Working across borders hpg - Disaster risk reduction

hpgHumanitarianPolicy Group July 2010HPG Policy Brief 41Working acrossbordersHarnessing the potential of crossborderactivities to improve livelihoodsecurity in the Horn of Africa drylandsSara Pavanello, HPGKey messages• Mobile pastoralist systems often crossinternational borders. There is a needfor more research, policy and practiceefforts to better understand and exploitthe potential of cross-border activities toenhance drought management, contributeto national economies, and improve locallivelihoods and food security in the Hornof Africa.• Governments in the region should cooperatein granting legal and economic legitimacyto informal cross-border tradeexchanges and step up collective efforts tocontrol trans-boundary animal diseases.• Regional bodies can play a pivotalcoordination role and provide theenabling policy environment and legalframework to regulate cross-borderdynamics. Donors should support theseprocesses.For more information contact SaraPavanello (s.pavanello@odi.org.uk).Overseas Development Institute111 Westminster Bridge RoadLondon SE1 7JDUnited KingdomTel. +44 (0) 20 7922 0300Fax. +44 (0) 20 7922 0399Websites: www.odi.org.uk/hpgand www.odihpn.orgOverseas DevelopmentInstituteThe ecosystems, identities and livelihoods ofpastoral communities in the Horn of Africadrylands and beyond have always beenregional in nature. Pastoralist communitieshave long adopted a wide range of activitiesto protect their livelihoods and livestockproduction systems to cope with the recurrentclimatic variation typical of rangelandenvironments. Cross-border activities1 includethe joint management and sharing of grazingland and water, the opportunistic use ofnatural resources through seasonal crossbordermobility, the sharing of informationon rainfall, pasture, water availability, andlivestock prices, and the trading of livestockand other commodities.Despite growing awareness within researchand policy circles of the need to take aregional approach to addressing the wider1 In this paper the terms cross-border or trans-borderrefer to livelihood-related activities that span agreednational borders.implications of pastoral vulnerability, there isstill only limited understanding of the nature,magnitude and value of the range of crossborderlivelihood activities in the region. Thereis a general lack of attention to and supportfrom national and international agencies forthe many existing cross-border activities. Thereis little recognition among national decisionmakersof the important contribution of crossborderdynamics to regional, national and localeconomies, and cross-border movements andexchanges are often hampered by negativeperceptions and adverse national policies.This HPG Policy Brief 2 argues that harnessingthe largely unexplored potential of crossborderactivities for the lives and livelihoods ofpastoralist communities in the Horn of Africacalls for a deeper understanding of the wide2 This paper focuses only on cross-border dynamicsbetween Kenya and Ethiopia, which is where theRegional Resilience Enhancement Against Drought(RREAD) Programme is focusing its interventions.

hpg Policy Brief 41Pastoralist with camels in the Borana zone (Ethiopia)© Stuart Dunn/CARE Internationalrange of activities, risks and vulnerabilities that spaninternational borders. There is also a need to recognisethat a timely, adequate and comprehensive responseto drought in order to protect pastoral livelihoodsmust also focus on border areas and support crossborderactivities.Limited research and policy focuson the cross-border aspects ofpastoralismA growing body of research has begun to shedlight on the qualitative and quantitative aspectsof unofficial trans-border livestock trade in theHorn of Africa (Aklilu, 2002; Little, 2006 and2006a; Zaal et al., 2006; Halderman, 2005). Thesize and economic value of this informal activityare significant. It is estimated that more than 95per cent of the regional trade in eastern Africa iscarried out via unofficial channels and that it isone of the fastest-growing areas of commercialactivity in the region (Little, 2007 and 2009). InEthiopia alone, the annual trade of live cattle,camels, sheep and goats sold to Somalia, Kenyaand Djibouti generates an estimated total valueof between US$250 million and US$300 million(SPS-LMM, 2009 in COMESA, 2009). This unofficialtrade has long co-existed with, thrived and evensurpassed the value and magnitude of officiallivestock exports. In Ethiopia, for example, thetotal value of unofficial cross-border trade hasbeen estimated at US$105 million per year, 100times greater than the average annual officiallivestock export trade between 1993 and 2000(Halderman, 2005; Aklilu, 2008).This vibrant, yet unofficial, commerce has alsosignificant implications for incomes and foodsecurity. Cross-border trade is a key source ofearnings for the thousands of livestock producers,intermediaries, traders, trekkers, and othersinvolved (FEWS NET, 2008; Legese et al., 2008;IIED and SOS Sahel, 2010). The trucks thattransport livestock from the border to the finaldestination almost always return with grain andother foodstuff. Through what is known as backloading,this supplies grain-deficient pastoral areasand provides pastoral communities with importedfood items that otherwise would not be readilyor as cheaply available in domestic markets (IIEDand SOS Sahel, 2010; Little, 2009). For examplesugar, rice, oil, wheat flour and pasta are regularlyimported in this way from Djibouti and Somalilandborder areas for onward sale in eastern Ethiopia(IIED and SOS Sahel, 2010).The regional nature of pastoralism and theimportance of adopting a regional approach toreducing the vulnerability of pastoral communitiesto drought, conflict and other risks are increasinglyrecognised in policy debates. Often as part ofbroader strategies to promote cross-bordercooperation and regional integration, key regionalinstitutions such as the African Union (AU), theCommon Market for East and Southern Africa(COMESA), and the Intergovernmental Authorityon Development (IGAD), have been developingpolicies and mechanisms to support and facilitatemobile pastoral production systems and livestocktrade across international borders (COMESA,2009; IGAD, 2008; AU, 2007). Since 2008, forexample, COMESA has developed the Green Pass

Policy Brief 41 hpgSystem, a commodity-based health certificationthat offers opportunities to formalise and facilitatetransnational movements and the trade of livestockand related commodities within the region.Moreover, since 2007 the AU Border Programme 3has sought to facilitate cross-border integration ofAfrican states and the development of local crossbordercooperation initiatives within the frameworkof the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) suchas COMESA, IGAD, and the Economic Community ofWest African States (ECOWAS)(AU, 2007).The growing body of research on the informaltrans-border animal trade in the Horn alongsiderecent regional initiatives represent importantcontributions to a better understanding of crossborderdynamics and a more regional engagement inthe drylands. Beyond the livestock trade, however,the nature and dynamics of the many other transborderlivelihood activities in which pastoralistcommunities engage remain largely unexplored.While regional institutions are well-placed to takethe lead on the management and coordinationof pertinent cross-border issues, it remains to beseen how initiatives such as the Green Pass Systemwill be implemented or how effective they will be inaddressing chronic vulnerability and improving thelivelihoods of the poorest and most vulnerable.Ongoing constraints on cross-borderdynamics in pastoral areasCross-border herd mobility – a traditional strategyfor livestock trade and production and for mitigatingthe risks of drought and conflict – has long beenconstrained. Mobile pastoralist systems are stillviewed in a negative light and national governmentpolicies have therefore sought to ‘modernise’pastoralist communities and encourage themto settle (IIED and SOS Sahel, 2010). Seasonalpastoral mobility, both internal and cross-border,has also been negatively affected by widespreadconfiscations of communal pastoral land to makeway for agricultural projects, conservation areas,and national parks, and the privatisation of waterand grazing land (ibid). The insecurity of borderareas, and concerns about the spread of transborderanimal diseases, are also among the reasonswhy national policies have often discouraged suchlivestock movements and trade.Cross-border activities and economic exchangesare also significantly constrained by the lack ofa common institutional framework to enablethe harmonisation, regulation and promotion ofcross-border issues in the region. For example,the predominantly one-way flow of informal3 The Declaration on African Union Border Programme wasadopted at the Conference of African Ministers in Charge ofBorder Issues in Addis Ababa on 7 June 2007.livestock trade from southern Ethiopia to northernKenya that Kenya has benefited from substantiallivestock imports and generation of local revenueswithout the corresponding payments of foreignexchange (Aklilu, 2008). In contrast, Ethiopiaregards this trade as illegal and unofficial, citingtax evasion and consequent loss of local andforeign exchange revenues among the mainreasons (Akilu, 2008; Umar and Baulch, 2007).The opportunities to manage the externalitiesarising from cross-border exchanges – for example,through the synchronisation of vaccinationcampaigns – are often not fully exploited becauseof poor communication and coordination amongstate veterinarians of both countries (Aklilu,2008; Bayissa and Bereda, 2009). The differentincentives operating in Ethiopia and Kenya, andtheir diverging approaches to common veterinaryissues arising from the trans-border livestock tradesuch as prevention and control measures, runcounter to the ideal joint coordination and regionalmanagement of the externalities deriving fromcross-border exchanges.There have been some positive recent initiatives,such as the Regional Resilience EnhancementAgainst Drought (RREAD), the Enhanced Livelihoodsin Mandera Triangle/Enhanced Livelihoodsin Southern Ethiopia (ELMT/ELSE) as part ofthe Regional Enhanced Livelihoods in PastoralAreas (RELPA) programme in East Africa, and theRegional Livelihoods Advocacy Project (REGLAP)funded by the European Commission HumanitarianAid Department (ECHO). Despite this welcometrend, international engagement and supportfor effective cross-border interventions remaininadequate. For instance there is a general lackof documentation on cross-border initiatives withpastoral communities in the Horn, programmeevaluations, good practice and lessons learned(Pavanello, forthcoming). Aid agencies workingin pastoral areas also tend to take a nationalrather than a regional approach. Overall, thereis limited understanding and appreciation of therange of cross-border linkages among pastoralcommunities and of the implications of the manyshared risks and vulnerabilities for droughtpreparedness, management and response.The RREAD initiative: supporting cross-borderactivities in Kenya–Ethiopia border areasSince its inception in 2008, the RegionalResilience Enhancement Against Drought (RREAD)programme, funded by ECHO 4 and implementedby CARE International, has aimed to promotelivelihood-based interventions to strengthencommunities’ resilience to drought in the dryland4 RREAD has been funded as part of the Horn of Africa DGECHO’s Regional Drought Decision.

hpg Policy Brief 41areas of southern Ethiopia and northern Kenya. 5The partnership between RREAD and theHumanitarian Policy Group (HPG) at the OverseasDevelopment Institute (ODI) entails practicalguidance on livelihoods programmes, droughtcyclemanagement, and learning support, and hascontributed to documenting and strengtheninggood practice to enhance the evidence base andstimulate changes in policy and practice. 6Stemming from the recognition, during the firstphase of RREAD, of the potential that a crossborderapproach may have in reducing pastoralcommunities’ vulnerability to drought hazards, thesecond phase has focused more on cross-borderdimensions. Building on the strategy, planning andimplementation of RREAD II, the third phase of theprogramme will continue to focus on and seek tostrengthen the cross-border dimensions.A number of challenges were faced in the planningand implementation of cross-border components. 7Because of the huge size and remoteness of theborder areas, project staff found it difficult toreach communities often enough to develop robustlinkages and conduct the necessary monitoringand supervision of project activities. Furthermore,these activities were not underpinned by an indepthanalysis of the historical relations and acomprehensive assessment of the multiplerisks and vulnerabilities affecting adjacentcommunities. Poor familiarity with and knowledgeof the role and functioning of formal and informalinstitutions and mechanisms in regulating crossborderrelationships and activities also affectedprogramme implementation and limited thepossibility of tapping into relevant institutionsfor more substantial support and partnership.Lastly, the short timeframe of the programme ofonly 12 months hampered the ability to gain asolid understanding of communities’ linkages andneeds and of the overarching regulation. 8Despite these challenges, some positive steps weretaken towards supporting cross-border activities.The first example relates to CARE International’sengagement with the pastoralist community ofBurduras located in Mandera West in Kenya, 5km5 In the Borana zone in southern Ethiopia and in ManderaCentral and West districts in northern Kenya.6 As part of the learning support, HPG Policy Brief35, Taking Drought into Account: Addressing ChronicVulnerability among Pastoralists in the Horn of Africa by S.Pantuliano and S. Pavanello, May 2009, documented twoencouraging livelihoods initiatives implemented during thefirst phase of RREAD.7 The challenges, successes and opportunities of theRREAD II activities have been distilled from a two-day workshopfacilitated by the HPG in February 2010 attended byRREAD project staff and local government representativesof both Kenya and Ethiopia.8 Initial delays reduced the implementation time to only tenmonths.from the border with Ethiopia. Thanks to theclose proximity of Burduras with the community ofHardura in Ethiopia, and in the absence of a physicaldemarcation of the border, both communities havelong benefited from cross-border linkages. SinceFebruary 2009 CARE International has sought tostrengthen and expand these existing relationsin order to improve both communities’ resilienceto drought. The work in Burduras has focused onthe establishment of a women’s milk and meatgroup, a livestock-marketing group, and a NaturalResource Management (NRM) and Early Warning(EW) committee. In August 2009 a meetingbetween the two communities was organised tofoster discussion of NRM issues, exchange of EWinformation, and marketing of livestock throughthe Burduras group. During this meeting the twocommunities jointly decided on the demarcationof wet and dry season grazing patterns and onthe alternate, rather than simultaneous, use ofavailable water pans. Since the agreement onthe joint management of their common naturalresources, tensions over access have decreasedand there have been very few incidents ofinfringement. 9The EW and NRM committee has also started toliaise with the Hardura community to exchangeEW information on pasture and water depletionand livestock diseases. Access to information onthe situation across the border is having a positiveimpact on cross-border mobility, particularly inrelation to the route and timing of migration.Moreover, the catchment area of the livestockmarketing group goes beyond the border toinclude Hardura. While it is too early to assessthe volume of livestock off-take, the existenceof the group is improving market access for bothcommunities by creating a direct link betweenlivestock traders and producers. In the wordsof Okash Ibrahim, the group chair, the livestockmarketing group provides a ‘ready and accessiblemarket for [Hardura] pastoralists who wouldotherwise be forced to walk long distances andprobably lose some of their animals to diseasesand wild animals’ (Ogwell, 2010).This example points to the variety and potential oflivelihood support in border areas and shows thatinitiatives that are planned and implemented onone side of the border can also have a substantialimpact on adjacent communities. As Ibrahim noted,‘we now look beyond our borders’ (Ogwell, 2010).Indeed, efforts aimed at forging relationships,improving existing cross-border mechanisms,or restoring linkages and peaceful exchanges,particularly in contexts where they have beendamaged by conflict or other hazards, have the9 Personal conversation with CARE International representativein February 2010.

Briefing Paper 41 hpg© Stuart Dunn/CARE InternationalBorana pastoralist on a termite mound in Ethiopiapotential to improve the lives, livelihoods andresilience of bordering pastoralist communities.The second initiative relates to a vaccinationcampaign of Bovine and Ovine Pasteurellosis of22,000 head of livestock in Moyale woreda inEthiopia, bordering Kenya’s Mandera West district.The vaccination campaign was conducted betweenOctober and November 2009 in collaboration withthe FAO and state veterinarians of Ethiopia, whojointly provided technical expertise, manpowerand vaccines while CARE International contributedlogistical support, such as transport, fuel and perdiems. It is important to note that this activity wasconducted jointly with another mass vaccinationcampaign promoted by CARE International inMoyale and in other woredas under the ELMT/ELSEproject. While it would be difficult and beyond thepurpose of the present discussion to disentanglethe specific outcomes and opportunities of the twovaccination campaigns, some useful insights cannevertheless be drawn.In addition to expanding access to animal healthservices, and protecting and improving the healthand productivity of livestock, the vaccinationcampaign has provided a good foundation forcollaboration and coordination on animal healthrelatedissues among state veterinarians of the twocountries. In April 2009 during CARE International’ssupport of another vaccination campaign in Moyale,state veterinarians from both Kenya and Ethiopiastarted to discuss issues and services relatingto animal health. Livestock disease surveillanceand reporting systems were further strengthenedthrough the regular collection and disseminationof relevant cross-border information. Crucially, thedistrict veterinary departments of both countriestook the lead (CARE Ethiopia, 2010) and to datethey continue to exchange information on a regularbasis. 10The promotion of vaccination campaigns in borderareas can protect livestock assets and improvethe livelihoods and resilience of pastoralistcommunities. Furthermore, by involving relevantstate authorities, such campaigns can alsocontribute to laying the foundations for ongoinginformation exchange on disease control andsurveillance across borders, and for potentiallyexpanding regional collaboration to regulate,control and ultimately reduce the effects ofnegative externalities, such as trans-boundaryanimal diseases.ConclusionsWhether to follow the changing availability ofscarce natural resources, trade livestock or shareinformation, pastoralist communities in the Hornhave long crossed international borders andhave relied on trans-border community-managed10 Personal conversation with CARE International representativein February 2010.

hpg Briefing Paper 41strategies to manage and mitigate drought andother risks. Today it is increasingly clear thatmany of the key challenges to long-term pastoraldevelopment such as the increasing frequencyand intensity of drought, the recurrence of conflict,insecurity and livestock diseases, also have strongregional or cross-border dimensions.Despite some encouraging recent trends, there isstill poor understanding of the rich range of pastorallivelihood activities and exchanges that transcendinternational borders – and, crucially, how tosupport them. The planning and implementationof cross-border initiatives as part of a livelihoodsbasedresponse to drought remain largelyunexplored in both policy and practice. Given theregional nature of pastoralism and the challengesthis poses, there is an urgent need to develop abetter understanding of cross-border dynamics andtake full advantage of their potential to contributeto a strategic and more appropriate livelihoodsbasedresponse to drought in the Horn of Africadrylands. This support needs to be premised onthe recognition that the existence of cross-borderlinkages makes bordering communities likely to beexposed to similar risks and have interdependentor correlated vulnerabilities. It is imperative,therefore, to undertake comprehensive crossborderrisk and vulnerability assessments in theearly programme planning stages as the basis ofappropriate strategies and activities.Notwithstanding the unexplored potential to workacross the long and porous borders between thecountries of the Horn of Africa, more significantand strategic engagement necessarily requiressubstantial technical and operational capacity,not least because of the remoteness and sizeof border areas. As such, it is important toredress the negative perceptions of trans-borderactivities so that national and local governmentauthorities explicitly recognise and support thesizable opportunities that these areas offer interms of improving drought preparedness andmitigation, food security and increased revenuecollections. Given the inevitability of cross-borderexchanges, governments in the region should alsotake urgent steps to legalise and grant economiclegitimacy to informal cross-border livestock tradeand commodity exchanges and step up effortsto prevent and control trans-boundary animaldiseases.Because of the externalities that inevitably arise fromcross-border activities, governments should favourjoint rather than unilateral action. Activities aimedat forging regional cooperation are particularlyimportant. Regional bodies can play a pivotal rolein this regard, particularly in coordinating andensuring that governments act together. Initiativessuch as the AU Border Programme provide thelegal basis and the enabling framework for theformalisation of cross-border cooperation andthe regulation of cross-border dynamics in theHorn of Africa and beyond. International donorsshould build on the momentum created by suchefforts to expand their engagement in regionalcooperation and increase funding for local crossborderinitiatives in the Horn. To improve the livesand livelihoods of pastoralist communities andstrengthen their resilience to drought and otherrisks, bolder steps are needed to bring the borderareas of dryland Africa from the periphery to thecore of policy, research and practice.© Stuart Dunn/CARE International

Briefing Paper 41 hpgReferencesAklilu, Y. (2002) An Audit of the Livestock Marketing Status in Kenya, Ethiopia and Sudan, Volume I. CommunitybasedAnimal Health and Participatory Epidemiological Unit. Nairobi, Kenya: PanAfrican Programme for thecontrol of Epizootics. Organization of African Unity/Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources.Aklilu, Y. (2008) Livestock Marketing in Kenya and Ethiopia: A Review of Policies and Practice. Addis Ababa:Feinstein International Center.Aklilu, Y. and A. Catley (2010) Livestock Exports from Pastoralist Areas: an Analysis of Benefits by WealthGroup and Policy Implications. IGAD LPI Working Paper No. 01-10. Tufts University, January 2010.African Union (2007) Declaration on the African Union Border Programme and Its Implementation Modalitiesas Adopted by the Conference of African Ministers in Charge of Border Issues. Addis Ababa, 7 June.Bayissa, B. and A. Bereda (2009) Assessment of Veterinary Service Delivery, Livestock Disease Reporting,Surveillance Systems and Prevention and Control Measures across Ethiopia/Kenya Border. EnhancedLivelihoods in Southern Ethiopia (ELSE) Project, unpublished.Care Ethiopia (2010) ‘No-Cost Extension One (NCE1) Progress Report for the Period 1 September–31 December2009 CARE Ethiopia’. Unpublished report. Enhanced Livelihoods in the Mandera Triangle (ELMT)/EnhancedLivelihoods in Southern Ethiopia (ELSE).COMESA (2009) Policy Framework for Food Security in Pastoral Areas (PFFSPA). Comprehensive AfricanAgriculture Development Programme (CAADP) Pillar III. Consultative Draft. COMESA. December.FEWS NET (2008) East Africa Regional Food Security Update: Rapid Assessment of Garissa Livestock Market.FEWS NET USAID.Halderman, M. (2005) The Political Economy of Pro-Poor Livestock Policy-making in Ethiopia. PPLPI WorkingPaper, 19. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Pro-Poor Livestock PolicyInitiative.IIED and SOS Sahel UK (2010) Modern and Mobile: The Future of Livestock Production in Africa’s Drylands.IIED and SOS Sahel UK 2010.IGAD (2008) IGAD’s Livestock Policy Initiative. Project Summary. IGAD.Legese, G., H. Teklewold, D. Alemu and A. Negassa (2008) Live Animal and Meat Export Value Chains forSelected Areas in Ethiopia. Constraints and Opportunities for Enhancing Meat Exports. Improving MarketOpportunities. Discussion Paper No. 12. Nairobi: ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute).Little, P. (2006) Informal Institutions and Cross-border Livestock Trade in the Horn of Africa. Research Brief06-04-PARIMA. University of California.Little, P. (2006a) ‘Working Across Borders: Methodological and Policy challenges of Cross-border LivestockTrade in the Horn of Africa’, in J. S. McPeak and P. D. Little (eds), Pastoral Livestock Marketing in EasternAfrica Research and Policy Challenges. ITDG.Little, P. (2007) Unofficial Cross-Border Trade in Eastern Africa. Paper presented at the FAO ‘Workshop onstaple food trade and market policy options for promoting development in eastern and southern Africa’,Rome, 1–2 March 2007.Little, P. (2009) Hidden Value on the Hoof: Cross-Border Livestock Trade in Eastern Africa. Policy Brief 2.Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Comprehensive African Agriculture DevelopmentProgramme.Ogwell, L. (2010) ‘Looking for Markets Beyond Our Borders: Burduras Livestock Association’. Unpublishedreport. CARE International.Pavanello, S. (forthcoming) Cross-border Policy and Practice in East and West Africa Drylands. A LiteratureReview. HPG Working Paper.Zaal, F., M. Ole Siloma, R. Andiema and A. Kotomei (2006) ‘The Geography of Integration: Cross-borderLivestock Trade in East Africa’, in J. S. McPeak and P. D. Little (eds), Pastoral Livestock Marketing in EasternAfrica Research and Policy Challenges. ITDG.Umar, A. and B. Baulch (2007) ‘Risk Taking for a Living: Trade and Marketing in the Somali Region ofEthiopia’. UN OCHA-PCI, April.