and that the typical household was very poorly diversified. Economic links to the
non-pastoral sector were almost nonexistent. Respondents noted that the major constraints on livestock productivity were drought and disease. Other
problems included shortages of water, labor, and grazing land and periodic loss of animals to cattle raiders.
 

Respondents ranked the following as the most important sources of risk: marketing, drought, livestock disease, lack of access to grazing, ethnic conflict,
problems with wildlife, and livestock theft.
 

Respondents were asked about what strategies they used to prepare for risks (ex ante). Most (54%) said that they did nothing--many people reportedly did
not prepare for shocks. About 33%, however, mentioned maintaining a capacity to be mobile in response to drought as important. Only a small minority
mentioned crop cultivation (7%) or ability to search for wage employment (2%).
 

Respondents were asked how they coped with risk-related problems after they have occurred (ex post). In response to drought, 25% of respondents
mentioned that they sold animals to buy food, while another 19% relied on food aid. Only a small minority (<5%) either borrowed animals, sold honey, or
earned wages.
 

In the thesis many other details are presented. There was some variation in risk perception according to wealth class and gender. It was also reported that
traditional sharing and reciprocity institutions were losing importance due to internal and external factors that increased pressure on resources. The Gugi
version of the traditional Gada system has been largely defunct since the 1980s, and confines itself more to ritual activities.
 

In conclusion, a few key points can be made. First, the Guji pastoral community has been transformed in recent times to agropastoralism due to internal and
external pressures. Second, the population currently lives in a very precarious situation in which only a minority makes pro-active plans to deal with pending
disasters. Reliance on food aid is an expectation among the population. This is a recipe for disaster when the next drought comes.
 
 

Livestock Markets and Risk Management among East African Pastoralists: A Review and Research Agenda, by Drs.
DeeVon Bailey (GL-CRSP and Utah State University), Chris Barrett (GL-CRSP and Cornell University), Peter Little
(GL-CRSP and University of Kentucky), Kevin Smith (GL-CRSP and Utah State University), and Mr. Francis Chabari
(MDP/GTZ)
 

(For a copy of a report covering livestock marketing risk, contact Drs. Bailey, Barrett, or Little. Their contact details are in Annex C. Alternatively,
download a copy of the technical report from our GL-CRSP web site.)
 

This presentation covered preliminary results on price risk in northern Kenya as well as review of relevant literature from across pastoral Africa. The
purpose was to identify priorities for marketing research in phase II of this project.
 

For northern Kenya, our research using data collected by MDP/GTZ has revealed that price variation for livestock over space and time is considerable and
could constitute a hindrance for livestock marketing. See Figure 4 in Annex A for a graph of price margins for cattle between Marsabit and Nairobi, Kenya,
for 1993-7.
 

Price volatility means that buyers and sellers operate under a level of risk that is a disincentive for trade. Another problem to add is the often high cost
associated with livestock marketing from pastoral areas. Several factors contribute to the phenomena: (1) the multiple objectives pastoralists have for raising
livestock (i.e., roles as assets and income generators); (2) a legacy of limited private marketing capacity; (3) high environmental variation; (4) poor physical
infrastructure; and (5) weak rural institutions for the dissemination of market information, price formation and contract enforcement, assurance of physical
security, and services that offer preventative animal health care. These factors affect marketing in the form of high transaction costs, significant hold-up
problems, and inelastic demand and supply.
 

There are many ideas for marketing intervention by governmental and non-governmental institutions, but any intervention is speculative in nature because
there is a decided lack of basic research on the core behavioral and contextual elements of the livestock marketing system. It is surprising, given the
importance of livestock marketing to pastoral welfare, that the available literature from Africa is so scanty.
 

This project therefore has a chance to make a substantial contribution to advance knowledge on livestock marketing in this region. We see five inter-related
topics in need of exploration: (1) patterns of spatial and inter-temporal price transmission and market integration to establish the efficiency of existing
marketing channels; (2) pastoral marketing behavior (i.e., response to changes in livestock price, food-aid deliveries, climate forecasts, etc.); (3) effects of
intra- and inter-household livestock ownership rights and exchanges on animal sales; (4) the relationship between animal disease control (particularly
through quarantines), climate, and marketing dynamics; and (5) structure, conduct, and performance of the livestock marketing channel. We propose that
survey approaches, both for households and traders, be used to help answer these questions.
 

We are interested in determining the relative risk associated with local and central markets since policy remedies are quite different for various types of
markets. For example, if the source of market risk is primarily from central markets, then external shocks such as exchange rate risk, income shocks, or
infrastructure bottlenecks may be the principal reason for price variability in livestock markets. If the primary source of risk is in local markets, then
improvements in local market infrastructure and information may help to reduce market risk. In addition, an investigation of the behavior of market margins
among producers, wholesalers, and retailers would be conducted.
 

We would also examine the impact of quarantines on livestock markets to determine the costs of quarantines and consequently the implicit benefits
associated with programs designed to control or eradicate livestock diseases in the study area. This would be done by comparing relative prices at different
market locations just preceding, during, and immediately following livestock quarantines. This would provide an estimate of the loss in revenue per animal
in the quarantined areas and also the increased cost of meat in Nairobi. The purpose of this part of the analysis is to estimate the level of investment
government should make in herd health programs.
 
 

Cross-border Livestock Trade in the Southern and Southeastern Ethiopia Borderlands by Ato Ayele Gebremariam, Ato
Alemayehu Azeze and Dr. Tegegne Teka (BASIS CRSP and OSSREA)
 

(For a copy of the final research report covering this work, please contact the OSSREA project coordinator. Contact details are listed in Annex C.)
 

This research is undertaken by OSSREA in collaboration with the BASIS-CRSP (USA) as part of the ongoing research on Cross-Border Trade and
Food Security in the Horn of Africa. Key issues of investigation are extent and structure of the cross-border trade and its role in enhancing food
security, the role of social elements in facilitating cross-border trade, the role of capital markets, policy and other constraints in cross-border trade. To
this end, a sample survey was conducted on 171 traders. In addition, secondary sources obtained from governmental and non-governmental
organizations operating in the area were referred to. The following are some of the preliminary findings of the study.
 

The study identified the ecology and ethnography of the border area, structure of cross-border trade, transaction costs, trader finance and livestock
market integration issues.
 

The structure is characterized by geographic, commodity and ethnic concentration. While very few agricultural items are traded from Ethiopia to Kenya,
a wide range of manufactured goods are smuggled to Ethiopia from Kenya and Somalia. Live animals are the most important items exported from
Ethiopia through the border and consumables and textiles are the dominant items in the return flow. Similar ethnic and cultural relations facilitate the
cross-border trade.
 

Livestock as a commodity involves different marketing costs. In addition to market information and transport fees, trader costs include payments for
feed, water and veterinary services. Market fees charged by municipalities are also important elements of transaction costs.
 

Regarding financial arrangements, the cross-border trade is dependent on informal and traditional financial sources. Commodity credit is the most
common facility in the area.
 

Seasonal characteristics of production and consumption of livestock products and transaction costs affect livestock prices. Spatial arbitrage between
border markets of Ethiopia and Kenya as well as among other border markets of Ethiopia, measured by simple correlation, is found difficult implying
that interventions for market integration and hence for food security call for actions that are guided by local characteristics of each market.
 

Pastoral Income Diversification and Risk Management, by Dr. Peter Little (GL-CRSP and University of Kentucky) and
Dr. Kevin Smith (GL-CRSP and Utah State University)
 

(For details concerning this presentation, please contact Dr. Little. To obtain a copy of a related report reviewing aspects of pastoral economic
diversification in East Africa, contact Dr. Layne Coppock or download a copy from our web site. For contact details, see Annex C.)
 

The purpose of this work was to give an overview of pastoral income diversification issues, present field data from phase I concerning patterns of pastoral
economic diversification in the study region, and propose ideas for further work in phase II.
 

Diversification is a supplemental strategy that can reduce risks faced by pastoralists. Over the life cycle of a household diversification should be seen as
dynamic and cyclical--not a permanent situation. Household needs change over time, thus needs for economic diversity also change. Pastoral income
diversification can include any form of trading occupation, wage employment, shop-keeping, rental property ownership and sales, gathering and selling wild
products, and farming. There are two motivations for diversification.
 

The first motivation is diversification as a survival strategy for poorer herders who otherwise have insufficient resources to sustain themselves. These
diversification activities include wage labor, petty trade, charcoal making, selling firewood, and small-scale farming and may involve up to 40% of pastoral
households.
 

The second motivation is diversification as an accumulation strategy for wealthiest herders. These activities include ownership of small businesses,
larger-scale livestock trading, more lucrative forms of agriculture, higher-paying wage labor positions, and may involve about 10 to 15% of pastoral
households.
 

Middle-class households tend not to diversify. They maintain their reliance on the traditional base of livestock resources. The general conclusion is that
income diversification is increasing fastest among poorest households most affected by risk.
 

Several factors influence the degree and types of economic diversification for households. Stress occurs for pastoral systems when per capita livestock
holdings and grazing lands are lower and human population density is higher. When more stress occurs the need for diversification increases. These are
also called conditional variables.
 

Several factors help explain the types of diversification options available for pastoralists. Options tend to increase where rainfall is higher, distance to
markets is lower, distance to towns is lower (depends also on the size of towns), level of education is higher in the population, etc. These are called
opportunity variables. An example was shown where money-making options increased as distance to towns was reduced. Another example was shown
where money-making options increased as rainfall increased--an artifact of towns being in wetter locations throughout the study region.
 

Local response variables help explain how individual herders respond to diversification, and include wealth and gender.
 

Since towns and settlements provide a focus for diversification throughout our study region, some statistics on towns and settlements are important to
illustrate patterns. In these statistics Negelle has been excluded because of its large size compared to other towns and settlements. The statistics are thus for
about one dozen towns in Kenya and the same in Ethiopia.
 

Average population size for towns in southern Ethiopia is 3,933, while that for Kenya is 4,242. The average number of retail shops and wholesalers per
town, respectively, is 26 and 0.2 for Ethiopia and 45 and 1.35 for Kenya. For average number of butcheries per town, Ethiopia has <2 and Kenya has 4.4.
For average number of NGOs per town, Ethiopia has <0.4 and Kenya has 1.1. For primary and secondary schools per town, Ethiopia has 1.1 and 0.2,
respectively, while Kenya has 1.8 and 0.5. Given the similar average population of towns between both countries, these numbers suggest higher economic
activity and access to public education in Kenya compared to Ethiopia.
 

Implications of preliminary findings for policy and outreach were discussed. It is expected that research will point to policy initiatives in areas like rural
infrastructure, marketing, land tenure, and land use. Research will also illustrate the utility of income diversification for improvements in pastoral risk
management. Blanket outreach recommendations will not be possible because of local variation in ecology, economics, and infrastructure.
Recommendations must be based in large measure on input from local communities.
 

Implications of preliminary findings for phase II research were discussed. One implication is that long-term research sites must offer considerable variation
in terms of conditional and opportunity variables above.
 
 

Changing Policies for Pastoralists in Northern Kenya and Southern Ethiopia,
1963-98, by Dr. Jon Moris (GL-CRSP and Utah State University)
 

(For a copy of material from this report, contact Dr. Coppock or Dr. Moris. See Annex C for contact details.)
 

There have been several policy phases for both countries. For Ethiopia there has been the Imperial Era, the Mengistu Era, and the current Transitional Era
involving a new federal government system. For Kenya there has been the independence (Harambee) period under Kenyatta followed by a Nyayo period
under Moi. Both countries at present are undergoing structural adjustment. The first generation of pastoral development projects were variously
characterized by creation of state marketing boards, attempts at grazing management, and efforts to create integrated marketing chains for pastoral livestock.
Early on a technology focus to spur beef production dominated, and there was little participation by pastoral beneficiaries. Second generation projects were
complicated by socialist policies in Ethiopia. In Kenya a district focus was implemented, with appreciation of how to deal with drought cycles. Structural
adjustment has had larger effects in Ethiopia than Kenya. Kenya has moved to privatize parastatals. Structural adjustment may be having some negative
impacts on pastoral areas.
 

Ten similarities between pastoral situations in Kenya and Ethiopia are as follows: (1) pastoral areas are remote and heavily affected by larger political and
climatic events--they experience event-driven government response; ( 2) donors initially emphasized improvement of the commercial beef industries,
organized at a national level. More recently donors have shifted to people-centered "new directions;" (3) the marketing parastatals originally organized by
government have long-been abandoned. There is an urgent need, however, to improve livestock marketing today; (4) past livestock projects achieved a very
poor record, but reasons for poor performance are only partly known. Little policy research has been done; (5) there are many possible causes of poor
performance. To serve pastoralists means improving an array of services which then leads to complicated and costly projects which cannot be sustained
locally; ( 6) pastoralists rarely enjoy times of peace and prosperity. This means that what service providers do in these "windows of opportunity" becomes
very important--also, most assistance will be linked to emergencies; (7) today's rural towns in the rangelands have a large, welfare-dependent population of
"food-for-work" families and "returnees;" (8) both countries want to privatize veterinary services, but are unsure exactly how to proceed; (9) both countries
have found a need to devise new forms of land tenure suited to evolving "common property" rangelands; and (10) pastoral services are not self supporting.
There is an urgent need to focus on revenue generation. Policies are project-driven to tap funding opportunities.
 

It is concluded that pastoral situations represent a distinctive policy environment, where standard policies for security, water supply, health care, land tenure,
marketing, revenue capture, and education require special adaptations in order to succeed.
 

Nine guidelines for future policies were reviewed: (1) Our policies must address key structural constraints directly. These include dependence on external
investment, need for food security, unsustainable present services, and the threat of local insecurity; (2) we must recognize that pastoral areas will require
different organization of services from highland areas; (3) policies should deal with drivers of poor performance: insufficient cash flow, insecurity,
smuggling, corruption, and patronage. We need robust interventions that work even under high challenge; (4) interventions are easiest when they address
people's needs, namely security, water, food, health, and sustainable livelihoods. Let policies focus on those needs first; (5) policy analysis should be based
on local experience, not imported solutions. Both countries have experienced program managers to lead new efforts; (6) implementation should be targeted
at local windows of opportunity when people can afford to innovate without risk to their livelihoods. The main case for mitigation strategies is to act before
crises strike. During crises, both governments and pastoralists find their actions become event-driven; (7) better policies alone are not enough. We must
also strengthen program competencies which build implementation capacity; (8) governments should be willing to use all local stakeholders and skills, the
human resources on which long-run progress will be based; and (9) local people "own" few of the activities they have carried out at government request.
Such activities will not provide sustainable livelihoods until they become internally supportable within local communities.
 
 

Post-Graduate Training in Natural Resources at Egerton University, Kenya, by Prof. Abdillahi Aboud (GL-CRSP and
Egerton University)
 

Some historical background for Egerton University was reviewed. In the 1930s the institution began as Egerton College and gave degrees at certificate and
diploma level for children of colonial settlers and ex-servicemen. At independence the institution was donated to the Kenya government. The mission
changed more to training of agricultural officers at the diploma level. By the mid-1980s bachelor's degrees were being awarded in many fields including
natural resources and environmental science. Diploma programs were phased out.
 

The collaboration with the GL-CRSP has been very timely. The Department of Natural Resources established a post-graduate studies program in 1998, and
the department was upgraded to the faculty level in 1999. The Department of Natural Resources has six faculty, all at the PhD level. The GL-CRSP has
been very supportive of the Department of Natural Resources through funding of student thesis research, computer support, and facilitating attendance of
Egerton faculty at the International Rangeland Congress in Townsville, Australia.
 

The post-graduate program currently consists of an MSc in Natural Resources with options in rangeland management, wildlife management, forestry, and
human ecology. There is also an MSc degree in Environmental Sciences. The first intake of students for the MSc in Natural Resources has been 10, with
one student from Ethiopia and the rest from Kenya. The second intake of students for the MSc in Natural Resources will approximately be 15.
 

The academic year is from September to December and January to May. Students write their research proposals during May to July. Data collection should
begin for most of them before the end of 1999. The length of time for writing and defending the thesis is two years. Five students participating in the
GL-CRSP project will be involved in phase II research. Topics will be clarified later this week after the formal sessions of this biennial workshop are over.
 
 

Post-Graduate Training in the USA, by Dr. Layne Coppock (GL-CRSP and Utah State University)
 

Efforts to educate African students in the United States, either wholly or partially on GL-CRSP funds, were briefly reviewed. It was noted that student
training in the United States was focused on the PhD degree. Other training at the master's level will be conducted in East Africa--our collaboration with
Egerton University is a good example of that approach. Unless the project receives more core funds from USAID, it is very unlikely that any more
US-based education will be initiated. Funding MS students seems like the best use of limited GL-CRSP resources. Bringing MS students to the USA is
not a good idea given the ability of institutions like Egerton to train post-graduates at that level.
 

The first student to be educated on the project is Dr. Solomon Desta, Ethiopian, who started his research on pastoral asset diversification under Dr.
Coppock in the Department of Rangeland Resources at Utah State University in 1993. His program was initially funded by Utah State University, the
Rockefeller Foundation, and the International Livestock Research Institute. Overall, GL-CRSP funds have contributed only a very small proportion of his
total educational costs. Dr. Desta has recently defended his dissertation.
 

Mr. Hussein Mahmoud, Kenyan, joined the Department of Anthropology at the University of Kentucky in August, 1998. His advisor is Dr. Little.
Mahmoud is supported by GL-CRSP funds. His research topic may involve marketing or environmental issues in the project region.
 

Ms. Winnie Luseno, Kenyan, and Mr. Amare Teklu, Ethiopian, will start their PhD programs in August, 1999, in the Department of Agricultural, Resource
& Managerial Economics (ARME) at Cornell University under the supervision of Dr. Barrett. Their research topics have not yet been defined. Luseno is
supported on GL-CRSP funds, while Amare is supported by a Cornell graduate teaching assistantship.
 

It was noted that while the project cannot fund additional Ph.D. students from core GL-CRSP funds, universities may have funding available from other
sources for outstanding candidates.
 
 

Session 3: Outreach Phase I Review. Chair: Dr. Solomon Desta (GL-CRSP and Utah State
University)
 

Review of Progress in Phase I Outreach for Ethiopia and Kenya, by Dr. Layne Coppock (GL-CRSP and Utah State
University)
 

(For details on phase I outreach, please contact Dr. Coppock. Contact details are in Annex C.)
 

The goal for our outreach in the first year was to engage GOs and NGOs active in northern Kenya and southern Ethiopia, and together try to set priorities
for important intervention concepts to help pastoralists better manage risk. This was independently debated at three different workshops during 1998, with
two in Addis Ababa and one in Nairobi. A pyramid or hierarchy of human needs was proposed to stimulate discussion at the workshops. The idea of the
pyramid was that people must have basic needs satisfied (like physical security, health, and reliable access to food) before secondary things like resource
planning, saving, or investment would be feasible (see Figure 5 in Annex A for an example of the pyramid).

What did the Kenyans and Ethiopians decide were the top intervention priorities? Were they the same or different?
 

For Kenya the top choice was the need to better educate people about their changing world and what options could be used to mitigate or improve the
situation. The second was intervention to facilitate livestock marketing and alternative investment. The third was a need to discover innovative development
concepts that would be broad-based enough to markedly affect large numbers of people.
 

For Ethiopia the top choice was to find better means to manage resource-based conflict between neighbors. The second was to improve public education for
pastoralists (as above). The third was facilitation of marketing and investment strategies, possibly through cooperative associations.
 

There was thus a remarkable degree of agreement among professionals in both countries concerning the risk management issues seen as most vital to deal
with in terms of outreach. This agreement could simplify creation of a standard outreach approach for risk management in both countries.
 

(Editorial note: The next three presentations represent key specialist activities carried out by members of the outreach network. Topics are cooperative
formation, rural finance, and animal health. It is envisioned that these are three critical types of risk management interventions that could be carried out
in tandem in future outreach activities.)
 

New Concepts for Pastoral Cooperative Associations in Southern Ethiopia, by Ato Tewodros Fessaha (VOCA-Ethiopia).
 

(For details on activities of VOCA in Ethiopia, contact Ato Tewodros. See contact details in Annex C.)
 

The issue of cooperative development translates to economic associations for pastoralists-- how to improve their living standards and facilitate their
economic development. Volunteers in Cooperative Action (VOCA) is an NGO that has been created in Ethiopia to help the formation of agricultural and
pastoral cooperatives. This process must be culturally sensitive. Membership in cooperative associations must be voluntary and democratic. Cooperatives
can serve marketing functions, savings and credit functions, and other functions that pastoralists want. Cooperatives must be economically viable. Recently
there have been 35 such cooperatives established in Ethiopia with 21,000 members in six districts. Cooperatives help supply key commodities such as
sugar, salt, grains, and veterinary supplies. Constraints for cooperative development include poor infrastructure, lack of skilled manpower, and lack of
working capital. Ultimately unions of cooperatives should be formed to improve bargaining power of members.
 

One problem is that under the previous socialist regime, cooperatives were used as tools for indoctrination and control of members. This legacy has to be
overcome. New government proclamations are making progress in legally redefining cooperatives and cooperative development in Ethiopia. Some of the
main goals of VOCA thus include building capacity for cooperative development within a new governmental framework and change negative attitudes of
some government officials towards cooperatives. We even try to send decision-makers to places like India where cooperative development has been
democratic and very successful. VOCA has also embarked on a plan to train managers and members of cooperatives. This includes new cooperatives plus
restructuring old cooperatives.
 

(Editorial note: One interaction between the GL-CRSP and VOCA involved co-funding a cooperative training course in Zwai for eleven days during
May, 1999. The main objective of this course was to train some 31 people from the Borana Zone to manage pastoral marketing cooperatives. Trainees
participated in five modules: cooperative management, livestock marketing, range management, accounting, and rural sociology.)
 

K-REP's Recent Experience with Rural Finance in Arid and Semi-Arid Regions of Kenya, by Ms. Miriam Cherogony and
presented by Mr. Golich Sora (both of K-REP/FSA)
 

(For a hard copy of the 22-page paper submitted by Ms. Cherogony, see her contact details in Annex C. We hope to put a copy on our GL-CRSP web
site as well)
 

This presentation has two components: background of K-REP/FSA, followed by an overview of recent activities of K-REP/FSA in Kenya's arid and
semi-arid lands. The Kenya Rural Enterprise Project (K-REP) is an NGO started in 1984. The mission of K-REP is to empower low-income people and
enhance their quality of life. To this aim K-REP hopes to alleviate poverty. K-REP uses a range of strategies to this end.
 

K-REP began by channeling financial assistance to other NGOs that in turn assisted micro- and small-scale entrepreneurs. By 1990 K-REP started direct
lending programs. K-REP was licensed by the Central Bank of Kenya in 1999 to operate the first micro-finance bank in Kenya.
 

In 1997 K-REP launched a new rural finance initiative called Financial Services Associations (FSA). The FSA builds on sound economic principles and is
user owned, managed, and financed through equity capital. The FSA model is a village-level institution. The FSA is savings-led, not credit-led. The FSA
model helps fill gaps in rural areas-- in general, the commercial banks shun the rural poor because they are not profitable. This village banking concept
specifically targets communities in Kenya's dry lands. Credit components tend to be more oriented to higher potential areas nearer to towns and farming
zones. The FSA is a share-holding enterprise that increases the access of rural people to a range of financial services. The FSA blends modern rules of
financial management with the local customs of the beneficiaries. The FSA is owned and operated by the local people. The FSA is linked to the formal
sector through a "link bank." Loans are mobilized from local equity, however. In the first year the FSA emphasis is on shareholder registration, savings
mobilization, and provision of loans. By the third year it can commonly act as a financial retailer. All evidence to date indicates there is high demand for
rural financial services among the poor, and they are able to pay for, and manage, FSAs. K-REP must work with partner NGOs in target areas. There is an
outreach protocol and a small building is erected to house the FSA. There are protocols for selling shares, electing board members, training, etc.
 

It costs Ksh 300 (or about USD 5.00) to buy one share and thus become a shareholder in an FSA. A shareholder is eligible to borrow up to 4 times the
value of owned shares as long as it can be paid back, at an interest rate of 10% per month. Profits are distributed to shareholders as annual dividends. It
costs about Ksh 400,000 (or about USD 6,500.00) to start one FSA. More technical details can be found in the submitted paper.
 

About 17 FSAs have been created in the last 18 months in Kenya's dry areas. There are about 4,000 shareholders, with 50% being individual males, 42%
being individual females, and 8% being mixed groups. On average each shareholder has purchased two shares. Over 1,000 loans have been given out, most
being short-term in nature. About 1,300 voluntary, short-term savings have been opened, valued so far at Ksh 4.4 million (or USD $62,000.00).
 

Early challenges for FSAs include the following: (1) problems with staff management and high staff costs in relation to cash flow; (2) break-even periods
for new FSAs exceeding seven months; (3) ironing out small problems in collaborating with local NGOs; (4) variation in the social cohesiveness of local
communities; (5) some distortions of community ownership of FSAs by injection of outside capital; (6) further development of the link bank concepts is
needed; (7) need for close supervision of FSA management because most members are illiterate, while the managers are often the local elites; and (8) need
for more translation of training materials into local languages.
 
 

Recent Experiences with Community-Based Animal Health Care in Pastoral Africa, by Dr. Chip Stem (OAU/IBAR and
Tufts University)
 

(For details in this presentation contact Dr. Stem. Contact details are in Annex C.)
 

Even in the most remote locales, the ability of pastoralists to procure valued commodities such as tea or sugar testifies to the idea that if people want
something badly enough, they will find a way to get it. It is also a tribute to the enduring strength of bush-trader networks. The same principle can apply to
developing new and sustainable systems whereby pastoralists can gain access to valued supplies to protect animal or human health.
 

The OAU/IBAR/PARC-VAC project operates a community-based animal health program in remote places like Turkana (Kenya), Karamoja (Uganda),
Tanzania, Somalia, Chad, Afar (Ethiopia) and southern Sudan. Pastoralists are badly marginalized. Animal and human health issues have much in common.
Previous state-run services dealing with health are withdrawing from rural areas throughout East Africa. Traders and shop-keepers are moving to fill the
void, and are becoming the chief providers of health care in rural areas. The problem is that the shop-keepers and traders have little or no training in this
area, no health diagnoses are done, and poor quality or expired drugs are often sold. This "false" delivery system can badly damage local production
systems for many reasons.
 

The OAU/IBAR project advocates private sector involvement, but with a focus on properly trained people to implement new systems. The project wants to
re-take the professional initiative. Components include checks and balances such as private, professionally supervised health delivery and ensuring
provision of quality drugs. The project collaborates with NGOs and others to train veterinarians and doctors in community dialogue and community-based
health care, business management, etc.
 

For example, in the Sudan the project has helped train 1,000 such health care workers. Ideas for the varied roles of these health care workers, government,
and pharmacy boards were reviewed in a comprehensive vision. Already working in northern Kenya, the OAU/IBAR community-based animal health
project has a desire to expand its efforts to include southern Ethiopia.

Up-date on Pending Feasibility Study to Improve the Road Between Isiolo, Kenya, and Moyale on the Kenya-Ethiopia
Border, by Mr. Francis Chabari (MDP/GTZ)
 

As previously mentioned, the physical infrastructure in northern Kenya is exceedingly poor. The main problem is the 500-km road between Isiolo and
Moyale. It passes directly through the project area. See Figure 1 in Annex A. Given it's strategic location, the road is probably one of the worst in the world.
Intended to be part of an upgraded pan-African highway from north to south, this road was one portion that was never improved. This is despite the fact that
on the Ethiopian side the highway from Addis Ababa to Moyale has been asphalted for many years. The most damage to the Kenya road has occurred from
large transport trucks. Use is also hampered by banditry and damage from floods. Most bridges, however, remain in good condition.
 

In 1994 there was an economic feasibility study carried out to determine if the road should be upgraded. The conclusion was negative.
 

Recently, however, GTZ has been asked by the EC to re-examine the question of whether or not improving the road by asphalting is economically justified.
It is thought that an assessment team should be on the ground in due course. International factors also are playing a role in this. For example, the recent
conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia has encouraged the Ethiopian government to look for alternative sea ports. Mombasa in Kenya is a prominent option.
Improvement of the road between Moyale and Isiolo could be vital for that to occur. Having the road improved would probably have great ramifications for
pastoralists throughout our project area.
 
 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 28
 

Session 4: Phase II Research and Outreach Moving Forward. Chair: Prof. Abdillahi Aboud
(GL-CRSP and Egerton University)
 
 

Livestock Research Strategy for Pastoral Systems in Ethiopia, by Dr. Zinash Sileshi (EARO)
 

(For a copy of the 21-pp executive summary of the EARO Livestock Research Strategy, contact Dr. Zinash Sileshi. Contact details are found in Annex C.)
 
 

The Ethiopian national research programs have recently been in a re-engineering process. The former name of the Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR)
has been changed to the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO). The EARO was formally established in 1997. The former IAR system was
characterized by a duplication of effort. The focus was small-scale with lots of subunits. There was little feedback from producers to researchers, and thus
research was not sensitive to farmer circumstances. Livestock research was very limited to only a few stations. The pillar of the new EARO strategy is
founded on the increase of agricultural productivity while improving or maintaining the natural resource base. Ultimately we want research to contribute to
poverty alleviation and restoring food security. EARO is responsible for coordination of research at national level. EARO is in the process of establishing
research centers in the major agro-ecological zones. There is a renewed emphasis to better serving areas that have been historically underserved, such as
pastoral areas. EARO is also in a process of institution building to strengthen national research capacity. We have been involved in the detailed evaluation of
past research efforts and the formulation of a new strategy and research program. The key is a renewed appreciation to recognize the needs of farmers and
pastoralists and make those our research priorities. The IAR had a dismal record in this regard. There still is no proper system for agricultural extension.
 

At present the national database on technical matters is very poor. We also have a poor understanding of socio-economics. Coping mechanisms of rural
people are not well understood. We also recognize the prevailing conflicts between indigenous systems and development policies of government. EARO
needs to contribute to the formulation of appropriate agriculture strategies and policies, guide infrastructural investment, and development of sustainable
technology. Interventions are also needed to reduce risk and open markets for rural producers. One area of interest is the development of drought early
warning systems.
 

Over the near term, EARO is striving to better characterize representative production systems. EARO is also investing heavily in internal development of
human resources through recent loan acquisitions for research training. In a longer view Ethiopia needs to better develop relevant university curricula to
reduce the need to send EARO staff outside of the country for training. EARO will staff new research stations in four locations. EARO wants to expand
collaborations with NGOs and international organizations.
 
 

Rangeland Research in Kenya: Risks, Challenges, and Opportunities, by Dr. Henry Cheruiyot and Mr. Godana Doyo
(both of KARI)
 

(For a copy of the 11-pp paper submitted by Dr. Cheruiyot and Mr. Doyo, please contact Dr. Cheruiyot. Contact details are found in Annex C.)
 

Much of Kenya's land has low productivity due to lack of rainfall and poor quality soils. The higher potential land for farming is only about 20% of the
land area and supports 80% of the population. About 50% of Kenya's cattle are found in the arid and semi-arid lands, which typically receive between 300
and 800 mm of rainfall per year. Goats, sheep, and camels are also common in these areas.
 

The Kenyan rangelands have many problems including environmental degradation, lack of sustainable impact from past development projects (due in part to
lack of collaboration with local people in the planning process), a poor physical infrastructure (part of a legacy of colonial priorities that favored the
highlands); widely dispersed, illiterate, and poverty-stricken populations. In addition there is use of inappropriate technologies, little coordination of many
development projects, ineffective public sector support, conflicts between wildlife and pastoralists over land, bush encroachment and invasion by noxious
weeds. There is also untapped indigenous knowledge that could be useful for management. There is also a need to better manage conflicts among various
groups. Some conflict occurs from spill-over of highlanders on to higher value rangelands. Farming is a major source of degradation. Sedentarized
populations are springing up nearer to towns due to provision of services, and these can have a negative impact on natural resources. Policy measures taken
since 1968 have had little effect in addressing these problems.
 

KARI (Kenya Agricultural Research Institute) seeks to develop technologies to improve crop and livestock productivity without damaging the natural
resource base. For the dry lands KARI has a dryland farming focus, a natural resource management focus, a range rehabilitation focus, and a social sciences
focus. The research approach is participatory involving all stakeholders. One goal of KARI is to use research to help improve the socioeconomic status of
pastoral people in Kenya.

Research priorities include the following: (1) initiate collaborative processes for developing recommendations to enable selected pastoral and agro-pastoral
communities to better cope and adapt to current social and economic circumstances; (2) develop concepts and techniques to increase productivity of
rangelands, with some focus on range rehabilitation and better use of indigenous grasses; (3) estimate optimal stocking rates for wildlife and livestock; (4)
improve productivity, management, and breeding of range livestock; (5) better monitor and manage against important livestock diseases; and (6) develop
low-cost methods for the preservation or storage of human food.
 

The constraints KARI has for meeting research priorities include a low number of well-trained scientists and a very small budget, especially in relation to
the size of the rangeland resource. The main way to overcome these problems are through collaboration with other research and development entities and
using opportunities for post-graduate research to address priority problems. In summary, KARI recognizes the critical role that research and outreach will
play in improving the living standard of pastoral people. Over-coming barriers to being able to conduct research is an important step in the process.
 
 

Original Research Plan for Phase II of the GL-CRSP, by Dr. Chris Barrett (GL-CRSP and Cornell University)
 

(For a copy of the original research plan for phase II, see the GL-CRSP project proposal at our web site.)
 

This presentation focuses on the original research plans as outlined in the project proposal to USAID in 1998. It is important to note, however, that the
project evolves and can change direction if needed.

The GL-CRSP project is problem-oriented and will continue to focus on identifying and evaluating research options. The project will use a flexible scale of
analysis (local, regional, etc.) and will continue to emphasize a multi-disciplinary perspective.
 

In phase II of the project, which begins in August, 1999, and continues for two to three years thereafter, we will conduct micro-level studies that build on the
macro- and meso- level work begun in phase I. Findings in phase II should also provide a foundation for integrated assessment work in phase III.
 

In phase II, two field-based teams will be led by Dr. John McPeak (Kenya) and Dr. Michael Fleisher (Ethiopia). Each team will include some local
enumerators and Egerton students undertaking field research for their MSc theses. We expect that six to eight community sites will be selected for
intensive, survey-based research coupled with in- depth ethnographic case studies. Criteria to select sites have already been introduced by Dr. Little in his
presentation on pastoral income diversification. We expect that for both Kenya and Ethiopia sites will cover arid and semi-arid conditions, which happen to
be associated with important variation in economic opportunities and pressures on resources.
 

Research would focus on five key areas, namely: (1) household and intra-household issues; (2) livestock marketing; (3) rural financial institutions; (4)
resource tenure and ecological dynamics; and (5) aspects of public services delivery systems. See Annex D for discussion guidelines and key questions
proposed for Phase II research.
 

Evolving Outreach Plan for Phase II, by Dr. Layne Coppock and Dr. Solomon Desta (both of the GL-CRSP and Utah
State University)
 

(For details concerning this presentation, contact Dr. Desta or Coppock. Contact details are found in Annex C. Also see our GHAI proposal on our web
site.)
 

To be successful, this project needs to have an effective outreach component in addition to the research component. Ideally, the outreach component would
focus on helping development agents implement risk management interventions among pastoralists on a pilot basis. The current funding level of the
GL-CRSP, however, is insufficient to cover both research and outreach. Outside funds have to be found for outreach. We have recognized this problem for
nearly a year and explored some funding options with agencies in the USA without success. We recently submitted, however, a comprehensive outreach
proposal for two years of funding to the Greater Horn of Africa Initiative (GHAI) through USAID in Nairobi. We began discussing aspects of this
proposal with USAID personnel a few weeks ago. The general idea is that GHAI would fund an outreach coordination unit within the Pastoral Risk
Management Project of the GL-CRSP. We would then seek funds to implement pilot projects in Ethiopia and Kenya from bilateral USAID mission funds
in each country.
 

The overall idea for the GHAI proposal is to focus on economic growth, food security, and conflict mitigation using risk management principles. Pilot
projects should build on strengths inherent in traditional social organizations and implement interventions that fill critical gaps in a comprehensive vision.
For example, the first step could involve educating people to strengthen basic community organization, and then take actions to better define and protect the
resource base, sustain productivity, and adopted a longer-range view for planning and use of information such as that dealing with markets and rainfall. One
idea would be for communities to embrace strategies to better manage stocking rates with an eye towards reducing wastage mortality losses illustrated in the
previous talk by Dr. Desta. If longer-range planning could be adopted, less-productive stock could be sold prior to crisis. Money could be saved and then
re-invested for a new future, either to the benefit of individuals or entire communities.

We propose that Dr. Solomon Desta be supported by GHAI funds as the outreach coordinator on the project. He, in turn, would oversee a six-member
outreach review panel, comprised evenly of Kenyans and Ethiopians, who would guide disbursement of bilateral funds to proposed pilot outreach projects
based on merit. We would elect these persons by the end of this workshop. Proposed pilot projects would be outlined in proposals submitted by partners
and pastoral beneficiaries in our outreach network. Merit would be based on consideration of: (1) use of integrated risk management principles; (2) likely
impact and community involvement; and (3) other contributions from the submitting organization, such as matching and general competence in carrying out
the proposed plan of work.
 

Pilot projects could involve: (1) developing cooperative organizations (inputs, education, outputs); (2) establishing rural finance capacity; (3) establishing
community-based animal health capacity; (4) improving conflict mitigation/resolution; (5) improving planning, market awareness, and use of information;
(6) improving community resource management; or (7) using novel concepts for mass education.
 
 
 
 

Need for Stronger Links to Policy Makers in Kenya and Ethiopia, by Dr. Layne Coppock (GL-CRSP and Utah State
University)
 

The old Small Ruminant CRSP (or SR-CRSP), as with most traditional applied research projects, was often ineffective in producing real impact on
pastoralists or farmers. There was typically a lack of involvement in SR-CRSP projects by producers, or even grass-roots development agents. We want that
to change in the GL-CRSP. One step in that process is involving development agents in workshops such as this. We still do not have direct links to
pastoralists on this project--we infer pastoral priorities from the priorities forwarded by development agents. We also do not have strong links to most
policy makers and other high-level decision-makers in either Kenya or Ethiopia. If important decision-makers are not part of our debates in the beginning, it
is less likely they will adopt any of our recommendations by the time the project is over.
 

For example, the previous reviews of research or outreach illustrate the critical importance of things like reform of public education for pastoralists,
alleviation of constraints for cross-border trade, promotion of a proper policy environment for village-level banking, land tenure, or range management. We
need to examine potential policy constraints for each major intervention proposed by the project. To illustrate, range rehabilitation, particularly in southern
Ethiopia, is vital to help stabilize cattle numbers in response to drought. Bush control would help restore carrying capacity in many places because bush has
led to large reductions in grass production for cattle. Bush control is important for improved risk management, and prescribed fire is the only economical
means to effectively control bush over large areas. One problem in Ethiopia is that fires as a management tool have been banned for many years. Who
created that ban, and why? Who enforces the ban? Another example is community credit unions. In Kenya there is adequate legislation that allows
community credit or village banking to go ahead. In Ethiopia, only very recently has legislation been debated to the same end. We are fortunate that such
legislation has moved forward in our absence. In Kenya, struggles over scarce land between farmers and pastoralists are common. In Ethiopia, this is less
common. In both countries land competition is an issue, and relevant decision makers need to know about us and what we are doing.
 

As a first step in trying to improve our links to policy makers, the attendees at this workshop were asked to speculate about who the key decision-makers
are who should be attending our deliberations, but are not.
 

For Ethiopia, it was mentioned that having Ato Retta Badada and Ato Haile Gebre already in our network was good. They are important decision-makers for
Oromia. It was noted that the following entities should be represented at future meetings: (1) Zonal (Borana) and Regional (Oromia) Education; (2)
environmental protection; (3) water resources; (4) the Pastoral and Environmental Network for the Horn of Africa (PENHA); (5) representatives from
Region V; (6) legal/policy/land tenure professionals from the federal Ministry of Agriculture and Addis Ababa University; (7) SOS-Sahel policy lobbying
unit; (8) the Ethiopian media; (9) representatives of livestock traders; (10) the joint Ethiopia/Kenya "border committee"; (11) Oromia Disaster Prevention
and Preparedness Commission (ODPPC); and (12) Department of Women's Affairs. One issue was raised concerning the purpose of the GL-CRSP
outreach network: Is the network for debate and sharing of ideas, or is it policy advocacy? The answer is that the network is primarily to share information,
with the goal of achieving positive impact on pastoral livelihoods in the study region. Issues will be identified that have policy implications, and the sooner
that important decision makers are involved in the process, the increased chance that mutually beneficial outcomes could result.
 

For Kenya, it was noted that the following entities should be represented at future meetings: (1) the Kenyan media; (2) relevant lawyers; (3) representatives
of traders; (4) the Kenya Marketing Corporation; and (5) other GL-CRSP projects. It was mentioned that our GL-CRSP project is not "macro" enough and
should increase its regional vision in order to better understand problems affecting pastoral people.
 

It was also mentioned that representatives of the pastoralists themselves should always be in attendance at a GL-CRSP workshop.
 

(Editorial note: PENHA, Addis Ababa University, and ODPPC in Ethiopia were invited to send representatives to attend this workshop but were
apparently unable to do so.)
 
 

Open discussion of phase II plans for research and outreach, by the GL-CRSP team.
 

The purpose of this session was to elicit constructive criticism from a broader range of stakeholders on the design of the upcoming phase II of the
GL-CRSP project. For this exercise, participants were randomly assigned into five working groups. They discussed the basic research strategy for phase II
introduced previously by Dr. Barrett, the five main research topics for phase II (namely public service delivery systems, livestock marketing, resource
tenure/ecological dynamics, pastoral risk exposure/management behavior, and rural financial institutions), and preliminary aspects of phase III research,
referred to as the "integrated assessment module." This involved plans to build a simulation model to evaluate policy alternatives.
 

In the discussions it was desired that each group would discuss the relevance of proposed research problems, adequacy of proposed methods of
investigation, probability of generating new and substantive findings of scientific importance, probability given work would have an impact on mitigating
poverty, and finally to propose a time frame for prospective impact. The five groups varied in their ability to cover these topics. Group leaders made short
presentations that summarized group deliberations. Some members of the GL-CRSP team (Drs. Barrett, Little, and Desta) then took the main points from
the summaries and crafted a general response and synthesis to be presented the following morning. This general response and synthesis is reproduced in
the context of the following presentation.
 

THURSDAY, JULY 29
 

Session 5: Phase II Moving Forward Synthesis and Recommendations and Closing of Workshop.
Chair: Dr. Layne Coppock (GL-CRSP and Utah State University)
 
 

Take-Home Lessons for Research, Outreach, and Training for Phase II, by Dr. Peter Little (GL-CRSP and University of
Kentucky), Dr. Christopher Barrett (GL-CRSP and Cornell University), and Dr. Solomon Desta (GL-CRSP and Utah State
University).
 

General take-home points included: (1) research and outreach must be done in tandem, each informing the other. Research must be practical and
disseminated quickly and locally. Outreach must be well-informed and carefully evaluated; (2) the definition of "research methods" must be broadened to
address the process of collaboration, not just the instruments of data collection; (3) we still need greater and more frequent input from pastoralists about
their priorities. Future meetings should be held in pastoral areas; (4) gender must be "mainstreamed" and made integral to all outreach and research
activities; (5) the broader policy environment is constraining, so we must identify and engage policy makers at national levels in both countries; and (6) we
need to respect our limitations and play to our comparative advantages.
 

Specific take-home points included: (1) Survey-based research must be preceded by initial participatory research in all communities (i.e., a two-stage
approach); (2) understanding how services delivery (i.e., animal health, human health, education, infrastructure, etc.) affects risk is a higher priority than we
had appreciated; (3) livestock marketing is central to the well-being of pastoralists, and our understanding of the marketing channel and market-related
behaviors is still very poor in the study region; (4) basic research output (i.e., descriptive statistics from household and community surveys) must be quickly
delivered to the partners in the network; (5) we must have very specific criteria for both organizations and types of projects to be supported under the
proposed outreach initiative. These criteria must be communicated easily and early to all network partners; (6) research without local collaboration will have
little impact, regardless of its scientific importance; (7) there is a need to make a greater effort to establish a strong research and training partners in Ethiopia
(possibly through Alemaya Agricultural University?); (8) there is real value to holding regular workshops where network partners share experiences and
concerns. Existing communication channels are insufficient; (9) there was little or no interest expressed in a grand, integrated assessment model in phase
III. We should revisit the value of this and perhaps consider less complex approaches; and (10) there is a need for both classical observation research and
for "action research" that collects baseline data and studies the implementation and impact of an outreach initiative.
 

In a subsequent open discussion, other points came up and some are mentioned here. The project needs to give attention to human health concerns, not just
health concerns of livestock. Phasing-out issues were also noted. What will be the involvement of US-based investigators beyond the six-year life of the
project? How can the effort be sustained? How can the process be handed over to local development agents?
 
 

Proposed Phase II Training Plan at Egerton University, by Prof. Abdillahi Aboud GL-CRSP and Egerton University), Dr.
Daniel Too (Egerton University), and Mr. Frank Lusenaka (GL-CRSP and Egerton University). Presented by Mr. Lusenaka.
 
 

The purpose of this presentation is to identify needs for phase II training. The priority needs are as follows: (1) the social science aspects of our curriculum
need to be strengthened--one example is to increase training for things like PRA survey methods; (2) we would like to establish a GIS unit and train our
staff accordingly; (3) our statistics training needs to be strengthened, especially with packages such as SPSS; (4) our computer capabilities still need to be
strengthened; (5) we need more support for our community outreach activities in Baringo; (6) we need to improve our department library; (7) an exchange
program for faculty and students, in partnership with other universities, could be very helpful; and (8) we still need funds to ensure that post-graduates
working with the GL-CRSP are adequately supported.
 

In a subsequent discussion it was mentioned that increasing the role of legal training for students in natural resources could be important. This is not
currently covered in any one course at Egerton, but is touched on lightly in several courses.
 
 

Closing of Workshop and Any Other Business, by Dr. Layne Coppock (GL-CRSP and Utah State University)
 

Before closing the workshop, it was noted that members of the proposed outreach review panel needed to be identified. Workshop attendees were broken
out into two groups (Kenyans and Ethiopians). These groups were asked to nominate five persons. The top three nominees would be asked to serve as
regular members of the outreach review panel for two years, assuming that funding can be found to adequately support the activity. The next two nominees
would be considered as alternates who could serve if the primary nominees were unable or unwilling, and who could serve if primary members were unable
to attend a given meeting. It has been proposed that meetings would be held to determine how to prioritize expenditures for pilot outreach activities, and that
meetings would ideally be held at Moyale on the border between Kenya and Ethiopia. Dr. Solomon Desta would chair the outreach review panel. Desta
would also have voting privileges along with the six panel members.
 

For Kenya, the primary nominees were: (1) Ms. Miriam Cherogony of K-REP/FSA; (2) Mr. M. B. Halake of ALRMP; and (3) Mr. Godana Doyo of
KARI-Marsabit. The nominees for alternates were: (1) Dr. Daniel Too of Egerton University; and (2) Ms. Alycce Kureiya of MDP/GTZ.
 

For Ethiopia, the primary nominees were: (1) Dr. Tafesse Mesfin of the federal PDU/MoA; (2) Ato Aliyu Hussen of OADB; and (3) Ato Sora Adi of
BLPDP/GTZ. The nominees for alternates were: (1) Dr. Fisseha Meketa of SC/USA; and (2) Wzo. Felekech Lemecha of OADB.
 

The meeting was closed at 11:00 AM.
 

                                                        Annex A

                                                         Figures
 

Figure 1. Map of the GL-CRSP study region.
 

Figure 2. Schema of a "virtuous cycle" of benefits proposed to result from diversification of livestock capital in pastoral systems.
 

Figure 3. Dynamics for total numbers and marketed offtake for cattle in the north-central portion of Borana zone, southern Ethiopia, 1980-97. Livestock
data based on recall from 56 pastoral households.
Figure 4. Marketing (price) margins for adult male cattle between Marsabit and Nairobi, Kenya, 1993-7.

Figure 5. Hierarchy of factors important for pastoral risk management.
 

                                                        Annex B

                                                  List of Participants

Ato Retta Bedada

Head, Economic Sector, Council of Oromia,

c/o P.O. Box 8644

Addis Ababa, ETHIOPIA
 

Ato Abdurheman Ame

FARM-Africa, P.O. Box 5746

Addis Ababa

ETHIOPIA
 

Mr. John K. Tangus

Egerton University

P.O. Box 536, Njoro

KENYA
 

Dr. Henry K. Cheruiyot

KARI, P.O. Box 57811

Nairobi

KENYA
 

Ato Abdi A. Hussein

PCAE, P.O. Box 387

Addis Ababa

ETHIOPIA
 

Dr. John Unruh

FEWS - USAID

P.O. Box 1014, Addis Ababa

ETHIOPIA
 

Dr. Pascal Bonnet

ILRI, P.O. Box 5689

Addis Ababa

ETHIOPIA
 

Ato Tadesse Tegegne

WFP, P.O. Box 5580

Addis Ababa

ETHIOPIA
 

Mr. Godana Doyo

KARI, P.O. Box 147

Marsabit

KENYA
 

Ato Alemayehu Sintayehu

EECMY/SES/BCDP

P.O. Box 86, Mega

ETHIOPIA
 

Ato Alemu Adere

SORDU, P.O. Box 31

Yavello

ETHIOPIA
 

Ato Zerihun Tadesse

OCPB/Borana

P.O. Box 183, Negelle

ETHIOPIA
 

Ato Feyisa Taffa

Zonal Agr. Dept. (Borana)

P.O. Box 450901, Negelle

ETHIOPIA
 

Ato Omar Gobe Wario

Borana Zone Admin.

Negelle

ETHIOPIA
 

Dr. Daniel K. Too

Egerton University

P.O. Box 536, Njoro

KENYA
 

Prof. A.A. Aboud

Egerton University

P.O. Box 536, Njoro

KENYA
 

Mr. M.B. Halake

ALRMP, P.O. Box 284

Marsabit

KENYA
 

Wzo. Abaynesh W/Giorgis

Ministry of Agriculture

P.O. Box 22986, Addis Ababa

ETHIOPIA
 

Mr. Geoffrey Leparteleg

DPIRP, P.O. Box 954

Nanyuki

KENYA
 

Ato Dawit Abebe

FARM - Africa, P.O. Box 5746

Addis Ababa

ETHIOPIA
 

Ato Million Kebede

SC / USA, P.O. Box 387

Addis Ababa

ETHIOPIA
 

Wzo. Felekech Lemecha

OADB, P.O. Box 8770

Addis Ababa

ETHIOPIA
 

Ato Tsehay Redda

MOA, P.O. Box 3431

Addis Ababa

ETHIOPIA
 

Ato Alemayehu Boka

PDU/MOA, P.O. Box 34225

Addis Ababa

ETHIOPIA
 

Mr. C.I. Lenachuru

Egerton University

P.O. Box 536, Njoro

                                          KENYA
 

                                          Dr. Michel Corra

                                          P.O. Box 4318

                                          Addis Ababa

                                          ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Mr. Roger Kamidi

                                          ILRI

                                          P.O. Box 30709

                                          Nairobi, KENYA
 

                                          Mr. F. Chabari

                                          MDP/GTZ

                                          P.O. Box 47051

                                          Nairobi, KENYA
 

                                          Ato Chilot Yirga

                                          EARO, P.O. Box 2003

                                          Addis Ababa

                                          ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Ato Sora Adi

                                          BLPDP/GTZ, P.O. Box 12631

                                          Addis Ababa

                                          ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Ato Abraham Bongasse

                                          SC/USA, P.O. Box 387

                                          Addia Ababa

                                          ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Dr. Tegegne Teka

                                          OSSREA, P.O. Box 31971

                                          Addis Ababa

                                          ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Ato Belete Tefera

                                          NCA, P.O. Box 1248

                                          Addis Ababa

                                          ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Mr. Moses Esilaba

                                          Egerton University

                                          P.O. Box 536, Njoro

                                          KENYA
 

                                          Mr. Frank Lusenaka

                                          Egerton University

                                          P.O. Box 536, Njoro

                                          KENYA
 

                                          Ato Dereje Tolu

                                          OADB, P.O. Box 8770

                                          Addis Ababa

                                          ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Ato Yosef Gebrehiwot

                                          SC/USA, P.O. Box 387

                                          Addis Ababa

                                          ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Mr. Ben Irwin

                                          SOS SAHEL, P.O. Box 3262

                                          Addis Ababa

                                          ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Dr. Abakano Kereyu

                                          Consultant, P.O. Box 6380

                                          Addis Ababa

                                          ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Ato Tadi Liben

                                          Consultant, P.O. Box 40176

                                          Addis Ababa

                                          ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Ato Tewodros Fesseha

                                          VOCA-Ethiopia

                                          P.O. Box 548, Code 1110

                                          Addis Ababa, ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Dr. Fisseha Meketa

                                          SC/USA, P.O. Box 387

                                          Addis Ababa

                                          ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Ms. Carolyn Logan

                                          USAID/REDSO-ESA

                                          P.O. Box 30261, Nairobi

                                          KENYA
 

                                          Mr. Abdi Umar

                                          Kenya Pastoral Forum

                                          P.O. Box 67533, Nairobi

                                          KENYA
 

                                          Ato Eyasu Elias

                                          SOS-Sahel, P.O. Box 3262

                                          Addis Ababa

                                          ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Mr. Golich Sora

                                          K-REP/FSA, P.O. Box 39312

                                          Nairobi

                                          KENYA
 

                                          Ato Misgana Lelissa

                                          OADB, P.O. Box 8770

                                          Addis Ababa

                                          ETHIOPIA
 

                                          Mr. Mwacharo Joram

                                          P.O. Box 12

                                          Makindu

                                          KENYA
 

                                          Mr. V.K. Lelei

                                          ALRMP, P.O. Box 53547

                                          Nairobi

                                          KENYA
 
 

                                          Ato Dadhi Amosha

                                                                                    OADB, P.O. Box 8770

                                                                                    Addis Ababa

                                                                                    ETHIOPIA
 
 

                                                                                    Wzt. Sosina Asfaw

                                                                                    P.O. Box 2565

                                                                                    Addis Ababa

                                                                                    ETHIOPIA
 
 

                                                                                    Wzo Tihut Yirgu Asfaw

                                                                                    CARE, P.O. Box 19616

                                                                                    Addis Ababa

                                                                                    ETHIOPIA
 
 

                                                            &nb