standing wealth: pastoralist livestock production and local livelihoods in sudan

7/28/2019 Standing Wealth: Pastoralist Livestock Production and Local Livelihoods in Sudan

1/80

Standing WealthPastoralist Livestock Productionand Local Livelihoods in Sudan


2/80

i ll il ll i i i i i . i

li i i i l

i i l i . i i i

li i i .

http://unep.org/Sudan/

First published in May 2013 by the United Nations Environment Programme 2013, United Nations Environment Programme

United Nations Environment Programme

P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, KENYA

Tel: +254 (0)20 762 1234

Fax: +254 (0)20 762 3927

E-mail: [email protected]

Web: http://www.unep.org

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-prot purposes without

special permission from the copyright holder provided acknowledgement of the source is made. No use of this publication

may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from UNEP.

The contents of this volume do not necessarily reect the views of UNEP, or contributory organizations. The designationsemployed and the presentations do not imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP or contributory

organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authority, or concerning the delimitation

of its frontiers or boundaries.

Report authors: Saverio Krtli, Omer Hassan El Dirani, Helen Young

With Samira Mohammed Ahmed, Osman Mohammed Babiker, Musa Adam Ismail, Abdelazeem Hassan, Azharia El Bushra

Editing: Margaret Okole

Photos: Saverio Krtli

Report layout: Bridget Snow Design

Maps: UNOCHA, Khartoum

Printed by: New Life Press, Khartoum

UNEP promotes

environmentally sound practicesglobally and in its own activities. This

publication is printed on recycled paper

using eco-friendly practices. Our distribution

policy aims to reduce UNEPs carbon footprint.
http://unep.org/Sudan/http://www.unep.org/http://www.unep.org/http://unep.org/Sudan/


3/80

Standing Wealth

Pastoralist Livestock Production

and Local Livelihoods in Sudan


4/804

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was made possible through the combined support o the Ministry o Agriculture,Animal Resources and Fisheries in North Kordoan (MAARF), the Nomad DevelopmentCouncil (NDC), and the Ministry o Livestock, Fisheries and Rangelands, especially the DirectorGeneral o Planning and Livestock Economics, Dr Ammar El Shikh Idris Omer who participatedin the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) workshop in November 2012.

For acilitating access to the team o researchers and providing crucial insights and practicalsupport in the eld: First Lt. Gen. Mohamed Bashir Suleiman, Minister o Agriculture, AnimalResources and Fisheries, and Mr Faisal H. El-Jack, Director General (MAARF). For insideknowledge o pastoralism in Sudan and invaluable support with administrative issues: Mr. AhmedBalah and Madam Haja Ghandour.

For supporting the eld research, the local researchers in North Kordoan, including: Ahmed

Nour Eldeen (MAARF), Mohammed El Makki (retired teacher, member o the Centre orConict Resolution); Nasr Eldien Gad (MAARF), Abdel Nassir Adam (MAARF), Yusu AliAlballal (Pastoralist Union), Adam Abdul Rahman Ahmed (MAARF), Mobarak Hassan Belal(MAARF), Elwathig Siddig Elhadi (MAARF), and Obaid Ahmed Elmana (MAARF).

For supporting the preliminary work in West Darur, the Nomad Commissioner, AbdelrahimMohamed Saeed; sta o Al Massar Organization or the Development o Nomads, includingOsman Hussein Abubaker Fadlallah and Ahmed Bilal Ahmed Koko; the Geneina LocalityCommissioner in West Darur, Ahmed Ali Abd El Gadir; and also Magda Nasse whoaccompanied the team.

For support in Sudan, the UNEP team and especially Magda Nasse, and also the team o

SOS Sahel Sudan, especially the Executive Director, Salih AbdulMageed El Douma.For helpul comments on various stages o the work Magda Nasse, Brendan Bromwich,Alawiyya Jamal, Youssi El Tayeb, Dr Hamid Omer, Mey Eltayeb Ahmed, Ahmed Abusin, MaauwiaShaddad, Omer Ejemi, Hussein Sulieman, Abdal Monium Osman, Ibrahim al Mardi,Abdalmageed Yahya, Simon Narbeth, Abdalbasid Saeed, Margie Buchanan-Smith, BarbaraCasciarri and Roy Behnke, and all the participants at the two review workshops: at UNEPs ofcein Khartoum, and at the Ministry o Agriculture in El Obeid.

For help with administration, logistics and coordination: the Tuts sta and SOS Sahel sta inKhartoum, El Obeid and London, expecially Aa Rahim, Belihu Negesse, Abdelhaz MohamedAdam, Janet Aamir, Suliman Haroun Suliman, Mohamed A. Seed, and Laura Banks.

For production o the map o North Kordoan: Tamreez Amirzada, UN Ofce or theCoordination o Humanitarian Aairs (UNOCHA) Khartoum and or translation andinterpretation: Dr Kamal Awad Osman. For providing a wealth o background materials onKordoan: Lucy Maarse, and or help with the work on pastoralist demographics: Zoe Cormack.

Finally very grateul thanks to the pastoralists in the sample groups and those at the markets,who gave their time, including Amir Tumsa in El Obeid.

This study was unded by UKaid rom the Department or International Development undertheir support to the UNEP Sudan Integrated Environment Project.


5/80May 2013 STANDING WEALTH: Pastoralist Livestock Production and Local Livelihoods in Sudan 5

Contents

continued on next page

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... 4

Executive summary ........................................................................................ 7

1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 11

1.1 Overview o pastoralism trends and issues in Sudan .................................................. 12 1.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 18

2 What producers? ....................................................................................... 22

2.1 Camel specialists ....................................................................................................... 24 2.2 Sheep specialists ....................................................................................................... 25

2.3 Cattle specialists ....................................................................................................... 25

3 Livestock market: tracking supply back to production ................................... 26

4 Making a living along the livestock value chain ............................................ 30

4.1 Primary producers ....................................................................................................30 4.2 Trade operators ........................................................................................................ 31 4.3 Transporters and drovers ........................................................................................... 32 4.4 Hides and meat processing........................................................................................ 33

4.5 Feedlots ................................................................................................................... 33 4.6 Market in water and odder ...................................................................................... 34

5 Livestock marketing and herd growth ......................................................... 38

5.1 Counterbalancing the requency o crises? ................................................................ 40 5.2 Marketing strategies in the three production systems ................................................. 40

6 Livestock mobility is not limited to nomadic producers .............................. 42

6.1 The production rationale o mobility ........................................................................ 43

6.2 Mobility and sedentary producers ............................................................................ 43 6.3 Pastoral mobility strategies blending primary production with trade .......................... 45

7 Knowledge and other cultural assets ............................................................ 46

7.1 Knowledge basis o pastoral livelihood security and productivity ............................... 47 7.2 Division o labour: the example o the camel system ................................................. 48 7.3 Specialized labour, education and livelihood ............................................................. 48


6/806

8 Integration, adjustments and distortions in the strategies o production .......... 50

8.1 New patterns o mobility .........................................................................................51

8.2 Litigations ................................................................................................................ 52 8.3 In and out o mobile production .............................................................................. 53

9 Final remarks and recommendations ........................................................... 56

9.1 Final remarks ............................................................................................................ 56 9.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 59

Reerences ................................................................................................ 65

Research Team Proles ................................................................................... 72

Acronyms ................................................................................................ 75

Glossary ................................................................................................ 76



At a time when Sudan is once again turningits attention to agriculture, this study takes a

resh look at what makes livestock production the backbone o Sudanese agriculture operatesuccessully. While available evidence indicatesthat most livestock produced in Sudan is rompastoral systems, this is poorly captured in ofcialstatistics, and its importance widelymisunderstood. Indeed, what constitutespastoral production is itsel oten poorlydened. In this knowledge vacuum,transormative interventions or developing thelivestock sector risk being o target or even

damaging. Successul agricultural developmentin Sudan depends on livestock, which is its mostimportant sub-sector. Understanding howexisting l ivestock systems chiey pastoralproduction contribute to securing livelihoodsand the wider economy is undamental to thisdevelopment. This study was carried out inKhartoum, West Darur, North Kordoan andGedare States, with three in-depth case studieson sheep, cattle and camel production systems in

North Kordoan.

Value chains

Analytical tools and monitoring proceduresin operation within the livestock sector ocus ontwo percent o the market (the exports) and onlivestock as a commodity (rom the moment othe rst transaction); unavoidably, this results in adeeply skewed representation o problems,opportunities and stakeholders (with elitegroups being magnied by the analysis). In theabsence o comprehensive data on pastoralproduction and its value chains, we use availablepockets o inormation to calculate conservativeestimates o the number o livelihoods andvolume o business involved.

Based on the ofcial gures, the value olivestock exports in Sudan, although signicant,is about two percent o the value o the livestockdomestic market. Livestock produced in pastoralsystems also plays an important economic role

beorereaching the market. Pastoral systemssupport at least500,000 households o primary

producers but most likely several times thisgure. The value o subsistence milk alone at thetime o the 2008 census was certainly above onebillion SDG per year (or 500 million USD).Pastoral livestock generates jobs and auxiliarymarkets al l along the market chain. We identiedat least34,000 ull time jobs supported bypastoral systems outside primary production, anda volume o business oat least350 million SDGbesides livestock trade. Behind each ull-time

job in our est imate there are several part-time

workers and or each o them numerousdependents beneting rom the activity. As thesegures are the result o conservative calculationson sections o the value chain, we expect actualcomprehensive values to be several times bigger.These goods and services associated with pastoralprimary production are invisible to standardmethods o market-based appraisal.

Livestock mobility

The primacy o livestock systems is achievedwith high levels o specialization and minimuminput o external resources. The vast arid andsemi-arid territories o Sudan are a valuableresource to animal production on condition thatlivestock can access pasture selectively. Variableand patchy rainal l means that nutrients orlivestock become available in unpredictable andephemeral concentrations. Nutrients accumulatein the plant until they are used by the plant itselto complete its cycle. For livestock, accessing theplant when its nutrient content is peaking makesthe dierence between abundance and scarcitywithin the same ecosystem.

In the sheep, cattle and camel systems oNorth Kordoan, moving livestock strategical lyover the range in order to make the highestreturns rom these ephemeral pockets oabundance is the key to prosperity and livelihoodsecurity. It is a strategy used by al l producers inour sample, whether sedentary or nomadic,

Executive Summary


8/808

whenever the scale o business is signicant (asmobility is difcult or impossible with ewanimals). Similar strategies o mobility are alsoused by livestock traders moving their animalson the hoo to the terminal markets. Supportingand developing in sustainable ways the strategicmobility o livestock according to the logic o

pastoral systems is thereore a main avenue toincrease the productivity o the agriculturalsector as a whole.

Livestock mobility in Sudan is not amarginal issue concerning nomadic groups only

settled communities raise their l ivestock usingmobility as their key strategy. However, nomadicgroups, being the most specialized users omobility as a production strategy, are at thecutting-edge in all aspects o this issue.

Livestock marketing

All producers in our sample, across the threeproduction systems under analysis, tried tomarket their animals systematically. All aimed atreplacing unproductive with productive (i.e.male, old and sterile animals are sold and thegains are reinvested in purchasing youngemales), although only those in the moresecure group could use this strategyconsistently. The market supply o productive

animals mostly comes rom producers driven bynecessity to sell their capital stock. This practiceis likely to impact on patterns o livestockownership, avouring wealthier producers andoutside investors at the cost o impoverishing lesssecure households. More research is needed inthis regard.

Cultural assets

Livestock mobility is more eective as a

result o cultural assets such as customaryinstitutions or resource management, localknowledge, social capital, and a culture oendurance. Behind the positive gures on animalproduction lies a sophisticated ramework ocultural assets. Whilst there is awareness o thecultural dimension o pastoral systems, its roleas an asset or production usually goesunrecognized. Across all production systems andlevels o livelihood security, the competence othe producers was regarded as crucial both to

contain a crisis and to manage a successul

recovery. This includes not only the expertise oindividual herders but also the knowledgeembedded in the institutions regulating criticalaspects o the production/livelihood system,rom breed selection to resource managementand conict resolution, rom the division olabour to the saety nets o the moral economy. It

takes a lietime to learn the trade and evenwithin pastoral groups only a handul oindividuals have the capacity to handle thesituations o greatest difculty hence theimportance o maintaining the socialorganization o pastoral systems.

Complex cultural assets which contribute tothe economic and ecological sustainability opastoral systems are being eroded particularlypastoral ideological identity without beingreplaced with equally eective ones. Competentand reliable labour or pastoral production isbecoming scarce. With a signicant proportiono capital stock (reproductive animals) reachingthe market, the distr ibution o livestockownership is changing in avour o wealthierproducers and external investors.

Integration, adjustments and distortions

Integration o livestock rearing and croparming can take place at dierent scales, rom

arm-level systems (mixed arming), to a regionalsystem with mobility allowing specializedlivestock keepers to interact with specializedcrop armers on a seasonal basis. There areadvantages and disadvantages to these dierentkinds o integration, but sustainability seems toincrease with scale.

The legal/administrative ramework inSudan rests on a legacy that avours settledcommunities and crop arming.

Towards a modern livestock sector

Animal production in the predominantlypastoral arid and semi-arid regions represents themost important part o agricultural GrossDomestic Product (GDP) in Sudan, yet theprogrammes or modernizing agriculture investcomparatively little in pastoral systems. Aspastoral systems use the environment in aundamentally dierent way than globalizedintensive agriculture working with

environmental variability rather than againstit



genuine modernization can only happen bytaking this dierence into account. Rather thanimporting o-the-shel modernity that ignoreslocal systems o production, eorts to modernizea largely pastoral livestock sector should engagewith this reality, mobilizing scientic researchand technological development, in a dia logue

with primary producers, in order to generateinnovative solutions specicto the logic oproduction in pastoral systems.

Recommendations

The report identies ve broad areas ointervention that could assist the development oa vibrant and sustainable livestock sector basedon the principles o pastoral production:

the single most important way of

strengthening l ivestock production in Sudanis to secure the conditions or livestockmobility according to the logic o pastoralsystems: that is, to improve reliable andtimely access to pasture where and whennutrients peak;

the wider policy and legal instruments

concerning the livestock sector need to takeinto consideration the entirety o the

livestock market, including the domesticmarket, and engage with it in a proactive andsupportive way the economic value opastoral production systems needs to beproperly analysed;

an eective and equitable interfacing of

pastoral systems with national and globalrameworks (regarding, or example,taxation, litigation, and decisions on land use

and land use conversion) is essential in orderto promote equity and also greater paritybetween systems o land use;

the regeneration of human resources and

institutions specialized in mobile pastoralproduction should be secured;

an approach to modernization is required

that constructively engages with pastoralsystems rather than dismissing them.


10/8010

Khartoum

Renk

ElRahad

UmmRawaba

EnNehoud

Singa

Rabak

Kadugli E

lObeid

Tinna

ElKhowei

Nabalat

Kuwaikaya

UmGamaina

Katoul

WadMedani

SODARI

RIVERNILE

SOU

THKORDOFAN

WHITENILE

NORTHERN

SE

NNAR

ELGEZIRA

KHARTOUM

SOUTH

SUDAN

EAST

DARFUR

NORTHDARFUR

JEBRATELSHEIKHI

ENNEHOUDI

GHUBAYSH

WADBANDA

ABUZABAD

S

HEIKAN

UMRAWABA

BARA

AbuHaraz

SUDAN:No

rthKordofan-StudySites

Creation

date:17February201

3Sources:Boundary(IMWG),Settlement(OCHA,U

NEP).

Feedback:[email protected]

www.unocha.org/sudan

www.reliefwe

b.int

Theboundariesandnamesshownand

thedesignationsusedonthismapdonotimplyofficialendorsementoracceptancebytheUnitedNations.

FinalboundarybetweentheRepublico

fSudanandtheRepublicofSouthSudanhasnotyetbeen

determined.

Undeterminedboundary

Capital

Statecapital

Town

Stateboundary

LEGEND

Localityboundary

River

Road

Railway

20km

SCANME!

SouthSudan

Chad

Egypt

Libya

Ethiop

ia

Eritrea

C.A.R.

Sudan



Pastoralism is undergoing a undamentalre-evaluation both in academic and policy making

circles. As our appreciation and understanding oenvironmental unpredictability increases on theback o global concerns or climate change, pastoralsystems have come to look more and more likeundervalued assets. With environmentalunpredictability now becoming the norm in mostparts o the world, science is developing newparadigms capable o capturing this complexity andworking with it (Folke et al. 2002; Leach et al.2010).

Governments and international organizations

are acing the challenge o developing oodproduction systems better adapted to thechanging conditions but without workingagainst the imperative o mitigating climatechange. Amongst scholars and policy makers,many have started to believe that pastoral systems

having lived o unstable environments orcenturies hold an important key to new wayso meeting both conditions1. In the meantime, anew wave o concern is rising with regard to the

costs or both the national economies and theenvironment embedded in policies that resultin devaluing pastoralism (Hesse and MacGregor2006; Hateld and Davies 2007, c. also Catleyet al. 2012).

Following the 2011 secession, Sudan is onceagain turning its attention to agriculture. To

some, this might seem like a step backwards,especially i it means reviving the agricultural

policies o the pre-oil era, picking up their manymistakes rom where they were let. However, itcould also be a step orward, i the new horizonwhich the country is now acing can beeectively matched by a new perspective orlooking at agriculture, a perspective grounded ina sound understanding o existing productionsystems in their environment, and sensitive tothe comparative advantage o supporting them.

This study ollows this approach with regardto the top-ranking component o Sudanese

agriculture in 2012: livestock-based production.As this production has a large basis in theSudanese population (c. the 2008 census), welooked at it not only or its capacity to generatecommodities or the market but also or its value,equally o crucial economic importance, ingenerating and sustainably supporting peopleslivelihoods. The analysis o primary productionis based on case studies rom three livestocksystems in North Kordoan: camel, sheep and

cattle production. Although there are signicantdierences in predominant l ivestock systemsacross states reecting dierences in bothhistorical development and geo-ecology thecase studies have been pitched at a level thatshould make them relevant or most livestock-based production in Sudan.

1. Introduction

1 For example, the Arican Union Policy Framework on Pastoralism begins by stating that pastoralists are custodians o keynational resources ound in arid and semi-arid areas and, as a system, pastoralism helps to protect and saeguard theseresources (AU 2010: 1). A recent policy or the development o arid and semi-arid lands in Kenya states that: Pastoralism

is the extensive production o livestock in rangeland environments. It takes many orms, but its principal dening eaturesare livestock mobility and the communal management o natural resources [] until recently, most governments viewedpastoral areas as net consumers o national wealth that oered poor prospects o return on investment. Pastoralism wasthereore less valued than other orms o land use and less well-supported. Recent studies have shown that these views weremisplaced (Republic o Kenya 2012). The International Union or Conservation o Nature (IUCN) recommends to investin pastoral livestock production based on the assumption that pastoralism is rational, and that it can be reinorced withappropriate technological and management adjustments, but cannot be sustainably substituted (IUCN 2011: 29). Work bythe International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) on payments or environmental services highlights a crucial role orpastoral systems (Silvestri et al. 2012). A recent global study by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) stresses thatpastoralism is a low-carbon production system compared with intensive livestock systems (Steineld et al. 2010). A recentseries o studies on the total economic value o pastoralism revealed unexpectedly high levels o economic contribution and

concluded that There are clearly hidden values to pastoralism that may not be noticed as they go, but will be missed whenthey are gone [] Pastoralism should not be swept aside by investment in alternative land use systems it is making its sig-nicant contribution on the basis o minimal government investment, which suggests that it could become a much greatercontributor with greater investment (Davies 2007: 22).


12/8012

been characterized by their tribal afliation, theirway o lie linked with animal husbandry andthe traditional patterns o their migrations thelong distance northsouth movements o camelherders (abbala) contrasting with the shorternorthsouth and eastwest migrations o cattleherders (baggara) (Gaiballa 2013). Thus the

landscape o Sudan has been criss-crossed by aweb o livestock mobility routes (Egemi 2013).As well as the longer distance seasonal migrationspractised by pastoralists, settled communitiespractise open range grazing with more limitedmovements o herds (Zaroug 2011).

Unlike other countries in the region,pastoralism is not merely an occupation o theperipheral areas o Sudan; pastoral rangelands aredistributed throughout Sudan, even inKhartoum State itsel, and are the backbone olivestock production in Sudan (Behnke 2012;Gaiballa 2013; Young and Cormack 2013). Anearly land-use mapping study reported thatgrazing land is the most extensive o all land usecategories. It stretches rom the desert in thenorth to the northern limit o the tsetse y in thesouth, over about 12o o latitude (Lebon 1959).A more recent remote sensing study o theKordoan region reported that rangelands,dominated by either grasslands, shrubs or trees,

account or 56 percent o the land cover in thegreater Kordoan region, while rain-edagriculture accounts or 15.3 percent (RSA2009).

While rangelands continue to predominate,the past 50 years have seen rapid expansion oland under cultivation and intensication oagriculture (in both the traditional rained andmechanized sector), causing the rangelands toshrink. Land under mechanized agriculture

increased rom about two million hectares in1954 to about 14 million in 1994, and has morerecently been claimed to be the main actorcontributing to deorestation and landdegradation (Sulieman and Buchroithner 2009;Glover 2005). In terms o productivity, the

1.1 Overview o Pastoralism Trends and

Issues in Sudan

Multiple orces o change aectingpastoralism in Sudan have generated a crisisnarrative suggesting gloomy prospects or theuture o pastoralism. Despite this, pastoralism

has always been and remains the predominantsystem o livestock production in Sudan, makingsignicant contributions to both rural livelihoodsand the wider economy. This chapter brieyreviews some o the widely quoted trends, andtries to distinguish the evidence-based issuesrom the counteractual beore proceeding to themain ndings o this study.

Drylands ecology, land-use conversion and

degradation

With the secession o South Sudan, theecology o Sudan has shited towards apredominantly drylands environment. The landsouth o the Sahara is typical o the Sahelianzone, and is divided between low rainal lsavannah in the north and to the south thehigher rainall savanna that extends into SouthSudan. Precipitation is highly variable, withgradually increasing rainall rom 100mm in thenorth on the edges o the Sahara, to 600mm

southwards into South. The rainy season lasts lessthan two months in the north and extends up toour months urther south. This extreme rainallvariability over time and space has a remarkableimpact on the distr ibution o vegetation,especially in more arid areas, well understood bythe livestock producers making use o theseareas. Analysis o rainall, temperature andaridity data rom 1941 to 2009 has shown anassociation with climate change, including

increasing rainal l variability and seasonality(Sulieman and Elagib 2012).Early observations o nomads and their

livestock migrations date back more than acentury (Parkyns 1850; Lloyd 1907; Barbour1954)2. Nomadic pastoralists (rohal) have long

2 Parkyns (1850) describes the movements o the Kabbabish nomads o North Kordoan, and their interactions with DaruriArab nomads (Parkyns 1850). Lloyd (1907) travelled in Dar Homr and describes the Homr baggara Arabs, and also men-tions their Arab baggara neighbours the Messeria and Keilak. Barbour (1954) describes the migrating groups drawn to

Wadi Azum, in West Darur, including the Baggara (cattle-owners); the Bari Helba who come regularly each year rom thesouth; the Arab Abbala (camel-owners) rom the north, and the Zaghawa tribesmen (agro-pastoralists) rom the north. Thushistorically, the term nomads has been in use ar longer than pastoralists in Sudan.The denition o the terms nomadsand pastoralists is discussed in Chapter 2.



scenario is less than encouraging: Althoughlarge-scale irrigation schemes have been Sudansleading economic investment in the past century,various studies indicate that their perormancehas been considerably below potential. O the 1.9

million hectares allocated to modern irrigationschemes, only hal was actually cultivated in2005, owing largely to dilapidated irrigation anddrainage inrastructure (UNEP 2007: 163).

According to what was described as aconservative estimate, the last generation opastoralists has seen rangelands shrink byapproximately 20 to 50 percent on a nationalscale, with total losses in some areas (UNEP2007: 186). A study in Gedare State, in Eastern

Sudan reported that grazing lands reduced rom78.5 percent (28,250 km2) o the states total areain 1941 to 18.6 percent (6,700 km2) in 2002(Babikir 2011). Conversely, the mechanizedarming sector increased by 725 percent in thesame period rom 3,150 km 2 in 1941 to 26,000km2 in 2002 (ibid.). In the area o El Obeid, inNorth Kordoan state, about 33 percent opastoral land is estimated to have been lost orconverted to cultivation between 1973 and 1999,whilst cultivated land, at least nominally,

increased by 57 percent (ibid.). Fadul (2004)estimates losses o pasture lands in the Darurregion to be at least 60 percent, including qoz

(sandy soils) and wadiland (seasonal watercourses). In the 1970s, under the Nimeirigovernment, an agricultural developmentstrategy based on large-scale irrigation andmechanization schemes (including the still-to-

be-completed Jonglei Canal as a source o wateror the schemes), marketed Sudan as the uturebread-basket o the Arab world. The mistakesexperienced in the 1960s with the Khashm elGirba irrigation scheme (rom those associatedwith the semi-orced settling o livestock keepersto those that led to problems o drainage andsalinity) were repeated in the Rahad and Kenanaschemes in the 1970s (Hulme and Trilsbach1991). According to Fahey and Leonard the

bread-basket strategy not only placed thegovernment in massive debt, but also causedwidespread social and economic problems byappropriating lands in the rain-ed North,displacing pastoralists, and disrupting migratoryroutes (Fahey and Leonard 2007: 4, withreerence to Johnson 2003).

As a result o the intensied continuouscultivation (without al low periods), soil qualityand crop yields are declining rapidly, both in thetraditional rained and mechanized sectors

(Sulieman and Buchroithner 2009). Farmers andpastoralists both recognize that land degradationis taking place as a result o improper agricultural


14/8014

practices associated with extreme drought (deWaal 1989). A armer quoted in a recent study inGedare State reported: We realized that ourarm yields were declining. One hectare used to

yield ten bags (900 kg) o cereal and now it onlyproduces three (270 kg) (Glover 2005: 61). Inthe Darur region, Fadul (2004) notes the

declining productivity in millet over the past 40years, especially in North Darur, as a result owhich armers have expanded their plots as astrategy to maintain production. This expansionis at the expense o pastures, aecting bothsettled armers and nomads.

This expansion has pushed large numbers opastoralist livestock into smaller, more marginalareas, leading to overstocking and increasingtensions between livestock herders and armers(Glover 2005). The earlier customary practice oallowing nomads to graze crop residues ater theharvest disappeared, with the large-scale tenantso mechanized arming schemes behaving likeowners to whom everything on the leased landbelongs (Schlee 2012). In addition, these armerscharge the nomads ees or grazing theuncultivated areas or which the armers havepaid rent (ibid.). It is now widely reported inboth West and East Sudan that even cropresidues are not made available to l ivestock, as

this is considered trespassing and many armerseither burn or sell the crop residues (Osman2013; Schlee 2012; Glover 2005). This contrastswith earlier times, when both pastoralists andarmers elt the benets (Osman 2013). Theprogressive commercializaton o pastoral inputs,including crop residues, natural pastures andwater, is clearly evident in the literature.

Despite widespread recognition o the issuesabove, overgrazing has been singled out as the

most important cause o soil degradation,particularly around settlements and water pointsin Sudan (Ayoub 1998), and pastoralists are otenblamed (Swit 1996). The problem oovergrazing is not new and studies in Sudan haveindicated that historically it is not caused bypastoralism. More than 50 years ago, Lebon(1959: 69) described how around all largervillages, intense grazing by animals, as they passto and rom more distant pastures, and rewood

cutting, have produced local deserts generallycalled village perimeters. He went on to explainBroadly speaking, however, the animalsbelonging to nomads do not come near villages,where grazing is reserved or the cultivatorsstock. Thirty years later this was corroboratedby a major desertication study in North Darur,

which states The most ar-reaching impact onthe natural resources o the savanna is aected byrain-ed cultivation beyond the climatical lyadapted agronomic dry limit. The most seriousdamages in northern Darur are not caused bythe nomadic animal husbandry, but by thecombination o rain-ed cultivation andsedentary animal breeding (Ibrahim 1984: 186).

Changing land-use practices

Changing land use practices have broughtnomads/pastoralists into conict with armersover post harvest grazing o crop residues (accessand timing), both on mechanized schemes andon traditional arms in eastern Sudan, and also inwestern Sudan (Glover 2005; Osman, 2013;Manger 2006).

In the Darur region, expansion andintensication o agriculture combined with theerosion o local customary authorities, havebrought about changes in land tenure regimes,

which together have seriously undermined themutual interdependencies between pastoralistsand armers (Osman 2013). In the past these twosystems o production were integrated in asymbiotic manner (Manger 2005), butincreasingly they have become competitive,generating tensions and violent conict. Theormer widespread practice o shit ing cropcultivation has evolved into a continuous andexpanding land use3, accompanied by a encing

movement, widespread adoption o agriculturalinputs and the abandonment o previous mutualinterdependencies between pastoralism andcultivation (manuring, sharing o crop residues,animal transport o crops) (ibid.). The dual landtenure systems, including both ederal law andcustomary tenure based on usuruct rights, haveevolved into an individualized control systemthat disrupts claims by multiple users, includingpastoralists, at dierent times o year. This

3 This includes the expansion o vegetable and ruit gardening rom the 1960s to the 1980s, and the expansion o pumpirrigation and intensication o irr igated agriculture rom the 1980s onwards (Osman 2013).



represents a major policy challenge given thedual land tenure system, the erosion o thecustomary authorities and the evolution oindividual tenure (ibid.).

In addition to land degradation associatedwith limited livestock mobility and overgrazing,other major causes include: improper agricultural

practices and mechanized rain-ed agriculture,deorestation or rewood and urban demand orcharcoal, and overexploitation o vegetation ordomestic use (Ayoub 1998).

Employing less than 13 percent o theagricultural workorce in Sudan, mechanizedagriculture (rained and irrigated) representsabout hal o the armed land (ibid.: 161). It alsorepresents mil lions o hectares o degradedarmland, as yields dropping below economiclimits trigger the abandonment o the land(Sulieman and Elagib 2012). Even abandonedarms are not reely accessible to pastoralistsbecause they are owned by armers (ibid.).

Lack o pastoralism policies

Numerous authors describe how successivedevelopment policies have ignored pastoralismand pastoralists, resulting in no clear policy todate (Mohamed and Egemi 2012; Ahmed 1982;Egemi 2013; el Hassan and Birch 2008). This

marginalization o pastoralism in avour ocultivation was an explicit policy bias evenbeore national independence4, and hascontinued to this day.

This is particularly evident in the legislationrelating to land tenure. At the ederal level accessto pasture land is weakly dened in law, whichparticularly penalizes pastoralists. TheUnregistered Land Act (1970) placed all land inSudan under a property regime, with all non-

registered land being automatically registered asproperty o the Government, and almostsimultaneously abolished customary land userights in 1971 (Gordon 1986). The Act has beendescribed as A government tool to acilitate theacquisition o large tracts o land or agriculturalschemes, at the expense o rural dwellers andespecially pastoralists (de Wit 2001: 7). TheCivil Transaction Act (CTA) (Section 565)identies pasture land by subtraction rom other

uses (namely agriculture and orests) (de Wit2001: 10). The CTA also empowered Stateauthorities to impose restrictions on grazing as totime and place, and also allocate land or grazingor the benet o the whole community and theprotection o animal resources (ibid.).

In the 1960s and 1970s, other government

initiatives directly aecting pastoralist mobilitywere a number o schemes or resettlement andsedentarization o pastoralists, oten associatedwith the mechanized agricultural schemes ocentral and eastern Sudan, or example, the GashDelta, Rahad, Suki, Western Savanna andFashaga agricultural schemes (Egemi 2013).Lessons learned rom this experience include theimportance o involving pastoralists themselvesas part o the planning process, distinguishingbetween the settlement o people, versus animals,and also the impossibility o completelyseparating animals rom crop production. Asevere restriction on animals grazing within theschemes together with a poor understanding opastoralism has been blamed or their ailure (ElSammani and Salih 2006).

Underpinning development policy up to thesigning o the Comprehensive Peace Agreement(CPA) between north and south Sudan in 2005,was the Comprehensive National Strategy (CNS)

19922002 (el Hassan and Birch 2008). Thestrategy was concerned with trebling the overallnumber o livestock, and increasing livestockexports 20-old. The ocus was on improvinganimal husbandry techniques, controlling anderadicating livestock diseases and enhancing therelated veterinary proessions, with little or noconsideration o pastoralism as a livelihoodsystem. It also cal led or reserving 25 percent othe countrys total area or orests and rangelands.

The CNS promoted the notion o maintaining abalance between the ofcial calculations o therangelands carrying capacity and the number oanimals, linked with the protection andmanagement o pastures and pastoral resources(el Hassan and Birch 2008). While this notion isno longer ound in more recent policies, itnevertheless persists in the understanding omany proessionals despite the wider critique othe concept o carrying capacity in 1993.

4 A report on soil conservation published in 1944 by the government stated that where nomadic pastoralists were in directcompetition or land with settled cultivators, it should be the policy that the r ights o the cultivators be considered asparamount, because his crops yield a bigger return per unit area (Galal El-Din El-Tayeb 1985: 35, quoted in Egemi 2013)..


16/8016

Between the signing o the CPA and thesecession o South Sudan in 2011, the ve yearnational strategy (20072011) was intended as acoordinated peace and development ramework.

A big gap in this policy was any consideration othe implications o secession or pastoralists andcross-border migrations. This period alsocoincided with the Green Alert Programmeintended by the National Congress Party topromote the development o the agricultural andlivestock sector in Sudan (MAF 2006 as quotedby Fahey and Leonard 2007). The programmecalled or expenditures rom public sources andbanks o approximately USD1.4 billion over ve

years; 37 percent o which was allocated oranimal production5. Fahey (2007: 17) notes thatThe Green Alert Programme reects thehistorical dominance o agricultural crop

production or the Sudanese economy. Thisbudgetary allocation discriminates againstpastoralism and is economically disproportional,given that the livestock sector is a substantial lymore important contributor to agricultural sectorGDP than crop agriculture and has consistentlyprovided more than 60 percent o the estimatedvalue added to this sector in recent years(Behnke and Osman 2010).

Historically, quantitative carrying capacities were assigned to enced and leased allotmentsin Australia, New Zealand and the US, providing a way to capitalize public lands as security orthe loans and mortgages indispensable to und ranch operations (Sayre and Fernandez-Gimenez 2003; Sayer 2008). This approach oered the administrative advantage o establishing

static parameters that acilitate the bureaucracy o planning procedures. Since calculatingcarrying capacity requires stably and clearly delimited areas o rangeland, it has an inherentafnity with enclosures and land privatization. Conversely, static carrying capacity models donot accord with the variability inherent within dryland ecosystems, and are inherentlyantagonistic to the dynamic ways o using the range developed within pastoral systems (inadaptation to the instability o the environments they operate with).

The concept o carrying capacity has been the object o criticism among ecology scholarsor the last 50 years, while retaining appeal in administrative circles concerned with naturalresource management. In popular range management applications, carrying capacity denesthe optimal number o livestock in a given area relative to an estimate o its grazing resources

usually, standing biomass at peak season. Models distinguish between potential carryingcapacity in optimal range conditions and actual carrying capacity, based on evaluations oexisting range conditions below optimal levels.

The challenge to this paradigm which continues to appeal within administrative circles hasincluded a undamental critique to the concept based on the ollowing arguments: i. carryingcapacity can only be dened relative to the economic objectives o range management(optimal carrying capacity depends on the objective o range management); ii. calculationsbecome meaningless as area limits blur and/or scale increases; iii. as dierent livestockpopulations under dierent management systems may make use o the range in undamentally

dierent ways, what constitutes livestock grazing resource is not an inherent property o therange but can only be dened relative to a given livestock population under a givenmanagement system (Behnke et al. 1993).

The quest or optimal carrying capacityBox 1.

5 The ve livestock budget categories receiving most o this included: opening livestock tracks, broadcasting o pastureseeds and opening o relines; establishment o range arms and ranches or attening; establishment o slaughterhouse andquarantine centres; settlement o moving herders; and nancing o veterinary drugs manuacture (Fahey and Leonard 2007).



National experts have attributed thesesuccessive policy ailures to a lack ounderstanding o pastoralism, and a ailure todierentiate between livestock development andthe development o pastoralists and pastoralism(Salih 1990; Egemi 2013). This links to a policyocus on the pastoral sector as a source o

revenue, and particularly livestock exports, andthe common assumption that pastoralism neededlittle investment given the apparent abundance orangelands with ree access. Salih (1990: 75)concluded that pastoral development policies ailto engineer development in harmony withpastoralists social objectives and physicalenvironment. An additional inuence has beenthe widely held negative perceptions opastoralists as a repressive, static andconservative group responsible orenvironmental degradation, instability andviolent conict with other land users (Egemi2013).

An important arena in which pastoralistsrights are considered, is in relation to thecontested areas o the new international borderbetween Sudan and South Sudan. The AbyeiBoundary Commission (ABC) distinguishedsecondary rights o use on a seasonal basisassociated with the Misseriya pastoralists, rom

the dominant rights o occupation associatedwith the settled Ngok Dinka, in order to decidethe legitimacy o their claims (Peterson et al.2005: 21). The ABC stresses that the boundarydecision should have no practical eect on thetraditional grazing patterns o the twocommunities as those patterns were ollowed ormany years until they were disrupted by armedconict (ibid.).

A long history o confictSudan has a long history o violent conictsand repression, dating back to the Turko-Egyptian era (Johnson 2004). The colonialperiod was relatively stable as a result o policiesaimed at pacication o tribal groups. Followingindependence in some areas there was anescalation in local tribal disputes and conictlinked to the reorganization o administrativeboundaries, or example in the Darur region.

These were addressed by government supportedpeace building conerences, in which naturalresource management and transhumance routeswere central issues (Abdul-Jalil 2009).

The policy o reorganizing administrativeboundaries in 1990, shortly ater the new regimewas installed in 1989, was intended to win the

political support o dierent tribes, but hassubsequently created tensions between tr ibalgroups in the Darur region, especially as landand homeland (dar) has become symbolic o thelink to political power and inuence (Takana2008). This administrative retribalization hasled to conict both between and within tr ibes inDarur6 (ibid.).

Pastoralists are oten portrayed as theaggressor or blamed or starting conict. Forexample, in the Darur region the earlysouthwards migration o pastoralists prompted bydrought, and arrival in the cultivated areas beorethe harvest, is requently cited as a main cause oconict between armers and herders. In the pastthe local authorities prescribed a date the talaig,about two months ater the harvest whennomads could allow their animals to reely grazearmers crop residues, thereby ertilizing theland while beneting rom this source o odder(Shazali and Ahmed 1999; Fadul 2004; Gaiballa

2013; Osman 2013). Several trends have erodedthis practice: the extension o the growingseason; the investment o armers in small stockand subsequent competition over the residues,which now have a market value or the armers.This resulted in local conicts and grievances,especially on the part o the nomads whosecustomary r ights have been eroded (Osman2013), and reveals a ar more complex multi-causal problem, as compared to the allacy o

drought being the single cause.There is a history o Arab pastoralist groupsproviding militias to support government armedorces in putting down rebel insurgencies. In theDarur conict, or example, some groups onomads were co-opted by the government tosupport the counter-insurgency, purportedly inexchange or land (de Waal 2004). This was aresult o them not having a darand the escalationo competition, grievances and protracted

6 For example, Buram locality in South Darur has been split amongst the Habbaniya, which has created divisions withinthem.


18/8018

conict with other groups over natural resources(ibid.). The major policy challenges linked withthis are the dual land tenure system, the erosiono the customary authorities and issues arisingrom the increasing control o land byindividuals (Osman 2013). Furthermore thesocial, political and economic marginalization o

pastoralists by the State has contributed to theirweak representation and ail ing local institutions(Young et al. 2009). This marginalization opastoralists has been even more extreme than themarginalization o the Darur region as a whole(Young et al. 2005).

The nal issue that threatens pastoralismarises rom seasonal livestock migration acrossthe new international border between Sudan andSouth Sudan. This new border represents Sudanslongest national border (2,100 km), and theadjacent area is home to more than 25 percent(12 million) o the combined total population oSudan and South Sudan (Cormack and Young2011). It is economically important highrainall, savannah belt, with mechanized arms,and a wealth o natural resources including oiland gum arabic. There are two sets o issues oimmediate concern or pastoralists: rst, the highprole and hugely important political and legalissues, including or example, border

demarcation, citizenship o pastoralists andnational agreements on oil, and second, theimplications o these issues or cross-borderlivelihoods and pastoralism more broadly (ibid.).All along this border rom the Darur region inthe west to Blue Nile State in the east, there arenumerous migration routes crossing into SouthSudan, allowing livestock to access vital dryseason pastures in the south. Continuedinstability and heightened tensions along this

border, as well as outright conict betweenSudan and South Sudan in Southern Kordoan,are aecting the ability o pastoralists in theregion to have ull access to the rangelands theyneed to sustain their livelihoods. This in turncan only increase conict in the region.

This brie review o pastoralism in Sudanprovides the context in which the study ndingsshould be viewed and analysed. The subsequent

chapters will return to some o these crucialissues, including the national importance opastoralist livestock production on the one hand,and the evolving challenges on the other. Theliterature indicates that over the past 30 years,processes o land use conversion and changingland use practices have contributed to land

degradation and shrinking rangelands. The lacko a specic policy on pastoralism is partly aresult o a lack understanding o the importanceo strategic l ivestock mobility, which hasexacerbated the explicit bias in avour osedentary armers.

1.2 Methodology

Focus o this study

This study is concerned with the waysdierent livestock management systems in Sudancontribute to securing livelihoods and the widereconomy. Besides this primary ocus, the studyalso looked at issues o integration, adjustmentsand distortions in the strategies o production.

In Sudan, classications o livestock systemsare crisscrossed by two traditions. The rst one,shared with mainstream pastoral developmentworldwide, dierentiates by degrees o mobilityand crop arming. The second, more particular

to the Sudanese context (as per the nationalcensus), singles out nomads (rom ruralhouseholds) on an ethnic basis, as peoplebelonging to a tribal group classied by theadministration as nomadic, oten without theirown tribal territory and undamentally distinctrom the national notion o pastoralist7. Thisissue is addressed in more detail in the nextchapter.

While privileging the economic value o

pastoralism as our entry point, given itspredominant position in the livestock sector, wealso kept our options open with regard to otherlivestock systems. Our sample included producerswho lived in settlements and practised croparming besides livestock rearing, and producerswho did not practise any crop arming and livedin movable camps, as well as the three mainkinds o specialization in Sudan: camel, sheep

7

See or example: Elamin Ahmed and Abdel Rahman (2008). There are several tribal groups practising pastoralism whotraditionally have their own tribal territories ordarwithin which they have permanent settlements, some o whom aresometimes reerred to as nomads, or example Midob (Hales 1979); Zaghawa (Tubiana and Tubiana 1977); Kabbabish (Asad1970); Beja (Ahmed and Lajnah 1976); and Southern Rizaygat (Cunnison 1966; Egemi 2000).



and cattle. A design to include ranching as one othe case studies was discussed with the Ministryo Agriculture, Animal Resources and Fisheries(MAARF) in North Kordoan but had to beabandoned in the absence o a working example.

Case studies

Security conditions in Sudan in the rst halo 2012 restricted eldwork options, especially inrural areas and or international teams. Estimatedto represent over 12.5 percent o the livestocksector in Sudan and about 50 percent o livestockexports, North Kordoan was the only accessiblestate amongst the top our livestock producers(South and West Darur and South and NorthKordoan)8. Within the state, the team couldcount on crucial support rom MAARF andpartner organizations. Fieldwork in NorthKordoan was carried out by our teams over 14days: six o preparation, pre-analysis and closure,and eight working with the inormants in theirrespective locations.

Tinna, in Sodari locality, was chosen or thestrong concentration o camel herders and theiramilies. During the dry season, a large numbero camel herds rom Sodari locality are takensouth, to take advantage o the cheaper water9rom the large watering station in Abu Haraz. A

second team worked there. El Khowei waschosen because o its thriving production oHamari sheep and the proximity o one o thelargest livestock markets in the state, wellconnected to Khartoum State by a tarmac road.Final ly, a team worked with cattle herders nearEl Rahad. For reasons outside our control, theeldwork took place at the peak o the hot dryseason, when normally the cattle herders wouldhave not yet returned rom the south. In 2012

however, with the prospect o a war with SouthSudan and the ongoing conict in SouthKordoan, many cattle herders spent the dryseason in the north and thereore some o themcould be met at their semi-permanentsettlements south o El Rahad town.

Research methods

The team looked at both livestock marketsand primary production. The team leadersreceived a three-day training in Khartoum. Thesites or the work with the producers in NorthKordoan, as well as al l local researchers, wereidentied in discussion with MAARF sta in El

Obeid. Structured and semi-structuredinterviews were carried out with brokers,traders, government ofcials and veterinaryauthorities at the livestock markets o El Obeidand El Khowei (North Kordoan), El Geneinaand Kerenik (West Darur), El Moeilih andAssalam (Khartoum State), and Gedare (GedareState). For the case studies, we used acombination o ocus group discussions, semi-structured interviews and participatorytechniques looking at the ollowing dimensionsin historical perspective: dynamics in herdmanagement and composition, householdeconomy (especially division o labour, incomeand expenditures), resource basis andinstitutional basis o production, interactionswith other production systems. The data werecollected with attention to capturing dierencesamongst our inormants ollowing rom theirlevel o livelihood security or wealth (as denedlocally), as well as gender and age. In particular,

ocus-group discussions in each site concentratedon two samples, one o households identied by

8 A team also spent a week in West Darur, interviewing key inormants in El Geneina and Kerenik, but was unable to travelto meet producers in their camps because o the restrictions imposed by security requirements.

9

At the livestock watering acilities in Tinna or Sodari, the water during the dry season costs 25 SDG per herd o camels(80100), but reaches up to 116 SDG or a ock o sheep (100150). The North Kordoan State Water Corporationprescribes an ofcial price or water rom state-owned acilities but prices are oten urther negotiated case by case andthereore there can be dierences in practice.

more less

secure secure total

youth (boys) 3 5 7youth (girls) 1 2 3women 2 3 5

men 5 10 15elderly men 2 5 7elderly women 2 2total people 13 27 40total households 10 10 20

Example o ocus group (El Rahad)


20/8020

the participants as noticeably more secure butwithout being exceptionally wealthy, and one ohouseholds identied as noticeably less securebut without being poor. Below is an example othe sample group in one o the sites.

The collection o inormation on levels owealth and size o herd is sensitive amongst most

livestock producers in Sudan, as people areconcerned about taxation and security.Consequently, quantitative discussionsconcerning personal wealth and livestock werelimited to proportional values in the orm oractions o a random quantity (or example ahandul o sand). For the sake o simplicity thesevalues are sometimes expressed in the text aspercentages; however, the reader should be awarethat these percentages are only indicative.Drop-out rom pastoral production is oten seenas an indicator o poor economic sustainability othese systems. In order to get a sense o themagnitude o drop-out in our sample, wediscussed the matter with the help o amilytrees. This was done by going back threegenerations ocusing on the male lines, excludingthose who died young, and nally counting all

those who spent their entire lie in pastoralism.In the context o our study this exercise was oneout o a large ront o activities and we carriedout only a handul o them. However theexercise takes about 20 minutes, including theexplanation, and could easily be carried out on alarge scale. Below is one o the diagrams

produced with this exercise. They have beenanalysed but not included in the text.Seasonality also needs a word. The pastoral

areas o Sudan are characterized by largelyunpredictable seasonality. While a wet season/dry season cycle can be expected in the course othe year, the length and intensity o these seasonscan change rom year to year depending on theintensity and distribution o precipitation (intime as well as space). For this reason, the reportavoids naming the seasons in English, insteadpreerring a description (cold dry season, hot dryseason, beginning o rains, wet season, end orains). The yearly cycle o production is dividedinto ve seasons. The rst showers o the year(rushash), expected in June, are ollowed by therainy season (khari). By the end o October thedry season sets in again, briey hot at rst but

Family tree or the analysis o resilience in production



cooling down until mid December (deret), thencold until the beginning o March (shita). By lateFebruary/early March the temperature is on therise again and the hot dry season (sey) sets inuntil the new showers.This cycle is summarizedin Figure 1.

Shortcomings in the methodology

The methodological approach taken by thisstudy has been to ocus on livestock-basedproduction. At the basis o this approach is aneed to establish the grounds or eectivelydierentiating between issues that belong to thelogic o pastoral systems and issues that, instead,result rom preventing pastoral systems romoperating according to such logic a goodexample is land degradation rom overgrazing,usually caused by reduced mobility o livestock

and sedentarization, thereore not an issueinherent to pastoral systems but one emergingwhen pastoral systems are being eroded oraltogether dismantled.

Pastoralism in Sudan has operated ordecades in situations o protracted conict and

where key resources were diverted away romthe systems o production. In these situations,livelihood strategies are shaped by complexinstitutional mixes, pull-and-push orces, andadjustments to the imperative o r isk-aversion,while the undamental logic o pastoralproduction might ade into the background. By

ocusing at the undamental level, this study doesnot mean to downplay the importance ocontextual pressure; on the contrary: it intendsto provide a baseline against which to recognizeand analyse it. Nevertheless, the need tocomplete the rst stage o this process has letrelatively little room or the second. Issues ovulnerability, impoverishment or conict wereconsidered rom the perspective o productiononly. Issues o households interaction with theinstitutional level, or o altered institutionalarrangements and ongoing adaptations, havebeen touched upon only briey.

Final ly, our sampling has been unable toinclude a substantial representation o womenand youths. The data collected are skewedtowards animal production and herdmanagement, with relatively little or noinormation on the milk economy, mostlycontrolled by women and likely to be verysignicant or subsistence, social cohesion and

trade11. This shortall is partly due to thestructure o the research teams: three women andthree men were trained or the group o nationalresearchers, but only one o them remained inthe team or the eldwork in North Kordoan,while al l local researchers were men. Withhindsight, questions concerning the milkeconomy were also not sufciently emphasizedduring the training and in the methodologicalramework. As or the youth, the methodological

ramework targeted them specically, but weactually met only ew in the course o our visits,especially aged between 15 and 25 years old.This was in part due to the season and in part areection o the general shortage o labourlamented by al l groups o producers.

Figure 1. Comparative diagram o seasonality10

10

The spelling ollows Cunnison (2009).11 As expected on the basis o recent studies in other pastoral systems: Sadler et al. (2010), Behnke (2010). Also in the case omilk production, comparative studies indicate that returns increase substantially with mobility (Niamir 1982). The bulk omilk in Sudan is produced by nomadic herds o cattle (Abdelgadir et al. 1998).


22/8022

The literature concerned with the totaleconomic value o pastoralism has drawn attention

to the conusion surrounding the classication opastoral systems12. Classications are helpul toolsor ordering reality, especially when this isdominated by complex dynamics and blurredboundaries. However, i their unction as analyticaltools is orgotten, or their abstract categories areconused with the real thing, classications canmask reality rather than revealing it. Agronomists,economists and administrators working withpastoral systems have all produced classicationsbased on their proessional benchmark o

normality. Within such classications, pastoralismis dened in opposition to crop arming, themarket economy and sedentary livelihood.Denitions hinge not on substantive descriptions opastoral production strategies, but on what pastoralsystems are supposed to be without: lack oproductive potential; lack o integration with thewider economy; lack o integration with crop-arming; lack o modernization; limited to landthat lacks value or other uses13. Further conusion

ollows rom the act that the word pastoralismreers to both an economic activity and a culturalidentity, but the latter does not necessarily implythe ormer.

The Policy Framework on Pastoralism adoptedby the Arican Union in 2011, departs rom this

characterization by subtraction and oers asubstantive description o l ivestock mobility (AU2010). This ollows the current positions withinthe study o pastoralism (see ootnote 1 aboveand Box 2), reected also in the codes o lawconcerned with the upholding o mobilepastoralism adopted in Mauritania (RpubliqueIslamique de Mauritanie 2000), Mali(Rpublique du Mali 2001) and Niger(Rpublique du Niger 2010), and a nationalpolicy on arid lands recently approved by the

Kenyan parliament (Republic o Kenya 2012).In Sudan, the rural population has been

divided into rural and nomadic since the rstcensus in 19551956 (UN 1964). In that census,nomads (rohal) were dened by practisingmobile livestock keeping, but the termpastoralists (raa) was associated with the ruralpopulation, as livestock keepers distinct romnomads and thereore, by exclusion, settled.Census enumerators classied people as rural i

they ound them in a well-dened vi llage or inscattered tukuls. Problems with this system werenoted in the Methods Report:

2. What producers?

12 For example Hesse and MacGregor (2006).13 For example ILRI (2010).

Studies comparing the perormance o dryland livestock systems (cattle) with dierentdegrees o mobility in East and West Arica ound a positive correlation between mobility

and productivity or all key parameters, with ertility and milk production increasing andcal mortality decreasing in relation to increasing mobility (e.g. Colin de Verdire 1995;Wilson and Clarke 1976). Twenty six independent studies in nine countries in East, Westand Southern Arica ound returns per hectare several times higher in pastoralism than inranching (Scoones 1995; Ocaido et al. 2009). According to one o the early attempts toormalize the link between production and mobility: The producers strategy withinnon-equilibrium systems [] must aim at responding to alternate periods o high and lowproductivity, with an emphasis on exploiting environmental heterogeneity rather thanattempting to manipulate the environment to maximize stability and uniormity (Behnkeet al. 1993: 1415).

The link between mobility and productivity in pastoral systemsBox 2.



The classication o the mode o living depended

upon the enumeration technique used. For

example, the village technique was used or the

enumeration o certain semi-nomadic groups,

because the census in that region was carried out at

a time when the groups were settled, i it had been

carried out at a dierent time o year, they would

have been counted by the nomadic technique andclassied as nomads (Government o Sudan

1955/1956, cited in UN 1964: 139).

In the Second Census (1973) and the ThirdCensus (1983), nomads were no longer denedby their liestyle (i imperectly recorded) but byan administrative parameter that associated themwith a northern identity: a person who owesallegiance to a nomadic sheik (el Tay 1980). Inthe 1955/56 Census, the census orm haddistinguished between time o birth and time ocensus: a person could have been born in onecategory and moved to the other. Later censusesdropped that question. Although still ormallyassociated with a mode o living, nomads werein practice dened on an administrative basisrather than by empirical observation.

In the 2008 Census, the division intourban, rural and nomadic populations wasmaintained. Only the nomadic population was

dened in the documents o the census, in theollowing way:

[] a group o the population, which consists o

tribes characterized by raising and depending on

animals. Their animals usually graze natural

pastures and are watered rom natural water bodies;

nomadism is both a way o utilizing resources and

a way o lie. The nomads usually move with their

animals or long distances, searching or water and

pasture and consequently live in mobile homes ortemporary houses made out o hair, tree branches,

or the hides o their animals. The nomadic

population is in many respects dierent rom the

settled one in their cultural, socioeconomic and

demographic characteristics (Elamin Ahmed and

Abdel Rahman 2008: 454).

In this description, as in those o theprevious censuses, nomads are dened againstthe background o a rural/sedentary population.

This classication has three importantconsequences or the way pastoralism isunderstood in Sudan: i. it rames mobility as theoutstanding eature o the nomadic population,implying that everyone but the nomads is settled(that nomadic is dened, whilst rural is not,suggests that the latter is taken as the baseline o

normality); ii. it establishes an oppositionbetween mobile (nomads) and sedentary in sucha way that people can either belong to onecategory or the other; iii. by dening nomads ona tr ibal basis (since the 1970s), the classicationexcludes in principle that people could moveacross the categories: people belonging to anomadic tribe remain nomads even i theysettle, unless the classication o the tribechanges rom nomadic to rural, and peopleassigned to the rural category continue to bepresumed sedentary even i they adoptproduction strategies based on mobility. Thedenition o nomads in relation to bothmobility and tribe institutionalizes the conusionbetween economic practices and cultural identityalready mentioned when discussing thedenition o pastoralism at the beginning othis chapter (c also Assal 2009). In a contextwhere successul production is expected todemand exibility and dynamic adaptation, the

abstract rigidity embedded in this classicationmakes it inadequate, and potentially misleading,as an analytical tool or inorming policy makingconcerned with livestock systems and theeconomic development o the rangelands.

This study concerned both nomadic andrural groups as identied by the administration,but investigated actual strategies o production

including mobility on an empirical basisrather than deducing them rom one o the

classications. We looked at producers o thethree main species. The camel keepers involvedin this study were Kababish and Kawahla inTinna (Sodari) and Kababish and Shanabla inAbu Haraz (Sheikan). The sheep keepers wereHamari rom the village o Nabalat (El Khowei),about 45 km west o El Khowei town. The cattlekeepers were Messeriya, Fallata, Zaghawa,Tomam and Bedeiria rom Kewekaya andEngamina areas, about 35 km south-west o ElRahad town14.

14 Tinna (14.15324N; 29.44728E); Abu Haraz (29.868740N; 12.969677E); Nabalat Village (13.022083N; 29.00315E);Kuwaikaya Village (12.60741N; 30.43352E); Um Gamaina Village (12.59043N; 30.48222E).


24/8024

Although ocusing their investments on onespecies, all these livestock producers keep mixedherds15 with a main species backed up by anothertwo or three. Producers o camels and producerso cattle also keep sheep. Producers o sheep andproducers o cattle sometimes keep a ew camels.All keep goats. All species are regularly

marketed, whenever possible within a strategyaimed at either sparing or increasing the capitalstock o the main species. Within each group ospecialization, changes in wealth/security areassociated with growing or shrinking o capitalstock in the main species. A drop in security/wealth leads to shiting the ocus o productionto the back up species next-in-the-line: romcamels and cattle to sheep, rom sheep to goats.A ocus on goat rearing amongst thesespecialized groups is an indicator o vulnerability.All households including the less securegroups claimed that animal productionprovides the main source o livelihood. Table 1below summarizes local perceptions o livelihoodsecurity/wealth or the three specializations.

Although livelihood security was denedexclusively in relation to livestock production,most o the households in our sample alsoengaged in rain-ed agriculture. Sheep and cattle

specialists cultivated groundnuts, millet, sesame,hibiscus and watermelons. Some o the cattlespecialists also cultivated sorghum. Amongst thesheep specialists, some in the more secure groupoccasionally harvested gum arabic. Mosthouseholds in our sample were attached topermanent villages; only a small number were

nomadic.

2.1 Camel specialists

Within this group, livestock is the maineconomic activity, representing more than 70percent o the income. Camels are seen as theoutstanding indicator o livelihood security. Goatrearing is present at all levels o security aspocket money livestock, but becomes a deningcharacter or the less-secure groups, tied in witha drive to settle as livestock assets become tooew or supporting mobile strategies. Sheep canrepresent a substantial proportion o the herd,especially in communities that are relativelysettled, as in the case o many o our inormants.The proportion o emales in a herd o camels isabout 70 per cent, slightly higher in the case osheep (the rest being young or castrated males).About a third o the animals are above six yearsold, a third between our and six years old, and a

15 Keeping mixed herds is a common strategy in pastoral systems. As dierent species have dierent eeding patterns, mixedherds allow or an intensive use o the highly diverse rangeland environment as well as helping in risk management.Small stock, especially goats, are also kept as pocket money or the households expenses.

Camel specialists Sheep specialists Cattle specialists

more secure Between 150 and 200 About 500 sheep More than 100 cattle,camels and between 400 and 100 goats. 100 to 150 sheepand 500 sheep. and 4050 goats.

moderately secure Between 50 and 100 About 200300 About 4060 cattle,

camels and maybe sheep and 100 goats. 50 sheep and150300 sheep. 5060 goats.

less secure Between 5 and 25 A ew sheep and up About 510 cattle,camels and between to 50 goats. 34 sheep and 510 goats50 and 100 sheep; (the poverty line wasmost likely also dened as owning 71020 goats. sheep plus a ne ram)

Table 1. Local livelihood security/wealth indicators at household level



third between one and three years old. Withsheep, about hal o the animals are in the our tosix year old age group and only 20 percent in thegroup o the youngest. All women o dierentage groups have long daily household routineduties, including preparation o the meals, andresponsibility or rewood and water or the

household and the animals kept at the camp.When living in a village, women have the extraburden o the small group o householdmilking animals, as well as supportive services tothose who are taking care o the main herd.Children between seven and 15 years old takeull responsibility or the herd during the wetseason, reducing expenditures on hired labourand reeing men or other occupations (includingsalar ied work).

2.2 Sheep specialists

The productive household includes hiredlabour used in both livestock rearing andarming (especially weeding and harvesting).Livestock rearing represented about 60 percent othe household economy in both o our twosample groups (more secure and less secure),ollowed by rain-ed crop arming (about 30percent) and, or the more secure group, gum

arabic (about 10 percent). Animals are selectedor tness and with attention to the colour otheir eece (selecting or those that have highermarket demand). Feeding young animals duringthe hot dry season (with water melons orgroundnut husk) is the responsibility o womenand children. In our less secure sample group,women are in charge o milking the goats as wellas watering and eeding the donkeys. Womenand children also assist the men in sowing at the

beginning o the rainy season. People in thesecure group are involved in the production ogum arabic, usually done by hired labour underthe supervision o the head o the household.Sometimes, our inormants pointed out, the gumis wasted because the people controlling the treescannot pay or the labour, or are absent rom thevil lage, involved in other activities. Croparming contributes less than a third o thehousehold economy but represents the largestproportion o labour demand.

2.3 Cattle specialists

More than 70 percent o the income o thehouseholds in our sample came rom animalproduction. This was ollowed by the revenuerom the sale o crop surplus (including residuesand ai led harvests). About a third o the income

came rom other activities. During the hot dryseason (sey) men sometimes engage in smallbusiness, oten as livestock traders (galaga) orood crop traders (galaty) on the local markets.They may also purchase some animals to beattened at the village or one to two weeks onconcentrate, beore being taken to the market inOmdurman. The revenue rom these activities isused to cover the cost o odder, water and hiredlabour. In the insecure households, mensometimes generated extra income by collectingand selling wood or construction. Surplusmoney is reinvested in livestock. I capital issubstantial, buying a vehicle, or even a house intown (to rent out) are considered good options.Women in both secure and insecure householdssell milk during the wet season and up to the endo the cold dry season; they also collect and sellwild ruits and rewood or charcoal.


26/8026

3. Livestock market: tracking supply back to production

The conusing qualitative knowledgeembedded in the classication o livestock

systems, as we have seen in the previous chapter,inevitably impacts on the collection andorganization o quantitative data. Analysts havepointed out that the current quantitativeknowledge on the economic value o pastoralismis oten made out o poor-quality aggregates oincomplete and incommensurable data (Hesseand MacGregor 2006, Behnke 2010).Quantitative data which ignore shaky qualitativeoundations can be as misleading as classicationsorgetul o their unction as analytical tools and

taken to represent the reality they should insteadhelp to study.

The economic importance o pastoralism haslong been hidden by methodological

shortcomings and lost in data aggregation withinnational statistics (Rodriguez 2008). The idea

that pastoral systems are an outdated orm oproduction that makes only a small contributionto national economies has been the object ointense debate amongst the specialists in thesector and is listed amongst the myths andmisunderstandings in pastoral development in anow ten year old UN publication (UNDP-GDI2003). Nevertheless, inormation highlightingthat the economic role played by pastoralism isoten substantial is nally emerging rom agrowing number o studies (see Box 3).

In Sudan, the current system o statisticalanalysis o livestock marketing ocuses onvalue-adding and exports, with littlemethodological sensitivity or primary

In Burkina Faso, 70 percent o the cattle population are herded by the transhumant Fulani(IIED and SOS Sahel 2009).

In Mali, exported live animals produced under pastoral conditions were worth USD 44.6million in 2006 (IIED and SOS Sahel 2009).

In Niger, the livestock sector is the second source o export revenue ater uranium(Rpublique du Niger 2011), with pastoral/agropastoral systems representing 81 percent oproduction (Rass 2006).

In Chad, pastoral livestock make up 80 percent o ruminants, 40 percent o agriculturalproduction, 18 percent o GDP and 30 percent o exports (Alarouk et al. 2011).

In Sudan, with the great bulk o livestock production rom smallholder and migratoryproducers, the 2009 livestock otake was worth USD 3.7 billion (Behnke and Osman 2011),

In Somalia, 90 percent o the national herd is in pastoral systems (Rass 2006).

In Kenya, 14.1 mil lion animals, worth USD 860 million, are kept in pastoral productionsystems. They enable an annual otake worth USD 69.3 million (Davies 2007).

In Tanzania, pastoral/agropastoral systems represent 94 percent o the l ivestock and supply

70 percent o the 1.38 billion litres o milk consumed in the country (United Republic oTanzania 2006).

Economic importance o pastoral systemsBox 3.



production. Livestock reach the terminal marketsthrough inormal networks o brokers, agents,sub-agents and local traders, rom productionareas 2001,200 kilometres away. Animalschange hands up to six times. The marketauthorities collect a at ee by species rom everysale but the records rom this process are limited

to the number o animals arr iving and sold byspecies and sex. The veterinary authorities at ElMoeilih terminal market in Omdurman(Khartoum state) record the origin o theanimals based on the last transaction. Thereore,in their records the cattle rom local eedlotoperations, supplied rom the greater Darur andKordoan regions, are recorded as originatingrom Khartoum state. Abattoirs record the typeo animal being slaughtered but hold noinormation on their origins. Livestock producersmight appear in the records o the Zakat taxationsystem, but our team was not able to access thedata at the Zakat chamber at state level.

Overall, primary production is largelyinvisible except with regard to exports. Thereare no ofcial systematic data on the size o thelivestock domestic market. This approach hasbecome particularly pronounced rom the 1990s,

when the adoption o market economyapproaches or Sudans development urgedstrongly or maximum utilization o livestockresources in earning oreign exchange atminimum cost (UNDP 2006: 26).

Recently published data rom the SudanCentral Statistical Bureau (SCBS) allow the

value o livestock exports to be put inperspective. The livestock sectors contributionto Sudans agricultural GDP or 2009 isestimated between 26.670 and 33.843 billionSDG, while the contribution to exportsamounted to 0.581 billion SDG (Behnke andOsman 2011). Using these gures, we calculatethat or 2009 the value o the livestock exportmarket in Sudan, although signicant, was stillonly about two percent o the value o thedomestic market. For more data on the value othe livestock sector, see Appendix I, Tables 13.

With the present weakness o monitoringalong the market chain, tracking livestock supplyback to the primary producers remains largelyspeculative. To an extent, dierences in breedcomposition and seasonality within the supply canbe an indicator o the system o production. Forexample the West Baggara Short Horn cattle

Seventeen kilometres west o Omdurman town, El Moeilih terminal market is thebiggest livestock market in Sudan or cattle and camels (over an area o 6,821 eddan, orabout 2,850 hectares including holding grounds and eedlots, El Moeilih absorbs 90 percento all traded cattle and camels in Sudan). Cattle supply is rom the greater Darur and Kordo-an regions as well as White Nile, Blue Nile and eastern Sudan. The proportion o dierentcattle breeds varies according to the season, but Rizaigi and Nyalawi (Darur region) makeup or more than 70 percent o the annual trade o more than 300,000 head o cattle16. Atthe end o the 1970s, about 80 percent o the cattle traded in El Moeilih were producedunder pastoral conditions in the greater Darur and Kordoan regions: South Darur 47.5

percent, North Darur 6.4 percent (including todays North and West Darur states), NorthKordoan 17.2 percent, South Kordoan 7.8 percent (El Dirani-LMMC 1982). The predomi-nant role o pastoral systems in supplying El Moeilih persists, with gures collected in 2011presenting a similar aggregate gure i with dierences in the breakdown: South Darur52.98 percent, North and West Darur states (previously together as North Darur) 12.47percent, North Kordoan 4.41 percent, South Kordoan 6.54 percent (see Table 2 below).From the records held by the veterinary authorities at the market, in 20102011 the share otraded cattle rom these regions appears to have increased, with about 39 percent reaching ElMoeilih directly rom the greater Darur and Kordoan regions and 51.5 percent traded romthe eedlot operations in Khartoum state, which are known to be mainly supplied rom

these regions.

Cattle trade at El Moeilih livestock terminal market

Box 4.

16 Dr. Mustaa Ismaeil, manager o El Moeilih or the last 18 years, personal communication to

standing wealth: pastoralist livestock production and local livelihoods in sudan

Documents