CHAPTER 9Technical standards for the provision of livestock

Provision of livestock

Introduction

This chapter discusses the importance of the provision of livestock in emergency response. It presents the options for intervention together with tools to determine their appropriateness. The Standards, Key actions, and Guidance notes follow each option. Case studies are found at the end of the chapter. They are followed by appendices containing checklists for assessment and monitoring and evaluation. Key references are listed at the end.

Links to the LEGS livelihoods objectives

The provision of livestock relates to the third LEGS livelihoods objective – to rebuild the key livestock assets of crisis-affected communities – and falls within the immediate post-emergency and recovery phases of an emergency.

The importance of livestock provision in emergency response

When disasters, particularly rapid-onset ones, result in substantial loss of livestock, the provision of livestock can be a valuable approach to rebuilding people’s economic assets and providing high-quality livestock-derived foods, such as milk or eggs. In slow-onset emergencies, however, efforts to prevent massive livestock loss using other LEGS technical interventions such as destocking, veterinary support, and provision of feed and water should initially be considered.

The success of a livestock provision intervention is usually determined by the animals’ ability to survive and to multiply to a level that positively contributes to beneficiaries’ livelihoods. The way in which a livestock provision intervention is conducted can contribute to all of the animal welfare ‘five freedoms’, as described in the Introduction:

freedom from hunger and thirst
freedom from discomfort
freedom from pain, injury, or disease
freedom to express normal behaviour
freedom from fear and distress.

If good animal welfare practice is applied, the intervention is more likely to achieve a better survival rate and improved productivity, which will contribute to a positive livelihoods impact for the initiative.

➡ Options for the provision of livestock

Based on the livelihood strategies and opportunities of the beneficiaries, livestock provision may take one of the following forms:

Replacing livestock assets: this may take different forms depending on the role of livestock in livelihoods:
- 1.1
  replacing herds for pastoralists and agro-pastoralists
- 1.2
  replacing smaller numbers of livestock for smallholder farmers or for income generation, for example, transport or draught animals
Building livestock assets: providing livestock as a new livelihood activity.

This chapter outlines these key types of livestock provision and contains four standards that apply equally to all options.

Option 1: Replacing livestock assets

1.1 Replacing herds for pastoralists and agro-pastoralists. In pastoralist or agro-pastoralist communities that rely heavily on livestock as a source of food, income, and social well-being, whole herds may be lost or decimated during an emergency, and the impact on livelihoods may be severe. Such communities range from the semi-arid lowlands of Africa to the steppes of Mongolia. Some groups keep mixed herds of sheep, goats, cattle, and camels while others rely more on single species, such as yaks or reindeer.

Given the diversity of these livelihoods, local livelihood analyses rather than broad prescriptive approaches are important for designing and implementing herd replacement activities. Communities themselves are best placed to determine how many and which type of animals make up the minimum herd size. Indigenous livestock knowledge is usually very strong in these communities, and indigenous systems for redistributing livestock may be well established, although weak or not functioning. External interventions should build on existing mechanisms and practices as much as possible (see Appendix 9.4 at the end of this chapter; also Core standard 1: Participation). In these communities, training support to assist people to care for animals may not be required. The cost of herd replacement per household may be high because sufficient numbers of animals are needed to attain a minimum herd size within a defined time period.

In the post-emergency recovery phase, agencies implementing herd replacement may need to consider a broader and longer-term approach that strengthens the capacity of livestock-dependent communities and increases their resilience to face future emergencies and challenges. The challenges may relate to their changing economic and policy environment as well as to their natural resource base. In pastoral areas in particular, herd replacement should link closely with longer-term pastoral development initiatives. For example, the development of market opportunities as well as capacity building for market-oriented production could take place alongside herd replacement.

1.2 Replacing livestock assets for smallholder farmers and other income generation. For some communities, rearing a relatively small number of animals is a useful form of livelihood support. Even if these people keep only a few livestock (and perhaps rely primarily on non-livestock-derived food and income), food or income from animals may be an important supplement. For example, Thai and Vietnamese crop farmers keep a few cattle, pigs, and/or some poultry to be sold when money is needed or to be consumed during an important occasion such as a wedding. Similarly, many smallholder farmers in Africa keep a small number of cows for milk, along with chickens for eggs or income, or draught oxen for ploughing. Like pastoralists and agro-pastoralists, these communities may have significant livestock-rearing experience and skills, even though the number of livestock per household is much smaller.

In addition, some households may be highly dependent on a single animal (such as a mule or donkey used for transport) or a small number of animals for their livelihoods. Livestock may also be used to deliver humanitarian assistance. In Nepal, for example, mules carry food aid to remote mountain communities. Replacing these animals contributes to the livelihoods of crisis-affected families.

Option 2: Building livestock assets

Animal husbandry, even on a small scale, presents a significant livelihood opportunity for poor or marginalized populations in a variety of contexts:

when conflict reduces access to cultivated fields and pasture (see, for example, Appendix 9.3 on livestock provision in camps)
when access to arable land is the privilege of a specific social class or clan
as a source of income generation
as a form of ‘drought contingency fund’ (see Case study 9.2 at the end of this chapter)
when other livelihood opportunities are scarce but natural resources abundant.

Livestock may also facilitate daily chores through transport and/or draught power, and they are a useful complement to agricultural activities (ploughing, threshing, fertilization, etc.). When livestock are provided as a new activity, the recipients may not have owned animals previously and may have limited experience of livestock rearing. In these cases, training in animal husbandry, nutrition and, as appropriate, marketing, is an important component of the intervention.

The advantages, disadvantages, and implications of these options are summarized in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1

Advantages and disadvantages of livestock provision options

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Implications

1.1 Replacing livestock assets: replacing herds for pastoralists and agro- pastoralists

Replaces significant loss of livestock assets
Long-term response with the potential to increase livelihood assets for the future and thus strengthen livelihoods
Potential to build on indigenous herd reconstitution systems
Potential to reach additional beneficiaries whose livelihoods depend on trade and livestock production (processors, auctioneers, transporters, etc.)

Cost per household high to reach minimum viable herd size
Requires considerable logistical management for purchase and distribution of appropriate species and breeds

Appropriate only where beneficiary communities are chiefly dependent on livestock
Beneficiaries need sufficient assets (social relationships, access to pasture and water, technical knowledge, etc.) to maintain livestock
Other complementary livestock support (veterinary support, feed, shelter, etc.) may be needed
Other livelihood support (such as food aid) may be needed in the interim
Sources of suitable livestock need to be identified within practical distance

1.2 Replacing livestock assets: smallholder farmers/other income-generating livestock

Replaces lost livestock assets for:
- -
  food supplement
- -
  income generation (sale of livestock products; transport business)
- -
  draught or transport needs

Costs of intervention may be high compared with other livelihood support activities

Other complementary livestock support (veterinary support, feed, shelter, etc.) may be needed
Sources of suitable livestock need to be identified within practical distance

2. Building livestock assets: new livelihood activity

Provides new assets for:
- -
  food supplement
- -
  income generation (sale of livestock products; transport business)
- -
  draught or transport needs
Potential to provide livelihood opportunities when access to other livelihood options is limited through conflict, vulnerability, or other constraints

Introduction of new livestock or species requires support and training for beneficiaries
Costs of intervention may be high compared with other livelihood support activities

Sources of suitable livestock need to be identified within practical distance
Training in livestock management is vital for new livestock keepers

Timing of interventions

The provision of livestock – whether for herd replacement, replacing livestock assets for farming or income generation, or as a new initiative – generally takes place in the recovery phase of both rapid-onset and slow-onset emergencies. As it requires significant planning and administration, the intervention may not be possible or appropriate in the middle of an emergency. It also requires extra livestock support (feed, water, shelter, veterinary care) that may have been destroyed during the emergency. In addition, human populations may not have the immediate capacity to care for additional or replacement animals (see Provision of livestock standard 2, Guidance note 5 below). However, for some rapid-onset emergencies in which the natural resources required by livestock are still available and the numbers of animals involved relatively small, provision may begin during the early recovery phase (Table 9.2). The provision of livestock should as far as possible be integrated into longer-term development planning to support the livelihoods of the beneficiary population.

Links to Sphere and other LEGS chapters

The provision of livestock as a post-emergency response requires integration with other livestock inputs. To varying degrees, livestock may require feed, water, shelter, and veterinary care. Therefore, the Standards detailed in the LEGS Handbook for these other interventions should also be consulted (see Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8). In particular, the potential cost of veterinary care needs to be carefully considered, especially if the approach is to encourage private delivery.

When livestock is provided, it is likely that the recipient households will require other types of assistance to meet their basic needs. When pastoralist or agro-pastoralist herds are reconstituted, it may take many months or even years for the families involved to expand their herds without external assistance (see Provision of livestock standard 4 below). Therefore, livestock provision must also be integrated with non-livestock assistance. The ‘Minimum standards in food security and nutrition’, as well as the ‘Minimum standards in shelter, settlement, and non-food Items’ in the Sphere Handbook (2011) should be consulted.

Cross-cutting themes and other issues to consider

The provision of livestock poses special challenges in terms of community vulnerabilities and capacities as well as agency capacities. Therefore, for successful livestock provision programmes, several issues need to be considered.

Gender and social equity

The roles and needs of vulnerable individuals and households should be taken into account, especially gender roles in livestock care and management. While in some communities women do not have formal ownership of livestock, they are often primary carers of animals, particularly small stock. Livestock provision initiatives should therefore build on these roles and indigenous knowledge, while taking into account any potential additional labour burden that the provision of stock may involve. Attention should also be paid to existing norms with regard to the benefits of livestock to ensure that the vulnerable continue to access these benefits as much as possible. For example, children are often involved in herding animals or trekking them to water points, and milking in the bush can be an important source of food for them. However, this work can also prevent children from attending school. Liaison with education programmes is needed to ensure that, if necessary, children can both herd animals and attend school.¹

PLHIV

People living with HIV/AIDS are at high risk of contracting diseases transmitted by livestock. HIV-affected families may also lack sufficient labour to care for livestock. At the same time, livestock products, as noted elsewhere in this volume, can play a significant role in providing good nutrition for PLHIV.

Protection

Protection issues may affect livestock provision interventions. In insecure environments, livestock can easily be regarded as valuable and desirable items by armed militia, police, security forces, or criminals. Armed groups and governments will sometimes use livestock raiding as a specific strategic tactic for terrorizing communities and asset-stripping. Consequently, in some situations the provision of livestock can place vulnerable communities at increased risk of violence. The selection of different species may reduce vulnerability to theft – for example, goats may be less attractive to thieves than cattle. The provision of large numbers of livestock where resources are scarce may also be a potential source of conflict between farmers and livestock keepers or between livestock- owning groups. Agencies working in conflict areas may also need to ensure that animals for sale are not stolen.

Environment

The environmental implications of livestock provision should also be taken into account. The provision of large numbers of additional animals in areas that thus far have not supported livestock may contribute to degradation. However, in many cases herd replacement will take place in non-equilibrium environments with pastoralist and agro-pastoralist communities that have developed mechanisms to manage livestock in fragile and marginal areas. At the same time, herd replacement activities should ensure that livestock are provided in numbers appropriate for the survival of the family while being in balance with local environmental conditions. They should also ensure that sufficient feed and water resources exist to support them.

Targeting

There are specific targeting issues relating to herd replacement. In the case of pastoralist and agro-pastoralist communities, the provision of livestock aims to encourage a timely return to a livestock-based livelihood. In these situations, it is not necessarily the most vulnerable or destitute households that should be targeted to receive livestock, but those households that already possess some animals, that are motivated to return to a livestock-based way of life, and that possess the relevant livestock-rearing skills and knowledge. This aspect of targeting raises at least two questions. First, within a humanitarian response, is it justifiable to target households which are not the most vulnerable for livestock assistance? Second, what kinds of assistance might be appropriate for the most vulnerable households? These issues are open to debate; however, the answers remain dependent on dialogue with communities on the ground. Community involvement is the key to transparent process as well as to achieving the acceptance and understanding of non-beneficiaries.

There are also specific targeting issues relating to replacing livestock assets for smallholder farmers/income generation and for building livestock assets as a new livelihood activity. For people who do not normally rely heavily on livestock, one aim of an initial livelihoods assessment should be to identify possible livestock ownership patterns by wealth and gender and to design assistance accordingly. In general, men and wealthier people tend to own or control larger types of livestock, such as cattle, camels, or horses, whereas women and poorer people are more likely to keep poultry, goats, or sheep. In these situations, provision of the smaller types of livestock is more likely to assist the poor or vulnerable.

Disease transmission

Disease transmission from livestock to humans occurs where animals and humans live close to each other, such as in urban and peri-urban contexts or in camp settings (see Appendix 9.3). The numbers of animals and the amount of additional support provided should be appropriate to the local context to decrease the risk of disease transmission within and among animal herds.

Local capacities

Crisis-affected communities have their own capacities on which they draw in emergencies. Many livestock-owning communities have some form of indigenous restocking system whereby vulnerable or poor households receive stock as a gift or a loan, often passing on the original gift or the offspring to another needy recipient. Such mechanisms can form the basis of livestock provision, and building on these indigenous systems and knowledge increases the sustainability of the initiative (see Case study 9.2 at the end of this chapter).

Agency capacities and planning

Despite the many benefits derived from livestock, the provision of livestock as a post-emergency or recovery response is technically and operationally complex, as well as expensive. The provision of livestock is not neutral as it can have positive or negative social, environmental, and economic impacts. Many aspects remain controversial, including the sustainability of the interventions due to the recurrence of emergencies, the capacity of the beneficiaries, and inappropriate planning. There is also concern about the relatively high cost of these projects per household, particularly if support inputs such as veterinary care, shelter, and training are included.

Given the complexity of designing and implementing effective livestock provision, agencies on the ground need to carefully consider their capacity to engage in such work. Many agencies need to source expertise from outside, and this process itself takes time and effort. To date, it seems that agencies with long-term development experience in a particular area are often best placed to support livestock provision because they are familiar with local uses of livestock and social systems.

Use of cash transfers

Cash transfers may be an appropriate mechanism for livestock provision when local markets are functioning and able to supply the livestock and associated inputs (see cash section in Chapter 3, Initial assessment and identifying responses). Cash or vouchers can be given specifically for livestock purchase, allowing beneficiaries to select their own livestock. Livestock fairs may be a useful means of facilitating this process as they bring together buyers and sellers in one place (see Appendix 9.5 and Case study 9.3 for livestock fairs, and Case study 9.1 for an example of cash transfers used for herd replacement).

Camps

Appendix 9.3 below highlights some of the specific issues relating to the provision of livestock in camps, including the need to take into account the situation and potential vulnerabilities of the resident population.

The Standards

Before engaging in the provision of livestock, the feasibility and appropriateness of the intervention should be carefully considered (as highlighted in the decision- making tree in Figure 9.1), together with the potential impact of the activity.

Provision of livestock standard 1: Assessment and preparedness

An analysis is undertaken to assess the current and potential roles of livestock in livelihoods, and the potential social, economic, and environmental impact of the provision of livestock.

Key actions

Analyse the role that livestock play in livelihoods during normal times (see Guidance note 1).
Assess indigenous mechanisms for community-based redistribution of livestock (see Guidance note 2).
Consider the social, physical, and natural livelihood assets of target beneficiaries to assess their suitability as recipients (see Guidance note 3).
Assess the cost-effectiveness of livestock provision activities in comparison with other possible interventions, as well as any external or internal policy constraints (see Guidance note 4).
Assess the probable impact of the purchase of large numbers of animals on local livestock markets (see Guidance note 5).
Assess local norms for minimum viable herd size (see Guidance note 6).
Assess the environmental impact of the provision of livestock (see Guidance note 7).
Assess the potential risks to the welfare of livestock provided (see Guidance note 8).
Assess the risk of disease outbreak (see Guidance note 9).
Assess the security implications of the provision of livestock, and ensure that livestock provision only takes place when the security of the stock and the beneficiary populations can be assured (see Guidance note 10).

Guidance notes

Livelihoods analysis. The provision of livestock should be based on a thorough understanding of the role that livestock currently play in the livelihoods of the intended beneficiaries. If livestock keeping does not already form part of their livelihood strategy, the implications of introducing livestock must be very carefully considered before such an intervention is undertaken (see Guidance notes 3–9 below). The assessment checklist for livestock management and the role of livestock in livelihoods can be found in Chapter 3, Initial assessment and identifying responses; see also Appendix 9.1: Assessment checklist for provision of livestock. If livestock are provided to people in camp settings, the sustainability of livestock keeping in the future must be considered (see also Appendix 9.3: Provision of livestock in camps).
Indigenous livestock redistribution. In many livestock-owning communities, indigenous mechanisms exist for the redistribution of livestock; for example, social support systems based on loans or gifts of livestock to specific types of poorer or more vulnerable households. Where appropriate, livestock provision interventions should be based on these mechanisms to increase community management and ownership of the process and ultimately to improve sustainability.
Livelihood assets. It is vital that the beneficiary households have sufficient livelihood assets to manage and care for any livestock that they receive. These assets may include labour, equipment, skills, social networks (particularly significant for pastoral communities where social relationships are vital for successful livestock keeping), and access to natural resources such as pasture and/or feed and water (see Case study 9.6). Herd replacement for ex-pastoralists and agro-pastoralists can only succeed when the recipients have retained sufficient of these assets in spite of the loss of their stock. Furthermore, the rehabilitation of long-term destitutes is unlikely to succeed through the provision of livestock. The analysis of the most appropriate beneficiaries should be carried out by community structures that can assess potential recipients’ assets and prospects most accurately.
Cost-effectiveness. Given the high costs of providing livestock (both financial and administrative), such an intervention should only be considered when other preventive measures to avoid the loss of livestock assets have failed (for example, supplementary feed, provision of water, animal health activities – see Chapters 6, 7, and 5). The cost-effectiveness of livestock provision should also be set against other rehabilitation measures, particularly for communities where livestock are not the key livelihood asset. For example, other types of support in the form of food, cash, or seed may be a more cost-effective means of supporting livelihoods in a sustainable way following an emergency. Any potential policy constraints, either external (concerning the purchase or movement of livestock) or internal (purchasing protocols of the agency involved), should be assessed and should inform planning.
Impact on local markets. The purchase of large numbers of animals at local markets can have a significant impact on price, particularly following an emergency, when the availability of reproductive animals may be low. This may have a negative impact on less wealthy livestock keepers who are trying to rebuild their assets.
Viable herd size. In communities where livestock are the main livelihood asset, local communities will be able to suggest optimum viable herd sizes for herd replacement. This is based on their knowledge of suitable livestock species and breeds, productivity in relation to family size, and the availability of natural resources such as pasture/feed and water. Even in communities where livestock are less widespread, local assessment of appropriate species and numbers should be taken into account, as should the availability of feed (see Appendix 9.4: Discussion on minimum viable herd size). If highly productive breeds are provided to improve livestock productivity, fewer animals may be needed. However, in these cases it is important that the recipients have the capacity to support and maintain the new breeds, including the skills as well as any required resources, such as veterinary care, fodder, etc. (see Guidance note 3 above). The distribution of improved breeds may also contribute to the loss of traditional breeds, of genetic diversity, and of desirable traits within the livestock population. This must be weighed against the benefits that communities will receive from the provision of high-productivity breeds.
Environmental impact. Based on the viable herd size (see Guidance note 6 above), an assessment of the environmental impact of livestock provision should be conducted (see also discussion of environmental cross-cutting issues in Chapter 2 Core standards common to all livestock interventions). In this context it should be noted that local purchase of livestock does not increase pressure on the range, since it is based on local circulation of stock. When the provision of livestock to people in camps is under consideration in areas where there already is a high concentration of animals, environmental impact should be carefully assessed.
Livestock welfare. Livestock should not be provided unless their welfare can be assured (see discussion of the ‘five freedoms’ in the Introduction). For example, in some cases insufficient feed may be available to support livestock in an arid area. In other cases, if adequate livestock shelter cannot be provided following an emergency in a cold climate, the animals may suffer or die.
Disease risk. Some livestock diseases are highly contagious and may have disastrous social and economic consequences. The potential risk of both local and transboundary disease outbreak should be assessed. In the recovery phase, a high burden of animal disease may be unavoidable, and project design should include actions to control disease among the livestock provided. Where cross-border purchase of animals is being considered and disease control measures may not be possible, it may be advisable not to engage in livestock provision.
Security assessment. The security implications of the provision of livestock should be assessed in detail before such an intervention is undertaken. The assessment should take into account whether beneficiary households will become a target for theft or violence, as well as the potential for conflict over natural resources (for example, between farming and livestock-keeping communities or among livestock-keeping communities). Additional support for livestock shelter may help provide more security. Nevertheless, the intervention should not take place if it is likely to increase the vulnerability of beneficiary households and communities to violence or insecurity.

Provision of livestock standard 2: Definition of the package

Appropriate livestock species and breeds are distributed in adequate numbers and through appropriate mechanisms to provide viable and sustainable benefits to the target communities.

Key actions

Take account of indigenous systems of stock distribution in the design of livestock provision interventions (see Guidance note 1).
Base selection of beneficiaries on local participation and practice (see Guidance note 2).
Where cash or voucher mechanisms are used, assess current market prices and set values accordingly (see Guidance note 3).
Ensure that the types and numbers of livestock provided are appropriate to support livelihoods, and that the animals are productive, healthy, and adapted to local conditions, including patterns of climate variability (see Guidance note 4).
Distribute animals at appropriate times (see Guidance note 5).

Guidance notes

Indigenous redistribution systems. These systems are often well developed and logical. They include provision of specific types of animals to specific types of recipient. They are based on local experience, gained over decades, in rebuilding herds in difficult environments. Livestock provision interventions should therefore be designed to complement indigenous livestock redistribution systems where these exist.
Beneficiary selection. The identification of beneficiaries should build on indigenous methods for identifying suitable recipients and be linked to a wealth-ranking exercise that takes into account the minimum livelihood assets required for successful livestock keeping in that particular context (see Standard 1, Guidance note 3 above). As noted above, the very poorest community members, although potentially the most deserving, may not be the most appropriate beneficiaries of livestock if they lack the means to maintain and manage the animals in the future. Livestock provision interventions based on repayment by the recipients in the form of cash or livestock offspring should also include the ability to repay as part of the selection criteria. However, this may further disadvantage the poorest in the community. Whichever criteria are used, community participation in agreeing beneficiary criteria and in selecting suitable recipients will help ensure appropriate targeting and also facilitate an open process of selection to avoid resentment.
Setting cash values. Where cash or vouchers are used as the distribution mechanism for livestock provision, local market prices and availability should be assessed and the cash values set accordingly. This assessment should also include the extent of supply and the potential implications of the programme on the market to avoid any negative impact on local traders and the future market.
Type of livestock to be provided. Selection of the type of animal includes the choice of species, breed, age, use, and sex. Livestock provision interventions should use fairly young, productive animals from local breeds adapted to local conditions, including environmental conditions, existing patterns of climate variability and extreme events, and disease. In addition, targeted communities already have knowledge and experience in the care and management of local breeds, and such breeds are also generally cheaper and more readily available for purchase than improved or exotic types. Livestock species and breed preference may vary within households; for example, women may prioritize animals that contribute most to the food supply, rather than those that generate the most income.

For herd replacement, using the analysis of the minimum viable herd size and appropriate composition (outlined in Provision of livestock standard 1, Guidance note 6 above; see also discussion in Appendix 9.4), a package should be defined taking into account family size, maintenance costs, and the livestock needs of the target beneficiaries (for example, productive livestock, such as milking goats or cattle, or draught or pack animals, such as donkeys or camels). This minimum number will depend on the role of livestock in livelihoods and the anticipated contribution of livestock to the household economy.

As much as possible, recipients should be permitted to select individual animals themselves, based on an open and transparent process. Although the provision of the minimum viable herd size may be costly (particularly in livestock-dependent communities), if less than the minimum is provided, households will require additional food security support until the herd reaches sufficient size, which may take a number of years. The replacement of single or small numbers of animals requires fewer animals to achieve a positive impact on livelihood assets. Where possible, the package should be flexible to respond to the priorities of particular households, as this will increase the probability of successful repayment in those projects using credit systems, and the potential for positive livelihoods impact.
Timing of distribution. Local knowledge can be used to plan the provision of livestock to coincide with optimal availability of feed (pasture, fodder, crop residue) and water, thereby maximizing productivity and growth and minimizing negative environmental impact. This should also include consideration of climatic conditions and livestock breeding cycles as well as the disease and work calendars of the target communities.

Provision of livestock standard 3: Credit, procurement, transport, and delivery systems

Credit, procurement, transport, and delivery systems are efficient, cost- effective, and support quality provision of livestock.

Key actions

Base procurement on local purchase where possible (see Guidance note 1).
Ensure that procurement takes place according to agreed criteria and in accordance with legal procurement procedures (see Guidance note 2).
Ensure that veterinary inspection takes place at the time of livestock purchase (see Guidance note 3).
Only provide livestock under a credit system when this increases beneficiary commitment and does not jeopardize the productivity of the livestock provided or the capacity of the household to meet their basic needs. In all other cases, provide livestock as a gift (see Guidance note 4).
Plan transport in advance to minimize risk of losses in transit, based on conditions that ensure the welfare of the stock (see Guidance note 5).

Guidance notes

Local purchase. Local purchase supports local markets and avoids the logistical, health-related, environmental, and financial problems associated with the movement of animals from distant areas. In particular, purchase involving cross-border movement of animals should be avoided unless appropriate disease control and certification measures can be put in place. The actual purchase of livestock should involve either the recipients themselves or their representatives, since local people usually know which types of animal best suit their situation. In a given community, recipients may appoint local experts, traders, or elders to select animals on their behalf. A livestock fair is another mechanism for enabling beneficiaries to select stock themselves (see Appendix 9.5). However, after an emergency it is not always possible to find sufficient young female stock locally, especially for large-scale projects requiring significant numbers of animals.
Procurement procedures. Regulations concerning livestock purchase need to be identified (taxes, quarantine, cross-border issues, etc.). Quarantine requirements can have a significant impact on implementation, as they can involve considerable extra time, resources, logistics, and management of animals before the distribution can take place. The origin, species, breed, sex, and age of the animals need to be determined before suppliers are contracted in order to ensure that agreed criteria are met. The quality of the stock should be checked by experts and community representatives before distribution. In conflict situations or areas of insecurity where looting is common, agencies should beware of purchasing looted stock.
Veterinary inspection. At the time of purchase, animals should be inspected by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary paraprofessional to minimize mortality and maximize performance. The inspector may be a local private practitioner contracted by the project, or a government official. The inspection should highlight any key disease issues.
Credit systems do not jeopardize productivity. During the design stage, the decision should be made as to whether the project will be based on credit or on gift distribution (and if credit, what form repayment should take). This should be done in close consultation with the beneficiaries and based on full understanding and commitment from all participating households. Where livestock are provided under a credit system, the loan is either repaid in the form of the offspring of the livestock or in cash. Cash repayment requires a level of community integration into a market economy, and in many cases repayment in the form of stock will be more appropriate, preferably building on indigenous systems. However, the repayment arrangement (type and condition of animal, timing of repayment, etc.) must be planned carefully to ensure it does not negatively affect the quality of livelihood support received from the initial livestock provision. For example, if the animals provided are not productive, the repayment can burden the recipient with a debt. Selection of secondary beneficiaries (to receive cash or livestock offspring from primary beneficiaries) should take place at the time that primary beneficiaries are identified, and repayment should be carefully monitored.
Transport planning. Itinerary, duration, likely weather conditions, distances, opening hours of customs, staging points, and stops need to be planned in advance, as well as the equipment and supplies needed to feed, water, and milk the stock as necessary. The conditions and length of the journey should ensure the welfare of the livestock. This should include the avoidance of overloading (and the resultant risk of suffocation) and the provision of sufficient space for animals to stand and lie in their normal position, albeit packed closely (as appropriate for the species) to avoid falling. The vehicle should be disinfected before and after loading and be properly ventilated. The delivery site should also be properly prepared with sufficient water, feed, fencing, and shelter.

Provision of livestock standard 4: Additional support

Additional support (veterinary care, training, food) is provided to beneficiaries to help ensure a positive and sustainable impact on livelihoods.

Key actions

Provide preventive veterinary care for the livestock prior to distribution (see Guidance note 1).
Establish a system for the ongoing provision of veterinary care for all members of the community (see Guidance note 2).
Provide training and capacity-building support to beneficiaries based on an analysis of skills and knowledge of animal husbandry (see Guidance note 3).
Ensure that training and capacity building includes preparedness for future shocks and emergencies (see Guidance note 4).
Identify and meet food security needs according to the Sphere ‘Minimum standards in food security and nutrition’ to prevent early offtake of livestock (see Guidance note 5).
Identify and meet shelter and non-food needs according to the Sphere ‘Minimum standards in shelter, settlement, and non-food items’ (see Guidance note 6).
Withdraw food security support only when herd size and/or the emergence of other economic activities enable independence from such support (see Guidance note 7).

Guidance notes

Preventive veterinary care. Prior to distribution, animals should be vaccinated, dewormed, and receive other preventive animal health care depending on the local disease situation. In most cases this service is provided as a single input, free of charge. However, attention should be paid to the issues of cost recovery outlined in Chapter 5 (Veterinary support).
Long-term veterinary care. Beneficiary communities should have continued access to animal health-care services, both preventive and curative, according to the standards and guidelines set out in Chapter 5 (Veterinary support). A system for continuing care should be established at the time the livestock are distributed to ensure they receive the treatment they need. This long-term care system may also provide an opportunity to collect monitoring and evaluation data.
Training and capacity building. Training in animal husbandry may not be necessary for herd replacement activities because the beneficiary communities (usually pastoralists and agro-pastoralists) may have considerable knowledge and experience in livestock management. However, communities targeted for replacing livelihood-generating livestock or else providing livestock as a new livelihood activity may have limited husbandry knowledge, or the knowledge may have been lost if the emergency has endured over a long period. In such cases, the provision of livestock should be accompanied by adequate capacity building in the care and management of the animals in order to ensure that the stock survive, are well cared for, and can provide a useful contribution to post-emergency livelihoods. Training and/or providing information on the market economy may also be useful to secure livestock-based livelihoods in the longer term.
Preparedness for future emergencies. In communities without significant livestock management experience, it is important to develop preparedness skills to minimize the risk of losing animals in future events. Skill-building activities might include the following, for example: storage of feed; protection of pasture; optimal livestock marketing; early destocking; shelter construction; animal health care; and maintenance of water sources (all covered in other chapters of LEGS).
Food security support. Early sale and consumption of animals are common immediately following livestock provision, reflecting the urgent food security needs of beneficiary households and/or a shortage of labour and resources that can be diverted from other livelihood activities to manage the livestock. The food security needs of beneficiary households should be assessed and additional support provided until the livestock become fully productive. The Sphere Handbook provides ‘Minimum standards for food security and nutrition’ (Sphere, 2011). Cash or voucher mechanisms may be appropriate for providing this support.
Shelter and non-food support. Families receiving livestock may require shelter, basic household utensils, bedding, water containers, and livestock- related equipment such as carts, harnesses, and ploughs. Without this support, they may be forced to sell livestock. The use of cash or voucher mechanisms may also be considered for this support.
Withdrawal of food security support. Recipients should receive food security assistance until livestock and/or other livelihood activities can provide enough support. This avoids early and non-sustainable offtake of livestock. A well-designed participatory monitoring system can include measures of herd growth and other livelihood-based indicators to determine the best time to withdraw food aid.

Provision of livestock case studies

9.1 Impact case study: Herd replacement using cash transfers in Kenya

Isiolo District in Kenya suffered a severe drought in 2005 that resulted in many livestock deaths and high rates of acute malnutrition among infants. Following the long rains in April and May 2006, Save the Children Canada provided 750 households in 22 communities with a one-off cash transfer of 30,000 Kenyan shillings (approximately US$490). The cash was intended either to help families to reconstitute their herds with animals of their choice or to invest in alternative productive uses, and also to have some cash to meet pressing immediate needs.

On average, livestock prices at local markets did not change significantly as a result of the cash distribution, although sellers did attempt to charge exorbitant prices because of the sudden increase in demand. Beneficiaries adopted a variety of methods for dealing with this attempted inflation, including purchasing as groups with a representative, travelling to more distant markets, and delaying their purchases.

An evaluation conducted seven months after the distribution found that recipients appreciated the cash-based intervention because it enabled them to purchase the specific animals of their choice and to exert more quality control than is possible with in-kind restocking. It also allowed recipients to spend some of the cash on other needs. In total, 85 per cent of the cash was spent on livestock – mainly goats, sheep, and cattle, with some donkeys. The remaining 15 per cent was split between items such as shelter construction, investing in business/petty trade, debt repayments, veterinary care, health care, education, and food. Children’s attendance at school, especially for girls and at the secondary level, has increased for the recipients compared to non-recipients.

The programme targeted only 11 per cent of all households, and clearly did not reach all of those in need. However, it was felt that it made sense to provide larger amounts of cash to a smaller number of people than to spread the available money more thinly across all those in need.

Seven months after the cash distribution, the impact on food security was modest. Recipients improved the diversity of their diet, particularly because of increased access to milk. However, their reliance on food aid was not significantly reduced. Based on herd growth in the first five to seven months (+3 per cent for cattle, +16 per cent for goats, and +25 per cent for sheep), it was estimated that herds should be large enough to ensure food security within two years, which is substantially faster than if there had been no intervention. However, the final impact of the programme will only be clear in the longer term – and in particular during the next drought, when the beneficiary households’ resilience will be put to the test (Sources: O’Donnell, 2007; Croucher et al., 2006).

9.2 Process case study: Supporting traditional livestock distribution as a drought-preparedness strategy in Niger

The Pastoralist Survival and Recovery Project in Dakoro District, Niger, was run by Lutheran World Relief (LWR) with partner organization Contribution à l’Éducation de Base (CEB). The project followed LWR’s emergency food relief intervention during the Niger food crisis in 2005 and aimed to increase the resilience and preparedness of affected communities to cope with future droughts and famine. In discussion with communities in Dakoro District, four key interventions were identified:

provision of livestock
feed banks
water point development
community forums to facilitate participation in all aspects of the project (addressing issues such as conflict between farming and herding communities and raising awareness on rights).

The four project components were designed and planned in a participatory planning forum. The livestock distribution activity was prioritized by pastoralists in response to the threat of future drought following the 2005 famine. In times of drought, the men travel south with the bulk of the livestock looking for pasture while the women and the elderly remain behind with the small stock. When resources are low, the first assets to be disposed of are these small stock in the care of the women. The communities identified the need to replace and build these assets, to protect the food security of the women, and also to help protect the large stock assets from sale.

This activity was a drought-preparedness intervention rather than an attempt to reconstitute herds, hence the relatively small number of stock involved. The community prioritized sheep over the mix of sheep and goats originally suggested by the project since the former had better market value.

The livestock distribution component was based on a traditional redistribution mechanism called habbanaye, whereby animals are given to beneficiaries who then keep the first offspring and pass on the original animals to the next beneficiary. Based on community suggestions, each initial beneficiary received one male and four female sheep. The initial 200 beneficiaries were identified by their own communities according to community criteria, based on poverty levels. To date, all the first batch of beneficiaries received offspring and passed on the original animals to the second batch.

The impact of the project thus far is that the beneficiary women, many of whom had previously had between 7 and 30 small stock of their own, which they lost in the drought, now have at least 4 animals that they can sell in case of hardship or that may reproduce during the coming year to increase their livestock assets. In other words, the distributed animals form a ‘drought contingency fund’ for poor women.

The livestock distribution activity is complemented by water development and feed bank initiatives (see Case study 6.3 at the end of Chapter 6, Ensuring feed supplies), which also help to keep the livestock alive and thus protect assets (Sources: ARVIP, 2005; Burns, 2006; Evariste Karangwa, Meghan Armisted, and Mahamadou Ouhoumoudou, personal communication, 2008).

9.3 Impact case study: Livestock fairs in Niger

Between June 2005 and June 2006, the northern part of Dakoro District in Niger, a pastoralist and agro-pastoralist area, had seen livestock losses of up to 60 per cent, especially in cattle. At this level of loss, it would take nearly 30 years to rebuild the herds to their pre-crisis levels. Livestock represented the main, if not the only, source of revenue. Oxfam and its local partner, the Association pour le Renouveau de l’Elevage au Niger (AREN), took the initiative to help rebuild livestock assets via a livestock fair system.

A total of 1,500 beneficiaries received $360 worth of vouchers in order to buy the animals of their choice (such as cattle, sheep, goats, donkeys) from local traders and wealthy livestock keepers participating in eight fairs organized during January and February 2006. To avoid quick cashing-in of the distributed animals to meet immediate needs, the beneficiaries also received $30 in cash.

The fairs were held in partnership with the PROXEL project (run by VSF- Belgium and their local partner, Karkara), which oversaw both the health inspection of animals before entry to the fairs and the vaccination of the animals purchased. Oxfam also contracted PROXEL to conduct a mid-term follow-up of the distributed animals and provide technical support to beneficiaries, notably through a prophylaxis programme and awareness raising on new livestock husbandry techniques.

One year later, an evaluation of the programme highlighted the importance of this follow-up process to the success of the programme. The herd increase rate was 74 per cent. A total of 11,476 animals were purchased through the fairs, which at this rate of growth would mean a total herd of around 20,000 one year later. The offtake rate, including sales and home consumption, was very low (goats: 0.4 per cent; sheep: 0.6 per cent) in line with the objectives of the project, which focused on rebuilding herds. These positive outcomes were linked by the evaluators to the veterinary follow-up and the training provided to beneficiary communities. The target communities were also noted to have increased their demand for veterinary support for their other livestock as a result of the programme (Sources: Oxfam GB/VSF-B, 2007; Bernard, 2006).

9.4 Process case study: Community contributions to herd replacement in Ethiopia

In response to the 2006 drought, Save the Children USA carried out herd replacement in five districts in southern Ethiopia. The activity was designed around traditional restocking mechanisms. In Borana, traditional restocking is called Bussa Gonifa. Under this system, pastoralists losing their livestock due to drought, conflict, or raiding, and left with fewer than five cows are eligible for the benefit and have the right to claim a minimum of five cows from their clan to remain in the system as a pastoralist. The Degodia Somali have a similar customary livestock redistribution system.

Save the Children USA substituted sheep and goats for cows, since small stock have a faster reproduction rate and are also increasingly preferred as they are better able to withstand drought conditions. In discussion with the community, it was agreed that Save the Children would provide 15–20 sheep/goats (including one or two males) and one pack animal per beneficiary and that the community would match this number through their traditional restocking mechanism. The total number of livestock was considered a minimum herd size for the priority target households that had lost most or all of their stock in the drought.

The activity was jointly managed by Save the Children USA and representatives from the indigenous community institutions. The latter oversaw purchasing of the livestock as well as identification of beneficiary households and the management of the community contribution. Save the Children vaccinated and treated most of the livestock before distribution.

In two of the districts, the matching of the Save the Children livestock by the community worked successfully. The community contributed a total of 1,364 sheep and goats, and community members took great pride in providing livestock of better quality than the purchased animals. In the other target areas, the community contributions were less successful for two key reasons. First, in some communities the effects of the drought were more widespread, households were poorer, and the indigenous institutions were reluctant to push their clan members for contributions when all of them had suffered livestock losses in the drought. Second, the willingness of community members to make the contributions also appeared to reflect the quality and duration of the relationship with the partner agency: where there was a positive history of community-based development activity, contributions were more easily obtained than in other areas where the links with the external agency were of shorter duration or the relationship less developed.

On balance, Save the Children USA concluded that matching contributions from the community is a useful approach that may be particularly appropriate in the context of more localized droughts in the future, particularly in areas where there is a strong relationship between the operating agency and the community, and where community members have not all been equally hit by the drought (Source: Gebru, 2007).

9.5 Process case study: Livestock distribution following the Pakistan earthquake

Shortly after the 2005 Pakistan earthquake struck, and following initial responses such as the distribution of food, tents, and blankets, the German Red Cross initiated an activity to improve the nutritional status of children in households affected by the earthquake by providing a lactating cow with a calf to targeted households. The target beneficiaries had either lost all their animals or were vulnerable households (such as female-headed or poor households with more than four children) which may not have owned livestock in the past. Village- based committees, which included representatives from among the elders, different castes, women, religious leaders, and teachers, were established to oversee beneficiary selection. The beneficiary selection was cross-checked by field visits and community discussions.

Before the livestock were distributed, the beneficiaries received training in livestock management, including feeding, breeding, and animal health. Certain breeds and types of cattle were selected, based on agreed criteria such as adaptability to the cold climate, milk production, size, and age. Local contractors supplied the cows, which were checked by the Red Cross and treated for mastitis and ticks; they were also vaccinated and disinfected prior to distribution. A lottery system was used for the actual distribution.

Community animal health workers (CAHWs) were also trained in each village, and refresher training continued throughout the life of the project. Plans were put in place to link the CAHWs to specific government veterinary services such as artificial insemination and bull schemes (Source: Matthew Kinyanjui, personal communication, 2008).

9.6 Process case study: Deciding against livestock distribution following the Pakistan earthquake

On 8 October 2005, three districts in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and five districts in North-West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) in Pakistan were struck by a severe earthquake. In support of the government’s short-term recovery and rehabilitation programme, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) undertook a review of the livestock component of the programme in May/June 2006. The objective was to formulate a strategy for the first six months of the short-term recovery phase. The review made best estimates of the post-earthquake feed supply and demand situation in the affected districts. The situation is summarized in Table 9.3.

Table 9.3

Post-earthquake feed supply and demand

District

Total feed demand

Total feed supply

Surplus (deficit)

MJME (m)

MJME (m)

MJME (m)

Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Muzaffarabad

5,361

7,560

2,199

Bagh

2,688

1,757

(931)

Rawalakot

5,092

3,306

(1,787)

North-West Frontier Province

Mansehra

9,339

7,096

(2,242)

Battagram

4,037

1,871

(2,165)

Shangla

3,097

2,901

(197)

Abbottabad

6,339

3,336

(3,003)

Kohistan

11,962

11,103

(860)

MJME = megajoules metabolizable energy; (m) = millions

Post-earthquake, only Muzaffarabad District had a significant feed surplus although Shangla and Kohistan Districts, neither of which experienced high animal losses, had a reasonable balance between the feed demand and the associated feed resource. For the remaining districts there was a significant feed deficit.

Based on these findings, FAO changed its original plan to restock affected households and instead focused its attention on supporting the surviving livestock through the provision of winter (2006/07) feed, animal shelters, and animal health care. Despite the concerns expressed regarding the sustainability of the feed resource, of the nine implementing agencies providing livestock assistance in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and the 13 in North-West Frontier Province:

27 per cent indicated they would provide large ruminants.
33 per cent would provide small ruminants.
33 per cent were said to be providing both small and large ruminants.
7 per cent were providing support for livestock inputs only (Source: Simon Mack, personal communication, 2008).

9.7 Impact case study: Post-earthquake livestock distribution in Iran

In late December 2003, a major earthquake hit the region of Bam, Kerman Province, in southern Iran. In only 15 seconds, over 70 per cent of the buildings in the city and the surrounding villages collapsed, and more than 40,000 of the area’s 130,000 population lost their lives. Most of the people living in the Bam area were involved in date farming or farm labouring, but many kept small numbers of animals to supplement their food supply and income – mainly cattle, sheep, and goats. Livestock keeping was particularly important for poorer farmers who owned either a small plot of land or none at all. Livestock losses in the earthquake were estimated at 31 per cent for cattle and 26 per cent for sheep and goats. Most of these animals were housed in simple shelters near their owners’ homes and many were killed when the buildings collapsed. Others ran away in the panic following the earthquake, while some were stolen or sold to meet urgent cash needs.

In response to these losses, Action Against Hunger (ACF) Spain designed a livestock distribution project to provide two goats and 300 kg of feed to 1,200 vulnerable families in 17 earthquake-affected villages in the Bam area. The aim of the project was to support the target households to gain milk for their families and to provide additional income. The project targeted poor families who had lost livestock, in particular widows and other vulnerable people, but the selection criteria required that beneficiaries had experience in raising sheep and goats and had adequate shelter for the animals so as to ensure the sustainability of the initiative. Selection of beneficiaries and distribution were conducted in collaboration with local councillors. The Iranian Veterinary Network was contracted to provide veterinary support to the purchased livestock before distribution; this included vaccination against enterotoxaemia, disinfection, deworming, and provision of mineral and vitamin supplements.

The 1,200 beneficiary families each received two female goats (one the local Mahali breed and the other a Rachti – local Mahali crossed with a high-quality Pakistani breed), together with 300 kg of barley for feed. The original plan was to distribute pregnant animals, but this proved logistically challenging, and it was determined that sufficient numbers of male goats had survived the earthquake to enable the distributed goats to reproduce quite quickly after distribution.

Post-distribution monitoring showed that 84 per cent of beneficiaries were satisfied with the breed selected and 87 per cent with the distribution process. Nine of the beneficiaries were already milking one goat; two households were milking both the goats they had received; and 27 had already mated their goats to a buck.

When asked about the impact of the project, beneficiaries listed economic benefits such as milk and wool production, but these were seen as potential benefits as it was too soon for the livestock to have reproduced. People also emphasized the psychological benefits – for example, entertainment for the children, and increased motivation to get involved in other activities. Most were positive about the opportunity to resume livestock activities after losing some or all of their animals in the earthquake (Sources: ACF-Spain, 2004; Leguene, 2004).

9.8 Impact case study: Vouchers for livestock distribution and veterinary support in Somalia

In the Hiran region of Somalia, rural households derive 50 to 60 per cent of their income from livestock. In 2011/12, a drought led to widespread loss of human lives and livestock, and poor households lost on average 54 sheep/ goats. In 2012, Save the Children International initiated a livestock distribution and treatment project with support from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, AusAID, and the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The aim of the project was to protect and rebuild livestock assets by means of the provision of livestock and the use of veterinary support to reduce livestock disease and bolster livestock nutrition.

Baseline studies reported original herd sizes, access to veterinary services, income and food sources, and disease prevalence. The project targeted beneficiaries using vulnerability criteria such as the number of livestock losses by poor households and the level of child malnutrition. Following agreement on livestock age and types, traders were contracted to provide livestock through an open bidding system, and a standard veterinary kit was designed and procured. Local Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) were also given refresher training and treatment kits.

Each beneficiary household was given vouchers to procure 5–10 animals according to the specifications and livelihood zone; they were also given vouchers for treatment for 20 small stock. The livestock traders brought the animals to the villages where the beneficiaries could exchange their vouchers for livestock. A local ‘livestock professionals association’ provided veterinary teams who collected the medicines from contracted pharmacies and travelled to the villages where the beneficiary households could redeem their vouchers for treatment and training. A complaints mechanism was established to enable beneficiaries to give feedback on the project.

In total, 2,583 households received livestock, and 3,310 households received animal health treatment. The use of vouchers and local vendors was significant in overcoming some of the logistical challenges of transporting supplies in an insecure environment.

An external evaluation of the project reported improved access to milk, increased livestock holdings, improved animal health, and increased drought preparedness among the beneficiary households. More than two-thirds of the beneficiaries strongly agreed that their household productivity had increased, as had their resilience to future disasters. Other positive impacts included the support provided to local businesses such as pharmacies, veterinary professionals, CAHWs, and transporters, as well as the nutritional benefits brought by increased milk supplies to children of women-headed households, which constituted 35 per cent of the beneficiaries.

Key lessons included the importance of distributing pregnant or lactating animals for increasing access to milk within a short time period. Also, the use of vouchers enabled accountability to beneficiaries and ensured an audit trail; it also facilitated distribution in an insecure environment. Finally, a comprehensive package of livestock support – provision of livestock, treatment, and training – was important for increasing impact (Source: Save the Children International, 2013).

Appendix 9.1: Assessment checklist for provision of livestock

Options and implications

What role did livestock play in livelihoods before the emergency?
- -
  Main livelihood asset?
- -
  Provision of supplementary food?
- -
  Income generation?
- -
  Transport or draught power?
Which species and breeds were kept and for what purposes?
Which species and breeds have been lost and need replacement?
If livestock did not already form part of livelihood strategies:
- -
  Is there potential for the introduction of livestock to meet supplementary food or income-generation needs?
- -
  Which species and breeds would be most appropriate for distribution?
Have alternative, more cost-effective options than livestock provision been considered?
What indigenous mechanisms exist for redistributing livestock?
What numbers of livestock would constitute the minimum viable herd per household in the local context?
What are the implications of distributing these minimum numbers of livestock in the area?
- -
  Is there sufficient pasture or feed?
- -
  Is there sufficient water?
- -
  Is there adequate shelter or can this be constructed?
- -
  Will the livestock be secure or will the activity increase the risk to livestock keepers and/or the animals themselves?

Beneficiaries

What social, physical, and natural livelihood assets do potential beneficiaries have to enable them to manage livestock successfully in the future?
Can training in livestock management be provided if necessary?
What roles do women and men play in livestock management and care, and what are the labour implications of livestock provision?
What are the particular needs of vulnerable groups in relation to livestock management and access to livestock products?
Are there sufficient resources to provide livestock-related support to beneficiaries (for example, veterinary care, feed, shelter) as required?
Are there sufficient resources to provide non-livestock support to beneficiaries as required (for example, food or other livelihood support while herds rebuild)?

Procurement

What are the implications of the purchase of significant numbers of livestock on local markets?
Are livestock available for purchase in sufficient numbers within transporting distance of beneficiary communities?
Is transport available, and can stock be transported safely without risk to their welfare?
What are the risks of disease from importing stock from another area?

Appendix 9.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators for the provision of livestock

Process indicators
(measure things happening)

Impact indicators
(measure the result of things happening)

Designing the system

Number of meetings with community representatives and other stakeholders, including private sector suppliers where relevant

Meeting reports with analysis of options for livestock provision
Action plan including:
- -
  roles and responsibilities of different actors
- -
  community process and criteria for selecting beneficiaries
- -
  community preferences for livestock species and type
- -
  procurement, transportation, and distribution plan, with beneficiary involvement
- -
  veterinary inspection and preventive care

Replacing livestock assets: replacing herds for pastoralists and agro-pastoralists

Number of livestock provided per household by livestock type²
Type and value of additional support to each household, e.g. food aid, utensils, etc.

Mortality in livestock provided vs. mortality in pre-existing livestock
Number of offspring from livestock provided, and uses of offspring, e.g. sales and use of income
Human nutrition – consumption of milk by children in households receiving livestock
Herd growth and levels of reliance on external assistance over time
Influence on policy

Replacing livestock assets: smallholder farmers and other income generation

Number of livestock provided per household by livestock type
Type and value of additional support to each household, e.g. food aid, utensils, etc.
Training, where appropriate, on livestock production and management

Mortality in livestock provided vs. mortality in pre-existing livestock
Number of offspring from livestock provided, and uses of offspring, e.g. sales and use of income
Human nutrition – consumption of milk by children in households receiving livestock

Building livestock assets: new livelihood activity

Number of livestock provided per household by livestock type
Training on livestock production, management, and marketing

Mortality in livestock provided vs. mortality in pre-existing livestock
Number of offspring from livestock provided, and uses of offspring, e.g. sales and use of income
Human nutrition – consumption of milk by children in households receiving livestock

See also the LEGS Evaluation Tool available on the LEGS website: <http://www.livestock-emergency.net/resources/general-resources-legs-specific/>

Appendix 9.3: Provision of livestock in camps

The provision of livestock in camps and camp-like settings should be considered in discussion with the camp management agency. Together with camp residents, the camp management agency should be able to liaise with the relevant camp stakeholders, including, where relevant, the host community, to ensure that activities happen in a coordinated manner. Where appropriate, camp committees may take particular roles in supporting the intervention. For example, the watch group may ensure security of the livestock; the shelter committee may provide support for livestock shelter, and so on.

The provision of livestock in camps involves particular challenges with regard to sanitation and security because of the close proximity of humans and animals. In camps facing major overpopulation, management challenges, precarious health conditions, conflict, tensions with the host community, or shortage of key resources such as water, the provision of livestock might further exacerbate the difficulties and present additional risks to the inhabitants of the camp.

In camps where these conditions do not exist and livestock provision is possible, health and hygiene precautions should be taken in order to minimize the spreading of animal-to-human and animal-to-animal diseases. Such measures may include the following: preventing livestock from roaming within the camp; setting animal units as far as possible from human habitations; careful consideration of the type of animals to be provided (as some produce more waste than others); encouraging rapid sale of offspring; and maintaining sufficient reproductive animals to preserve stocks without massive proliferation. In addition, the following should be strictly implemented: vaccination; quarantine; biosecurity measures; and a disease surveillance system.

Access to natural and other resources necessary for the livestock should be regulated in consultation with both camp representatives and resident populations to minimize the risk of conflicts and shortage. Water availability is a key constraint, particularly in areas where water for human use is in short supply; livestock should not be provided to camps where watering the animals puts stress on the water sources of the camp or the host population.

The shelter and security needs of the livestock must be taken into account (see also Chapter 8, Livestock shelter and settlement), to protect the stock from bad weather and to minimize the risk of theft.

The choice of livestock types and breeds should take into account the situation of the beneficiary population. For example, small stock that require less space and feed (poultry, sheep, goats) may be more appropriate than large stock for livestock provision to camps. Livestock species with a rapid reproductive cycle and which are easy to market may be most appropriate. While camps are often planned as temporary arrangements, many last longer (particularly in conflict situations), and interventions should bear in mind the possibility that the residents may remain in the camp for some time.

Appendix 9.4: Discussion on minimum viable herd size

In herd replacement projects in pastoralist areas, the concept of ‘minimum viable herd size’ is often used to determine the minimum number and types of animals required to allow pastoralists to maintain a pastoralism-based livelihood. Although it might be convenient for standards and guidelines such as LEGS to indicate a specific number and type of animals to be provided, in reality this differs significantly between pastoralist groups, and there are no standard numbers of livestock that should be given. Similarly, in mixed farming communities, it is difficult to determine a global figure for livestock provision.

Field experience suggests that the best way to determine how many and which types of livestock to provide is through participatory analysis and discussion with the communities concerned. This process may include a description of the benefits and problems of different livestock species and breeds for the different wealth, gender, and age groups within the community, and an analysis of any indigenous restocking systems.

A further consideration is that although a ‘minimum herd size’ may be defined with communities in this way, at the same time many agencies are faced with limited budgets for the provision of livestock, and the more animals provided per household, the fewer the total number of households that will benefit from the initiative.

Save the Children UK implemented a restocking project between 2002 and 2003 for 500 internally displaced families in eastern Ethiopia as a post- drought response, providing each pastoral household with 30 breeding sheep or goats. The project was implemented in collaboration with the Ethiopian government’s Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Committee and the Somali Region Livestock Bureau. The total budget was around $244,500 – equivalent to $489 per household. This budget excluded the cost of food aid and household items, which were provided by other agencies such as the Christian Relief and Development Agency and UNICEF. An evaluation concluded that although the project had provided substantial benefits through the restocking process, the package should have included at least 50 sheep and goats per household in order for the families to have a viable source of livelihood. This would have increased the project budget by 41 per cent if 500 households were still to be targeted. Alternatively, the original budget could have covered 300 households with 50 animals each. The evaluation indicated that a budget of around $690 per household was needed in order to restock the target communities in a viable way (Wekesa, 2005).

This example illustrates the challenge faced by aid agencies when deciding how many households to restock and how many animals to provide, and the importance of determining the appropriate definition of ‘minimum viable herd’ in each specific context.

Appendix 9.5: Livestock fairs

Livestock fairs are a way of giving livestock recipients the opportunity to choose animals from a range of species, breeds, and ages. Compared with classic distributions, livestock fairs contribute to a greater feeling of ownership and empowerment and help to stimulate the local economy. The money invested in the project goes directly into the economy of the targeted area, and the active participation of professional or occasional traders favours initiative and entrepreneurship.

Livestock fairs are specific markets dedicated to livestock where local traders and livestock keepers are invited to bring animals for sale. The preselected beneficiaries of the project receive vouchers of a monetary value that they can exchange for the animals of their choice. When the transactions are concluded, the vouchers are repaid in local currency to the traders. Livestock fairs are also a good opportunity to bring together people involved in animal husbandry to encourage sharing of information and knowledge.

Livestock fairs can be suitable for all livestock provision options. See Case study 9.3 above for an example of livestock fairs in Niger.

References and further reading

(ACF-Spain) Action Against Hunger – Spain (2004) Livelihoods Recovery Project (Livestock Distribution), ACF-Spain, Bam.
ARVIP–Lutheran World Relief Pastoralist Survival and Recovery Program (2005) ARVIP Proposal and Baseline Survey, Lutheran World Relief, Niamey.
Bernard, J. (2006) Animal Fairs, an Oxfam GB Trial in the Sahel, Oxfam, Dakoro. Burns, J. (2006) Mid-Term Visit Report on ARVIP, Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, Medford, MA.
Catley, A. and Blakeway, S. (2004) ‘Donkeys and the provision of livestock to returnees: lessons from Eritrea’, in P. Starkey and D. Fielding (eds), Donkeys, People and Development: A Resource Book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA), pp. 86–92, Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation, Wageningen, The Netherlands, <http://www.atnesa.org/donkeys/donkeys-catley-returnees-ER.pdf> [accessed 14 May 2014].
Croucher, M., Karanja, V., Wako, R., Dokata, A. and Dima, J. (2006) Initial Impact Assessment of the Livelihoods Programme in Merti and Sericho, Save the Children Canada, Nairobi.
Gebru, G. (2007) Project documentation from the Save the Children-USA restocking implementation programme in Somali and Oromia regional states, Save the Children USA, Addis Ababa.
Heffernan, C. (1999) Livestock, Destitution and Drought: The Impact of Restocking on Food Security Post-Disaster, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London, <http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/LEAD/X6186E/X6186E00.HTM> [accessed 18 May 2014].
Heffernan, C. and Rushton, J. (1999) Restocking: A Critical Evaluation, ODI, London.
Heffernan, C., Misturelli, F. and Nielsen, L. (2004) Restocking Pastoralists: A Manual of Best Practice and Decision Support Tools, Practical Action Publishing, Rugby. IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) (2007) ‘Issues on Restocking’, in IFAD Supporting Pastoralism: Livestock and Infrastructure [web page], IFAD, Rome, <http://www.ifad.org/lrkm/theme/livestock.htm#issues> [accessed 18 May 2014].
INEE (Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies) (2010) Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery, INEE, New York, <http://toolkit.ineesite.org/toolkit/Toolkit.php?PostID=1002> [accessed 15 May 2014]. Kelly, K. (1993) Taking Stock: Oxfam’s Experience of Restocking in Kenya, Oxfam, Oxford.
Knight-Jones, T. (2012a) Restocking and Animal Health: A Review of Livestock Disease and Mortality in Post-Disaster and Development Restocking Programmes, World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), London.
Knight-Jones, T. (2012b) Restocking in the Former Yugoslavia: Post-War Restocking Projects in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, WSPA, London.
LEGS (Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards) (2014), Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards, 2nd Edition, Practical Action Publishing: Rugby.
Leguene, P. (2004) Evaluation Report: Restoration of the Livelihood and Longer-term Food Security for the Earthquake-Affected Farmers and Agricultural Labourers in Bam, South-East Iran, project implemented by ACF-UK & ACF-Spain, London.
Lotira, R. (2004) Rebuilding Herds by Reinforcing Gargar/Irb among the Somali Pastoralists of Kenya: Evaluation of Experimental Restocking Program in Wajir and Mandera Districts of Kenya, African Union/Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources, Nairobi, <http://sites.tufts.edu/capeipst/files/2011/03/Lotira-Restocking-evaluation.pdf> [accessed 18 May 2014].
O’Donnell, M. (2007) Cash-based Emergency Livelihood Recovery Programme, Isiolo District, Kenya, project evaluation draft report, Save the Children, Nairobi.
Oxby, C. (1994) Restocking: A Guide – Herd Reconstitution for African Livestock Keepers as Part of a Strategy for Disaster Rehabilitation, VETAID, Midlothian.
Oxfam GB/Vétérinaires sans Frontières Belgium (VSF-B) (2007) Rapport d’activité: Opération de reconstitution du cheptel, département de Dakoro, Région de Maradi, Niger, janvier 2006–mars 2007, Oxfam GB/VSF-B, Niamey.
Save the Children International (2012) Contribution of Cash Programming to Resilience, Hiran, Save the Children International, Nairobi.
Save the Children International (2013) Drought Early Warning and FSL Needs Assessment in Hiran and Puntland; Livestock Baseline for Hiran, DFID Project; Evaluation of Livelihoods/Resilience Activities, Hiran; and Livestock and Cash Grants Project Baseline for Hiran, Save the Children International, Nairobi.
Scott, M.F. and Gormley, B. (1980) ‘The animal of friendship: an indigenous model of Sahelian pastoral development in Niger’, in D. Brokensha, D.M. Warren and O. Werner (eds), Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development, University Press of America, Lanham, MD.
Sphere Project (2011) Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response (the Sphere Handbook), The Sphere Project, Geneva, <www.sphereproject.org/> [accessed 21 May 2014].
Toulmin, C. (1995) ‘Tracking through drought: options for destocking and restocking’, in I. Scoones (ed.), Living with Uncertainty: New Directions in Pastoral Development in Africa, pp. 95–115, Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Vetwork (2011) The Use of Cash Transfers in Livestock Emergencies and their Incorporation into the Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS), Animal Production and Health Working Paper No. 1, FAO, Rome. Available from: <http://www.livestock-emergency.net/resources/general-resources-legs-specific/> [accessed 18 May 2014].
Wekesa, M. (2005) Terminal Evaluation of the Restocking/Rehabilitation Programme for the Internally Displaced Persons in Fik Zone of the Somali Region of Ethiopia, Save the Children UK, Addis Ababa and Acacia Consultants, Nairobi.

Notes

1.
See INEE, 2010.
2.
Household figures can be summated to provide total figures by area and project.

Change Your Password