Watete, W.P.1,2, Kogi-Makau, W.1, Njoka, J.T.1, MacOpiyo, L.1

1University of Nairobi, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, Kabete

2 Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Kenya

Corresponding author email address; pwatete@gmail.com

Poverty levels in pastoral areas seem to be increasing, an indication that poverty reduction strategies being employed are not working.Conventional methods of assessing pastoral poverty are contestable (Devereux, 2007; Tache and Sjaastad, 2010).Why are pastoralists poor?How can pastoral poverty be reduced?This study applied the stages of progress method (Krishna 2010) to establish how pastoral households of northern Kenya have moved into and out of poverty and reasons for the same.

Pastoral poverty has been on the increase, defying both government and donor poverty reduction strategies. Reasons for increasing pastoral poverty have not been sufficiently understood by all stakeholders. Poverty reduction interventions have therefore failed to achieve their desired outcomes.

Broad objective: To assess transitory poverty among

pastoral households of northern Kenya

Specific objectives: To determine how poverty levels among

pastoral households of northern Kenya have changed between 1993 and 2013.

To establish reasons for household descend into poverty or ascend out of poverty.

A survey study was conducted in Turkana and Mandera Counties. The sample households were obtained through multistage sampling: 4 sub Counties in each county (pastoral, agro-pastoral, off-farm); 30 households per village(354 households in Turkana and 310 households in Mandera)Household interviews were administered to sample households to obtain data on income, expenditure, dominant livelihood strategies and reasons for change in wealth status.In FGD, community members were guided to develop their ‘stages of progress’ scale.Focus group participants were asked to identify well known signifying events that occurred around 1993 and 2003 as a basis of recalling households’ wealth status during the two periods.

The participants were then asked to identify the wealth status of sample households in 1993, 2003 and 2013 (Poor, moderate, rich).

Sampled households were placed in four categories (remained poor, escaped poverty, became poor, remained non poor)depending on how their wealth status changed between 1993 and 2013.

Data was cleaned, coded and entered for analysis using SPSS version 20.

Descriptive statistics, Cross tabulations Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney tests used to

separate variances

Wealth category Turkana Mandera

Poor 1. Buys food2. Buys clothes3. Buys first goat4. Increases goats up to 205. Marries 6. Builds a shelter7. Buys one donkey8. Buys camel9. Buys one cow

1. Afford one meal a day2. Buy clothes for the family3. Own few animals (some chicken, 3

goats or 3sheep)4. Take children to primary school5. Make your own makeshift house

(Herio)6. Make an improved better house

(Harish)7. Buy a donkey or young cow

Moderate 1. Increases sheep/goats up to 1502. Increases number of camels up to 5 -103. Increases number of cows up to 6-84. Marries the first wife officially according

to Turkana custom5. Marries out the first daughter

1. Take children to secondary school2. Buy a farming land along the river3. Buy a plot in Mandera town4. Take children to paid tertiary

colleges

Rich 1. Increases number of sheep/goats up to 400

2. Increases number of camels up to 153. Increases number of cattle up to 154. Increases number of donkeys up to 105. Marries the second wife

1. Buy a second hand vehicle2. Buy and transport livestock to other

markets for sale3. Make pilgrimage to Mecca4. Buy modern high class vehicle5. Settle the family in urban centre

County Percentage of households per category

Remained

poor(%)

Escaped

poverty(%)

Became

poverty(%)

Remained non

poor(%) N

Turkana 54 18 19 10 354Mandera 42 13 17 27 310Total 96 31 36 37 664

County Percentage of households per category

Remained

poor(%)

Escaped

poverty(%)

Became

poverty(%)

Remained non

poor(%) N

Turkana 46 14 25 14 354Mandera 33 18 25 24 310Total 79 32 50 38 664

Livelihood Categories of householdsVery

poor(%)

Poor(%)

Middle(%)

Rich(%)

N

Pastoral 47 20 29 3 202Agro-pastoral

31 14 53 2 49

Off-farm 19 49 31 2 413Total 97 83 113 7 664

1. Different pastoral communities follow different pathways out of poverty

2. Conventional methods of assessing poverty tend to exaggerate pastoral poverty

3. Loss of livestock has been a major cause of pauperization among pastoral households of northern Kenya

4. Income diversification and education were important in helping pastoralists of northern Kenya escape poverty

1. Poverty reduction approaches should be based on community needs; replicating a project from one community to another may not work

2. Use of both quantitative and qualitative poverty assessment methods give a more accurate picture of pastoral poverty

3. Policies that protect and support livestock accumulation should be used to achieve pastoral poverty reduction

4. Both ‘cargo net’ and ‘safety net’ policies should be used to tackle pastoral poverty

5. Livelihood diversification and education are interventions that could help pastoralists escape poverty