Impact Assessment of Livestock Feed Supplementation

PASTORALIST LIVELIHOODS INITIATIVELivelihoods-based Drought Response inEthiopia: Impact Assessment of LivestockFeed SupplementationGezu Bekele and Tsehay AberaAugust 2008

ContentsSummary1. Introduction2. Methods2.1 Study design2.2 Study area2.3 Data collection2.4 Sampling method and sample sizes2.5 Data analysis3. Results3.1 Rainfall patterns preceding and during the drought in 2007/83.2 Pastoralist’s internal response to the drought3.3 The SC US supplementary feeding intervention for cattle3.4 Impact of drought on the cattle population3.5 Impact of supplementary feeding on cattle mortality3.6 Impact of supplementary feeding on cattle body condition3.7 Impact of supplementary feeding on milk yield and calf survival3.8 Benefit-cost analysis of SC US supplementary feeding3.9 Future refinement of the supplementary feeding arrangements4. Discussioni11112333357891010111314AcknowledgementsThis impact assessment was funded by the United State Agency for International Development(USAID) through a grant to the Feinstein International Center, Tufts University under thePastoralist Livelihoods Initiative (PLI) program. The livestock feed supplementation programassessed was implemented by Save the Children US, also using funds from USAID under the PLIprogram, plus additional funds from the Humanitarian Response Fund under the United NationsOffice for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Ethiopia. The authors acknowledge theintellectual contributions of pastoralists in Bulbul and Web/Dhas, and the support of SC USexperts Oboo Did Waqo, Dr. Kinde Waqweya, and Dr. Tarekegn Tola.

SummarySince the drought in some pastoralist areasof Ethiopia in 2005 to 2006, there has beenincreasing interest in the use ofsupplementary feeding for livestock as partof an integrated drought response. Overtime, and with more attention to the needfor early response, NGOs are working tointervene more rapidly and improve modesof implementation. In terms of thelivelihoods-based approaches promoted bythe USAID Pastoralist LivelihoodsInitiative, the livelihoods objectives oflivestock supplementary feeding are toprotect the key assets of pastoralists andpromote post-drought recovery. However,livestock supplementary feeding is notuniversally accepted as an appropriatedrought response intervention. For thoseactors following a conventionalhumanitarian approach of saving humanlives, feed for livestock might be regarded asa distraction from the core business of foodaid for people. Livestock feedsupplementation also involves considerablecosts, with some workers suggesting thatthese costs are somehow excessive orinappropriate.During the recent drought in Borena andGuji zones in southern Ethiopia, Save theChildren US used funds from USAID andthe UNOCHA Humanitarian ResponseFund to implement an emergency livestocksupplementary feed program. As cattle wereparticularly affected by the drought, theprogram focused on the establishment ofcattle feeding centers where in consultationwith communities, an agreed number ofadult cows received concentrate feed androughage. Ten feeding centers wereestablished in the two zones, and a total of6,750 cattle were fed in the two zones.The impact assessment described in thisreport was conducted in mid to late May2008, approximately six weeks after theonset of rains. The assessment was initiallydesigned to measure mortality in ‘fed’ and‘unfed’ cattle and thereby assess the impactof supplementary feeding in terms of cattlelosses. Although the assessment didmeasure mortality trends, further benefitsrelated to production, calf survival and milksupply were also measured. The assessmentlooked in detail at two feeding centers viz.Bulbul and Web. In Bulbul 1,000 cows werefed for 22 days whereas in Web 800 cowswere fed for 67 days.The findings of the impact assessment wereas follows:• Prior to the onset of the feedingprogram, 49% of pastoralistsinterviewed were buying livestock feedfrom private suppliers. While thisindicated a strong local demand for feed,the capacity of people to buy feed washindered by a credit system for cattlesales which delayed the physical receiptof cash by herders, and as the droughtcontinued, increasing livestock feedprices. Consequently, an insufficientquality and quantity of privatelyacquiredfeed was fed to cattle.• Mortality – in both feeding centersmortality was significantly lower in cowsin the feeding centers relative to unfedcattle (p

implementation and policy changes remainto be addressed. These include the generallylow availability of livestock feeds in Ethiopiaand the limited capacity of concentrateproducers to meet demand and maintainquality. Interventions which are solelyfunded by donors will also be limited incoverage according to budget, meaning thatless than a core breeding herd can besupported.However, given the increasing local demandfor livestock feed among pastoralists thereare opportunities to work more with theprivate sector and design interventions withmore attention to cost recovery for feed, or,feed supply through the private sector usingapproaches such as voucher schemes.Similarly, support is needed to more longtermapproaches to fodder production andsupply, such as irrigated fodder productionalong permanent water sources andmanagement of dry-season grazing reserves.The overall finding of the assessment wasthat emergency livestock supplementaryfeeding during drought of up to 67 daysduration could be justified in terms oflivelihoods objectives and economicrationale.ii

1. IntroductionThis impact assessment aimed to measurethe impact of an emergency livestock feedsupplementation program implemented bySave the Children US during drought inpastoralist communities in Liben district(Guji Zone) and Arero district (Borena Zone),Oromia region. The drought had affected thearea from April 2007 through to April 2008,and under the intervention in Borena 6,750cattle were fed 1 .The assessment was initially designed toproduce a quantitative analysis of thefeeding program using cattle mortality asthe main indicator of livelihoods impact.Under a livelihoods approach, this relates tothe objectives of protecting key assets andassisting post-drought recovery. As theassessment began, other benefits were alsoapparent such as improved body condition ofcows, calf survival and births, and milkproduction. Therefore, these indicators ofimpact were also measured.Also at the start of the assessment it wasevident that pastoralists were feeding cattleusing feed from two different sources viz.private suppliers and SC US. The feedsourced from private suppliers was aprivate, commercial transaction betweenpastoralists and sellers of livestock feed,whereas the feed provided by SC US waspaid for by the organization and given freeof charge to selected households. In general,cattle in relatively good body condition werefed using the feed from private supplierswhereas cattle in poor condition were fedusing the SC US feed. Therefore, theassessment did not aim to compare theimpact of these two different feedingpractices because different types of cattlewere fed in each case. Herds and householdswere randomly sampled, and the assessmentwas conducted about six weeks after the endof the drought in May 2008.The specific objectives of the impactassessment were to:• Assess the impact of the 2007/8 droughton livestock resources.1The SC US program also covered Moyale andHudet, but these areas were not covered in theassessment; the total number of cattle fed in allareas was approximately 8,000.• Assess the impact of the supplementaryfeeding intervention on the mortality andpost-drought production performance ofcattle.• Draw lessons to inform future decisionmakingand planning for emergencylivestock feed interventions.2. Methods2.1 Study designThe design of the study took account of feedsupplied by both SC US and purchased locallyfrom private suppliers, and the movement ofsome cattle to better grazing areas locatedaway from the feeding centers. Therefore, thethree main groups of cattle which wereconsidered were as follows:• Unfed cattle, being cattle moved to bettergrazing and receiving no supplementaryfeed.• Cows fed using feed from privatesuppliers, relatively close to feedingcenter areas.• Cows fed in feeding centers using feedsupplied by SC US.As the main objective of livestocksupplementary feeding is to protect keyassets, the study focused on measuring andcomparing mortality in these three groups.However, an expected finding in the feedingcenters was the return to milk production ofsome cows, and the delivery and survival ofsome calves. Therefore, these productionbenefits were also assessed.2.2 Study areaLiben and Arero districts are found in theGuji and Borena zonal administrativedivisions of the Oromia National RegionalState. The people in the rural areas areBorena pastoralists who make theirlivelihoods largely from livestock. They tendmixed herds of cattle, small ruminants,donkeys and camels through seasonalmovements between the wet and dry seasonsgrazing areas. Most of the areas in thesedistricts are classified as lowlands, with pondsand wells serving as water sources for bothpeople and livestock during the dry months.In 2008 drought was affecting many of thestudy districts, especially the more extremelowland parts. Cattle supplementary feedingprograms were implemented by SC US,1

CARE, AFD, FAO and OPC. The SC USsupplementary feeding in Arero and Dhas,and Liben was conducted between February6 th to April 16 th , and from March 15 th to April13 th , 2008.Figure 1Oromiya region showing locations of Bulbul and Web livestock feeding centersBulbul2.3 Data collectionBoth qualitative and quantitative researchinstruments were used, and were designedin consultation with SC US experts based inAddis Ababa who were involved in thedesign and implementation of the cattlesupplementary feeding program. The impactassessment was conducted between 11 th to31 st May 2008 by a researcher who spoke theOromo language, and using participatorytechniques and tools. Information wascollected from key informant groups andindividual informants as follows:Individual informants – these informantsprovided quantitative data for measuringthe impact of the drought and impact of theSC US program in terms of cattle survivaland milk yield. Specifically, theseinformants explained:• changes in herd size at the onset (May2007) and end (May 2008) of thedrought, and the proportion of cattleleaving the herd for different reasonsduring this period• the number of cattle receiving eitherfeed supplied by SC US, or, feedpurchased privately by their owners• the mortality in cattle fed using SC USfeed, cattle fed privately by their owners,and unfed cattle• cattle movements to and from grazingareasKey informant groups - were questioned onissues related to the causation and effects ofthe 2008 drought, and the general impact ofthe supplementary feeding program. Achecklist was standardized in the field usingfirst-hand information obtained from the SCUS Negele and Arero field offices. Thechecklist required each group to:• identify a normal year and define therainfall period for the genna and hagay2

season rains, and then usingproportional piling, compare the relativeimportance of the rains based on theamount contributed to total annualrainfall• show the variations in the timing andamount of rainfall in the 2006 and 2008droughts• describe major drought-associatedevents in 2008 including internal andexternal responses in their chronologicalorders• comment on the emergency cattlesupplementary feeding program andsuggest improvement or better options• identify contributory factors that mighthave aggravated the drought situation2.4 Sampling method and samplesizesIndividual informants - SC US hadestablished 10 cattle feeding centers, withthree centers in Arero and seven centers inLiben. Two feeding centers were randomlyselected, and these centers were in Bulbuland Web. In Bulbul 39 individualinformants (herds) were randomly sampledfrom a list of 361 herds provided by SC US.In Web, 43 individual informants (herds)were randomly sampled from a list of 389herds. Therefore, out of a total of 750 herdsin these two feedings centers, 82 herds(10.9%) were sampled. The total number ofcattle fed by SC US in these herds was 393.Key informant groups - in each feeding sitean informant group was formed of 10 menand two women.2.5 Data analysisMuch of the data collected was summarizedusing descriptive statistics. As informantswere able to provide absolute numbers ofcattle fed in different ways and number ofdeaths, statistical comparison of mortality incattle by type of feeding was conductedusing Chi-square. The analysis was repeatedfor each of the two feeding centers, as theseverity of drought and duration of feedingdiffered in the centers.3. Results3.1 Rainfall patterns precedingand during the drought in2007/8The Borena area has long been among thepastoral areas of Ethiopia most frequentlyaffected by drought. The drought in 2007/8was said to have started with comparativefailure of the genna rains in March to April2007. Local perceptions of the timing of therains and rain failures, and the proportion ofrain by season are shown in Tables 1 and 2for the years 2003 (a good year), 2005 and2007, and timelines for the two areas arepresented in Figure 2.Table 2Timing of seasonal rains in normal and drought yearsArea and seasonArero:GennaHageyaYear2003 1 2005 2007Start of End of Start of End of Start ofrain rain rain rain rainEnd ofrainMarch May March April April AprilOctober December No rain No rain No rain No rainLiben:GennaMarch May April May April AprilHageya October December October November Mid Nov Mid Nov1 Most recent good year3

Some key points were:• In the ideal normal year of 2003 therainfall period for the genna and hageyarains were said to be early March to endof May, and early October to end ofDecember respectively.• The 2007/8 drought was more serious inArero with complete failure of rain ingenna and hageya in 2007. This findingwas verified by the Guji ZoneEmergency Task Force which declaredan emergency situation in specific PAsin a letter to the Oromia regionalauthorities on 18 th March 2008.• The drought in Liben was less severe,with lower rainfall than ideal in terms ofduration and amount of rain.Table 3Proportion of annual rainfall received in normal and drought yearsArea and seasonYear2003 2005 2007Arero:Genna 70 % 21 % 7 %Hageya 30 % 0 0Liben:Genna 77 % 62 % 46 %Hageya 23 % 16 % 9 %Figure 2Chronology of key drought factored events in Liben and AreroLiben/Bulbul cattle feeding siteEvent‣ Poor performance of 2007 genna season rains; short durationand low intensity‣ In dry season grazing fields feed availability deterioratedcriticallyTimeApril 2007May 2007‣ Livestock moved to wet season grazing fields May 2007‣ Pasture and cattle condition deteriorated critically May 2007‣ Dams that gave birth in hageya in October to December 2006and their calves started dying‣ Pregnant cows and aged cattle especially hawicha/aged cowsstarted dying‣ Hageya performed badly; uneven distribution and too shortduration‣ Middle age groups started dying especially poor conditionedfarming oxenJune 2007July 2007Late November 2007October 2007‣ SC US launched supplementary feeding intervention 15 th March 2008‣ Genna 2008 rains started Early April 2008‣ Feeding center closed 13 th April 20084

Arero/Web cattle feeding siteEvent‣ Poor performance of 2007 genna season rains; short duration andlow intensityTimeApril‣ In dry season grazing fields feed availability deteriorated critically May 2007‣ Cattle condition deteriorated critically June 2007‣ Strong cattle migrated June 2007‣ Cattle price dropped by 30% on average, from EB 2,000 to EB 1,400 June 2007‣ Dams that gave birth in hageya, October to December 06, and theircalves started dyingJune 2007‣ Pregnant and also aged cows/hawicha started dying July 2007‣ Hageya season rains failed totally and cattle mortality increased. October to December2007‣ Strong cattle moved to Dakhawata pasture, 80 km away fromnearest water point‣ Pastoralists rented truck for 24,000 EB to water cattle atDhakawata‣ Geri and Borena conflict over the Dakhawata pasture field turnedinto gun fire‣ Feed price increased by 34%, hay from EB 35 to 47, concentratefrom EB 130 to 140‣ Grain price rose 185%, from EB 200 to 570October 2007October 2007November 2007November 2007‣ SC US launched cattle supplementary feeding program 6 th February 2007‣ Genna 2008 rains started Mid April 2008‣ Feeding center closed 18 th April 2008Note - in all feeding centers established by SC US, the feeding period extended 7 days into the genna rains.Cattle owners were responsible for collecting feeds on a daily basis and arranging night shelter for the cattlebrought to feeding centers.3.2 Pastoralist’s internalresponse to the droughtIn response to the 2007/8 drought,pastoralists started to use their ownresources to protect their livestock. Theimpact assessment showed that:• Movement to better grazing - 54% (44) ofthe study households moved cattle tobetter grazing areas, especiallyDhekhawata; approximately 39% of allcattle were moved.• Water supply - a truck was rented for EB24,000 to transport water from sourceslocated 80 km away to Dhakhawata; thistook place before the Geri and Borenaconflict over the pasture field led toconflict.• Purchase of livestock feed - 49% (40) ofthe study households purchased animalfeeds. The feeds purchased includedfrushka, teff-straw/ched and haytransported from Sululta, and locallyharvestedgrass. Within those herdsassessed, 32% of cattle were fed withthese different feeds purchased by theirowners. The income needed to buy feedwas acquired through cattle sales, with amean of 14.0% (95% CI 7.5%, 21.0%) ofcattle sales income spent on feed inBulbul, and 35.9% (95% CI 24.0%, 47.8%)of cattle sales income spent on feed inWeb.According to informant group discussions, theproblem of livestock feed shortage during thedrought was exacerbated by changes totraditional grazing areas. For example, thegood pasture located in the water-shed areacalled Did-Liben had been converted intofarmland, and the wet season pasture onhillsides was now all-season pasture due tothe development of water points by NGOs andlocal government. It was said that the wetseason pasture, which used to be an asset tobe exploited at times of critical drought, hadbecome unusable in recent years. In additionto changes to grazing areas, in Arero conflictswith multiple tribes such as Geri, Guji andGebra were emphasized to have restricted5

. Movements and conflict during the 2008 droughtTable 4Cattle and animal feeds price in local marketsItemHayConcentrateBull (8-9 years of age)Average price (range)(EB)40 (35-41)/bale135 (130-140)/quintal1,700 (1,400-2,000)/headTable 5Amount and cost of feed ration for adult cowsType of feed Daily ration Ration (kg) Total feed cost perper head adult required for 60 cattle head (EB)cow (kg) days/headHay 2 120 81Concentrate 1 60 273Total 354Note – using the figures in Table 4 and 5, the sale of an adult bull would feed 5 cows for at least 2 months3.3 The Save the Children USsupplementary feedingintervention for cattleThe SC US cattle supplementary feedingprogram was mainly a response to thefailure of the hageya season rains. In GujiZone, an emergency situation was declaredin March 2008, and the Web and Bulbulfeeding centers studied were opened onFebruary 9 th and March 15 th , 2008respectively; noticeably, the Web feedingcenter opened before the official declarationof an emergency.The approach used by SC US was toprioritize the most drought-affected PAsbased on the distribution of the hageyarainfall, cattle condition and cattlemortality. As a result, in Web and Bulbulfeeding centers a total of 800 and 1,000 cowswere fed for 67 and 22 days respectively (i.e.7

Table 10Statistical analysis of mortalityComparisonBulbul area - affected by moderate drought; 22-day feedingprogram started on 15th March 2008:Unfed cattle vs. cows fed using SC US feedUnfed cattle vs. cows fed using private feedSC US fed cows vs. privately fed cowsWeb area - affected by severe drought; 67-day feedingprogram began on 9 th February 2008:Unfed cattle vs. cows fed using SC US feedUnfed cattle vs. cows fed using private feedSC US fed cows vs. privately fed cowsChi-square21.4, p

0.44, 0.97; n=46) and the estimated totalmilk production was 2,276 liters whilecows were fed in the feeding center. InWeb the mean daily milk yield was 0.9l/day (95%CI 0.64, 1.22; n=63) and theestimated total milk production was3,364 liters while cows were fed in thefeeding centers. Informants clearlyunderlined that this milk was fed tochildren.3.8 Benefit-cost analysis of SC USsupplementary feedingA benefit-cost analysis was conducted foreach of the two feeding centers covered bythe assessment, and results are shown inTables 11 and 12. The assumptions in thebenefit-cost calculations were as follows:• The market value of reduced cattlemortality could be derived from acomparison of mortality in unfed andSC-fed cattle, and an estimated marketvalue of adult cows at the start of thedrought of EB 1,500 ($163)• The market value of improved bodycondition of cattle in feeding centerscould be estimated by comparing theproportional increase in SC US-fed cowsmoving from ‘poor’ to ‘moderate’ bodycondition relatively to unfed cattle; thecalculation assumed that cows in poorcondition would be valued at an averageprice of EB 1,500 ($163) whereas cows inmoderate body condition were valued atEB 2,500 ($272) i.e. an increased valueof $109. Although this is a theoreticalcalculation (because adult cows arerarely sold), there will be an economicbenefit associated with having cows inbetter condition at the end of a droughtbecause such cows will return toproduction relatively quickly, andproduce calves and milk sooner thancows in poor body condition. However,this return to production requires alongitudinal study and so could not bedirectly measured in the impactassessment• The market value of milk was estimatedat EB 3.0 ($0.33) per literTable 11Benefit-cost analysis of supplementary feeding in Bulbul feeding centerItemCostsCost of cattle feed used 22 days x 1000 cowsTransport costs for feedLoading and unloading costsVehicle rentEnumerator and CAHWSC US technical and admin staff costsOther costSC US overheadsTotal costsBenefitsValue of cattle losses prevented in feeding center= {(25.4% x1000 cows)-(8.1% x 1000 cows} 1 x $163Value of improved body condition of cows, end May 2008 2= 48.7% x (91.9% x 1000 cows) x $109Value of milk produced over 22 days in feeding center= 2276 liters 3 x $0.33/literValue of calves delivered and survived in feeding center = 87 calves 3 x $54.30Total benefitsBenefit-cost ratioAmount($)19,27324,5301672604078508924,63751,01728,19948,7837514,72482,4571.62:111

Notes for Table 111From Table 9, this formula calculates the value of cows saved in SC US feeding centers relative to unfedcattle by using mortality rates in SC US-fed and unfed cattle; a value of $163 is the value at the onset ofdrought.2From Figure 4, section 3.6, this formula excludes cattle which died during the drought, and uses theproportional increase in body condition from ‘poor’ to ‘moderate’ in SC US-fed cows compared with unfedcattle; moderate condition value of $272 less poor condition value of $163 = $109.3 From section 3.7Table 12Benefit-cost analysis of supplementary feeding in Web feeding centerItemCostsCost of cattle feed used = 67 days x 800 cowsTransport costs for feedLoading and unloading costsVehicle rentEnumerator and CAHWSC US technical and admin staff costsOther costSC US overheadsTotal costsBenefitsValue of cattle losses prevented in feeding center= {(34.2% x 800) - (21.2% x 800)} 1 x $163Value of improved body condition of cows, end of May 2008 2= 67.5% x (75.8% x 800 cows) x $109Value of milk = 3664 liters x $0.33/liter, produced over 67 days infeeding centerValue of calves delivered and survived in feeding center= 118 calvesx $54.30Total benefitsBenefit-cost ratioAmount($)17,90013,32602605076661,0383,36936,06716,95246,3821,2096,02770,5701.90:11From Table 9, this formula calculates the value of cows saved in SC US feeding centers relative to unfedcattle by using mortality rates in SC US-fed and unfed cattle; a value of $163 is the value at the onset ofdrought2From Figure 4, section 3.6, this formula excludes cattle which died during the drought, and uses theproportional increase in body condition from ‘poor’ to ‘moderate’ in SC US-fed cows compared with unfedcattle; moderate condition value of $272 less poor condition value of $163 = $109.3 From section 3.7Using results from the Web feeding center,sensitivity analysis was conducted on theBCR, as shown in Table 13. This analysis isimportant because a ‘large’ or positive BCRof say 10:1 may be highly sensitive torelatively small changes in intervention,market or impact factors. In such asituation, the intervention may beeconomically viable in crude terms but highriskin terms of intervention or marketchanges.While the BCR of 1.9 in Table 12 indicatesthat livestock supplementary feeding over a67-day period is economically beneficial, thesensitivity analysis in Table 13 shows thatthe intervention is robust and not overlysensitive to the kinds of market changeswhich might occur during or shortly afterdrought. For example, in a scenario in whichthe cattle feed price increased by 20%, theBCR falls by only 9.5% to 1.72. Although notshown in Table 13, feed prices would need toincrease by 250% for the BCR to fall below1:1.12

Table 13Sensitivity analysis for the benefit-cost of supplementary feeding at WebChanges in cattlemortality, conditionand cost of feedingBenefit-cost (proportional change relative to field model)Cattle and milk market values at end ofdroughtField model Decrease by 10% Decrease by 20%Field modelCattle mortalityIncrease by 10%Increase by 20%Cattle body conditionDecrease by 10%Decrease by 20%Cost of feedingIncrease by 10%Increase by 20%1.901.70 (-10.5%)1.50 (-21.1%)1.78 (-6.3%)1.65 (-13.2%)1.81 (-4.7%)1.72 (-9.5%)1.71 (-10%)1.53 (-14.2%)1.35 (-28.9%)1.60 (-15.8%)1.49 (-21.6%)1.63 (-14.2%)1.55 (-18.4%)1.52 (-20%)1.36 (-28.4%)1.20 (-36.8%)1.42 (-25.3%)1.32 (-30.5%)1.63 (-14.2%)1.45 (-23.7%)3.9 Future refinement of the supplementary feeding arrangementsTable 14 describes some of the limitations of the supplementary feeding program identified bystakeholders, how these limitations affected the program and suggestions for improvements orbetter options for future interventions. These are based on comments by stakeholders, includingbeneficiaries, SC US staff and researchers.Table 14Local stakeholder review of supplementary feed interventionLimitation identified(source)The proportion of the cattlepopulation targeted perdistrict, PA and village wastoo low relative to the need(reported by beneficiaries).Few, scattered feedingcenters, located far from somePAs and villages (reported bybeneficiaries and staff).The requirement that cattleowners should look after andprepare night shelters for thecattle brought to the feedingcenters meant that they hadto leave behind the rest of theherd, un-tended (reported bybeneficiaries).Note that in the response tothe 2006 drought, animalssubmitted to the feedingcenters were fed and cared forby the project.OutcomeIn response to communities’ requests,in Arero the project opened additionalfeeding centers in Annole and Qalqaloon March 18th and March 20 th , 2008.Cattle were too weak to reach thosefeeding centers located 10-20 km away,resulting in many of the beneficiariesfrom the more remote villages passingtheir quota to relatives.Many households did not have thenecessary labor to be able tolift/transport weak cattle to the centersas well as manage the remainder of theherd, and found it difficult to meet thecosts incurred e.g. in paying for food forcattle attendants at the centers. Thisresulted in some beneficiaryhouseholds passing their quota torelatives.Suggested optionsReduce reliance on feedingcenters by increasing privatesources of quality feed e.g. on acost-recovery basis, which cattleowners can access in times ofdrought.Distribute feeding centers moreevenly across the PA andestablish centers at village level.Beneficiaries suggesteddistributing feed directly tohouseholds, rather than atfeeding centers. This has notbeen done in the past for fearthat feed would be sharedamongst too many cattle.However, cattle owners said thatif alternative sources of feedwere available on a cost-recoverybasis, emergency feed would bekept for the most vulnerablecattle.13

Table 14 (continued)The feeding center was openairand was not fenced orcontrolled by project staff(reported by project staff).The emergency feed quotawas only targeted at femalecattle (reported bybeneficiaries).The amount of feed suppliedper head of cattle wasinadequate, particularly inthe case of teff-straw, whichhas a low nutritional value(reported by beneficiaries).In Dhas, the OromiaPastoralists DevelopmentCommission (OPADC) alsoestablished a feeding programin the same village as the SCUS feeding center(information frombeneficiaries and SC staff).Veterinary drugs from FAOarrived late (reported byproject staff).The lack of control meant that cattleowners could substitute the registeredcattle and/ or share feed with theirother cattle once the former started toimprove. In response, the projectstarted to mark the registered cows.Although the cows were ready,breeding was limited because some ofthe bulls were too weak to mount.Cattle survived rather than put onweight in the centers. Given the poorpost-drought genna rain, ownersconsidered that these cattle were stillvulnerable and would be at risk in thenext dry season.Inconsistencies in feed supply for theOPADC program meant that SC cameunder pressure both from cattle ownersand woreda administration to lendthem feed from the SC feeding center.There is no data relating to the impactof the delay i.e. none of the randomlysampled cattle died due to disease/ lackof drugs. However, late arrival of drugsshould be avoided.The open-air design can reduceprogram overhead costs, butrequires that additionalsupervisory staff is hired tomanage and control cattlemovements in the centers.Include breeding bulls andfarming oxen in the emergencyfeeding program.Teff straw should besupplemented with the provisionof higher quality concentratessuch as nug-cake/fagulo.More effort is needed to ensurethat emergency interventions bydifferent actors are adequatelycoordinated and resourced.Consider alternative systems ofdrugs supply. For example,equipping CAHWs so that theyare able to provide drugs andveterinary services as and whenneeded. Donor funds could thenbe used to replenish CAHWs’kits and pay for veterinaryservices provided to targetedcattle owners using a vouchersystem.4. DiscussionBorena Zone in Oromia Region is one of themost frequently drought-affected pastoralareas in Ethiopia. The 2007/08 droughtstarted with the comparative and completefailures of the genna and hageya rainsrespectively, and cattle-dependanthouseholds experienced serious economicdecline due to cattle losses. In response tothe drought, cattle supplementary feedingprograms were implemented in Oromia by anumber of NGOs, UN agencies andgovernment bodies, both in Borena and GujiZones. Program implementation methodsvaried from place to place, depending on theorganizations involved. In the case of SCUS, open air feeding centers wereestablished in selected sites in each district.Since the drought in some pastoralist areasof Ethiopia in 2005 to 2006, there has beengreater interest in and use of livestocksupplementary feeding. In the case of the2007/08 drought, private feed sourcesincluded the delivery of relatively largeamounts of hay and concentrate feeds fromhighland areas into pastoralist areas byprivate sector actors such as the Elweyamulti-purpose cooperative, grain tradinggroups and livestock traders. Feed supplywas also boosted by locally produced andharvested grass marketed mostly by women.In terms of the demand for feed, almost half(49%) of the households sampled during theimpact assessment had purchased livestockfeeds. Within the herds assessed, 29% of thetotal drought survivor cattle population hadbeen fed with purchased feed, whilst 26%had been fed using feed provided by SC US.14

However, an increasing incidence of droughtand the absence of reliable feed sources inthe country may undermine the role ofsupplementary feeding in protectingpastoralists’ key assets. Some of thechallenges faced during the 2007/08drought, included:• While many pastoralists increasinglyaccept feed purchase as appropriate forprotecting core stock, half of the familiesinvolved in the study could not afford tobuy feed. This was partly due to theinflated grain price and the increase inprice of livestock feed (34% over the periodof the drought) along with the reduction inthe price of cattle (30% over the period ofthe drought). Income from cattle sales wasthe main source of cash for the purchase oflivestock feed.• The local trading system for cattle alsohindered the capacity of people to buylivestock feed. Traders purchase cattle oncredit, and herders then have to wait toreceive the cash. Payment is often delayedand no interest is provided, limiting thecash available for feed purchase.• In the absence of food aid, poor familiesnaturally prioritized the money obtainedfrom sale of livestock for the purchase ofhuman food items rather than livestockfeed.• Due to the low quality (and quantityprovided) of most privately purchasedfeed, this was not found to be an effectiveway to reduce cattle deaths. In fact, inBulbul, mortality was significantly higherin moderate condition cattle fed with aninadequate amount of low quality feedpurchased by their owners such as teffstraw/chedand dry grass, than in cattlethat were moved to better grazing areas.• Particularly in the absence of reliablelivestock and animal feed marketingfacilities, moving cattle to better grazingcould be promoted as a relativelysuccessful means of coping with drought.However, this option has been highlyundermined by the conversion of dryseason pasture into farmland and theestablishment of year-round waterfacilities in traditional wet season grazingareas. Previously, wet season pasture wasexploited as a source of feed during criticalperiods, but year round grazing has leftthe pasture degraded and no longer anasset in a drought situation.Some implications of the study are:• Emergency livestock supplementaryfeeding during drought of up to 67 daysduration can be justified in terms oflivelihoods objectives and economicrationale.• Donor-funded interventions alonecannot meet the need to support andmaintain core breeding herds in adrought situation. Depending on thetype of drought, targeting vulnerablemilking and pregnant cows may be moreappropriate than targeting breedingstock and will have beneficial sideeffectsin terms of milk production andcalf survival.• However, in the long term, in order toprotect the livestock assets ofpastoralists in areas prone to recurrentdrought, it will be essential to ensure anadequate supply of affordable livestockfeeds. This will require action on anumber of fronts, for example,promoting private sector feed supply,investing in fodder production and thesustainable management of traditionalgrazing reserves. At the same time,mechanisms need to be developedwhereby the most vulnerable livestockowners are able to purchase feed forexample, through cost-recoverymechanisms or voucher schemes.• For example, government policies couldpromote and encourage private livestockfeed production and feed processingindustries, provide tax-incentives forfeed producers that trade and/or storefeed in pastoralist areas, and ban theexport of feed during drought periods.• At the same time, aid agencies couldplay a role in establishing andstrengthening sustainable local feedinput sources by supporting existinggrain trading groups and livestocktraders, for example by subsidizing thecost of feed transportation in the shortterm.• More support, in terms of enablingpolicies and practical support, is alsoneeded for longer-term approaches tofodder production and supply such asirrigated fodder production alongpermanent water sources, and thesustainable management of traditionalgrazing lands. Land use policies forpastoral areas should limit the15

conversion of watershed-based dryseason pasture to farmlands and ban theestablishment of year round waterfacilities in traditional wet seasongrazing areas.• In relation to the demand side, given theincreasing local demand for livestockfeed among pastoralists, there areopportunities for aid agencies to workmore with the private sector and designinterventions with more attention tocost-recovery for feed, or, the supply offeed through the private sector usingapproaches such as voucher schemestargeted at the most vulnerablehouseholds.• Financial institutions such as theOromia Cooperative Bank could besupported to facilitate the provision offinancial services (credit, seed money orrevolving funds) to pastoralists thatwould allow them either to borrow feed‘in kind’ or cash for feed purchase, to berepaid following the drought period.• In terms of the provision of food aid,where such assistance is necessary forthe most vulnerable households, food aidcan allow scarce resources to be investedin protecting livestock assets e.g.through the purchase of feed.16