Presently, NGOs, governments and donors assist impoverished pastoralists by replenishing herds. The goal of restocking is to 'rehabilitate' destitute herders to leave settlements and return to a nomadic lifestyle. Claire Heffernan, a research associate at the Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics research unit, University of Reading, in collaboration with the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute and the Kenya Pastoralist Forum, Nairobi, Kenya, studied the socio-economic impact of restocking projects. The long term, sustainability of projects was found to be poor and stricter criteria for selection of beneficiaries are needed.

Drought, livestock disease, loss of grazing land and civil war make surviving as a nomad difficult. In the literature, restocking is often cited for the economic, environmental and social benefits. Restocking does not require extensive training or long term inputs and allows exploitation of under-utilised rangeland. However, little evidence exists to verify the claims. To address the issue, the study examined the socio-economic impact of restocking destitute pastoralists on the household and project level. Four programmes in Northern Kenya were examined between August 1995 - January 1996. The method included a questionnaire for 221 pastoralist households, a gross margin analysis to detail herder earnings from restocked herds and a cost-benefit analysis of restocking programmes. Using a simple deterministic model, herd projections were calculated. Additionally a study of herders restocked in 1983 was performed to estimate long term sustainability.

As a consequence of this closer look, the study revealed :

• For most herders, earnings from livestock provided only a small proportion of total income. The majority of herders are peri-urban destitutes with alternative income sources (from petty trade, wage labour and relatives).
• In general, restocking is not cost-effective although projects which share costs with communities show greater potential. Benefits of restocking are not easily quantifiable. Self-esteem may rise but decreased dependence on food aid may not occur.
• Restocking can be a method of successful 'rehabilitation'. However, as a method to return destitute pastoralists to a nomadic way of life, the overall success rate is low.
• Not all pastoralist communities are appropriate for restocking. The number of potential beneficiaries and animals required to fulfil project goals and the ability of the environment to sustain the livestock are defining factors.
• Development cannot force a way of life on people who do not want it.

Current policies regarding restocking fail to recognise the distinction between long term sustainable development or short term poverty alleviation . Thus the study recommends that:

If restocking is to be a successful method of DEVELOPMENT then:

• Not all pastoralist communities are appropriate for restocking. Decision tools are needed to predict the viability of programmes in different areas.
• Specific and verifiable criteria are required to identify appropriate beneficiaries. Destitution alone is not a suitable requirement.
• Livestock packages must be sufficient for sustainable extensive production.
• Restocking should not be done in isolation, but rather as one component in a diverse strategy for pastoral development.

If restocking is to provide short term RELIEF then :

• Fewer resources are needed to target appropriate beneficiaries. Destitution is the main criteria for livestock distribution.
• Less livestock (for a greater number of beneficiaries) are required for immediate effect.
• Restocking primarily alleviates poverty in the short term and is not a means to improve household food security.

Source(s):
1. The Socio-Economic impact of restocking pastoralists in Northern Kenya, Highlights report to DFID
2. Heffernan, C. (1995) Restocking: A review of the literature. PhD proposal. University of Reading, Reading, UK
3. Heffernan, C., Rushton, J. (1996). Restocking: A critical evaluation. (Submitted for publication)

Funded by: ESCOR/DFID (August95-Jan96)

id21 Research Highlight: 1998-Apr-15

Further Information:
Claire Heffernan
Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics Research Unit
Department of Agriculture
Earley Gate
University of Reading
Reading
RG2 6AT
UK

Tel: +44 (0) 118 9 264 888
Fax: +44 (0) 118 9 264 431
Contact the contributor: veeru@reading.ac.uk

Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics Research Unit (VEERU), UK