4.5 Article

Pastoralists and livelihoods: A case study from northern Afar, Ethiopia

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARID ENVIRONMENTS
Volume 91, Issue -, Pages 138-146

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.01.002

Keywords

Afar people; Arid; Income diversification; Livelihood adaptation; Pastoralism; Sedentarisation; Semi-arid

Funding

  1. Development Fund - Norway
  2. Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund (Lanekassen)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The changing contexts in the drylands of Africa in which pastoralists operate pose potential negative effects for the livelihood sustenance of pastoralists. We examined present livelihood adaptations among Afar pastoralists in north eastern Ethiopia through a household survey. With an average per capita income of 1.20 USD a day (PPP-adjusted in 2006), all households surveyed in the study area fall below the international 2 USD a day poverty line. Most Afar pastoralists have become increasingly involved in farming and non-farming/non-pastoral activities, but do not display a total detachment from traditional mobile herding. Pastoral households are still less likely to diversify their livelihoods, while semi-pastoral and agro-pastoral households keep livestock more as an additional insurance against failure in other livelihood activities such as farming. This indicates combining livestock production and farming has improved or at least constrained declines in livelihood outcomes. Our quantitative findings are congruent with the general patterns of pastoral livelihood contraction occurring in the region even if a substantial group of pastoralists continue to engage in keeping livestock. These findings are highly relevant in a management context, suggesting more encompassing, and locally adapted policy and development strategy rather than a wholesale abandonment of support to pastoral livelihood styles. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available