Livelihoods-based Drought Response in Ethiopia: Impact Assessment of Livestock Feed Supplementation, Pastoralist Livelihoods Initiative

Since the drought in some pastoralist areas of Ethiopia in 2005 to 2006, there has been increasing interest in the use of supplementary feeding for livestock as part of an integrated drought response. Over time, and with more attention to the need for early response, NGOs are working to intervene more rapidly and improve modes of implementation. In terms of the livelihoods-based approaches promoted by the USAID Pastoralist Livelihoods Initiative, the livelihoods objectives of livestock supplementary feeding are to protect the key assets of pastoralists and promote post-drought recovery. However, livestock supplementary feeding is not universally accepted as an appropriate drought response intervention. For those actors following a conventional humanitarian approach of saving human lives, feed for livestock might be regarded as a distraction from the core business of food aid for people. Livestock feed supplementation also involves considerable costs, with some workers suggesting that these costs are somehow excessive or inappropriate.
During the recent drought in Borena and Guji zones in southern Ethiopia, Save the Children US used funds from USAID and the UNOCHA Humanitarian Response Fund to implement an emergency livestock supplementary feed program. As cattle were particularly affected by the drought, the program focused on the establishment of cattle feeding centers where in consultation with communities, an agreed number of adult cows received concentrate feed and roughage. Ten feeding centers were established in the two zones, and a total of 6,750 cattle were fed in the two zones.
The impact assessment described in this report was conducted in mid to late May 2008, approximately six weeks after the onset of rains. The assessment was initially designed to measure mortality in ‘fed’ and ‘unfed’ cattle and thereby assess the impact of supplementary feeding in terms of cattle losses. Although the assessment did measure mortality trends, further benefits related to production, calf survival and milk supply were also measured. The assessment looked in detail at two feeding centers viz.
Bulbul and Web. In Bulbul 1,000 cows were fed for 22 days whereas in Web 800 cows were fed for 67 days.
The findings of the impact assessment were as follows:
• Prior to the onset of the feeding
program, 49% of pastoralists interviewed were buying livestock feed from private suppliers. While this indicated a strong local demand for feed, the capacity of people to buy feed was hindered by a credit system for cattle sales which delayed the physical receipt of cash by herders, and as the drought continued, increasing livestock feed prices. Consequently, an insufficient quality and quantity of privately- acquired feed was fed to cattle.
• Mortality – in both feeding centers mortality was significantly lower in cows in the feeding centers relative to unfed cattle (p<0.001).
• Body condition – relative to unfed cattle, cows in the feeding centers gained body condition, with up to 70% of cows moving from ‘poor’ body condition to ‘moderate’ body condition.
• Milk and calves – some cows gave birth while in the feeding centers and were able to rear calves until the start of the rains. A total of 198 calves survived in the two centers. In addition, some cows maintained lactation while in the feeding centers and this milk – amounting to 5,640 liters – was reported to have been fed to children.
• Benefit-cost analyses – in Bulbul the benefit cost of the intervention was 1.6 whereas in Web the benefit-cost was 1.9. Sensitivity analysis showed that the intervention was robust and the benefit- cost was not unduly affected by moderate to high changes in market conditions. For example, an increase in feed price of 250% was needed to push the benefit-cost below 1. These results indicate that despite the apparently high cost of livestock feed programs such programs perform well in terms of economic performance and are relatively low-risk.
Although the findings of the assessment were generally very positive, various timing, implementation and policy changes remain to be addressed. These include the generally low availability of livestock feeds in Ethiopia and the limited capacity of concentrate producers to meet demand and maintain quality. Interventions which are solely funded by donors will also be limited in coverage according to budget, meaning that less than a core breeding herd can be supported.
However, given the increasing local demand for livestock feed among pastoralists there are opportunities to work more with the private sector and design interventions with more attention to cost recovery for feed, or,
feed supply through the private sector using approaches such as voucher schemes. Similarly, support is needed to more long- term approaches to fodder production and supply, such as irrigated fodder production along permanent water sources and management of dry-season grazing reserves.
The overall finding of the assessment was that emergency livestock supplementary feeding during drought of up to 67 days duration could be justified in terms of livelihoods objectives and economic rationale.