Data on pastoralist populations:

Discussion paper for ILRI workshop of pastoralist poverty

Nairobi, June 27-28

Sara Randall,
Department of Anthropology,
UCL,
Gower St,
London WC1E 6BT

May 23 2006

1
1. Introduction
To address issues of pastoralist poverty it is essential to have data in which pastoralists
are both represented and discernable. Although many small-scale academic studies
consider pastoralist poverty in a nuanced and detailed manner, these studies and their
tools are not really appropriate for national or sub-group poverty monitoring. In most cases
they involve very detailed data collection, adapted to the local ecological, economic and
cultural context and are neither generalisable to other groups nor feasible on a large scale.
We must accept that some compromises are essential if National Statistics Offices are to
collect data, which include pastoralists. Despite improved coverage, at present
pastoralists and pastoralist issues are probably seriously underrepresented,
misrepresented or absent from national data sets. Frequently used poverty indicators not
only may not capture the essence of pastoralist poverty but may also classify thriving,
viable pastoralist communities as poor because of different values and practicalities.

This paper is intended to initiate discussion about pastoralist data issues and arises out of
two brief, consultancies for Oxfam, reviewing demographic, poverty and other data
collection systems and procedures in Kenya and Tanzania. It is also informed by
considerable experience over many years of working with pastoralist populations in Mali
and Burkina Faso.

2. Issues of definition of pastoralist populations

If demographic and other household based data are to be collected or collated
systematically over time for pastoralists, it is essential that pastoral populations are clearly
defined and that these definitions are both explicit and consistently adhered to. If this is
not done then shifting definitions may lead to changing numerators and denominators and
hence to rates which cannot properly be interpreted as related to changing pastoral
livelihoods or changing numbers of pastoralists. However several components of pastoral
identity (outlined below) mean that such definitions (a) are difficult to agree upon between
different interest groups and (b) may constrain possible analyses.

2.1 Economic definitions:

Swift (1988) proposed that pastoralists be defined as households or populations where
more than 50% household income / consumption is derived from livestock or livestock
related activities, either as a result of sales of livestock products or of direct consumption,
and agropastoralists as deriving 25-50% income / consumption from livestock produce.
Although this may be an excellent definition for conceptualisation, in terms of practical data
collection or collation it poses various problems or dilemmas.

2.1.1 Routinely collected quantitative data and economic definitions of pastoralism:

(a) household level data
Defining households as pastoralist using Swifts criteria (or similar economic
definitions) means that, over time, specific households may move in and out of
pastoralism because of herd loss or temporary diversification into other economic
opportunities.
In order to capture poverty among such pastoralist households additional data are
needed on overall and per capita livestock holdings since a household with few

2
 livestock but no other economic activities may face acute hardship in terms of
nutrition and welfare but retain over 50% household consumption derived from
pastoralism.
Such a definition is very data demanding since detailed, accurate household budget
data are required. Livestock holdings are difficult to assess in many pastoral
populations for many reasons, including taboos against enumerating livestock
precisely or because of shared rights in animals arising from allocation to wives for
milking or through complex loan systems. Routinely collected data are unlikely to
be available at this level.

(b) community level data

If a community, rather than individual member households, is estimated to derive
more than 50% income from pastoral produce this can circumvent the difficulties of
specific households falling below the threshold over time. This may be a good way
of assessing changing access to and dependence on pastoral produce but
encounters the problem of defining community membership. Is a community to be
defined along spatial, ethnic, kinship, economic or administrative lines? Is a migrant
to Nairobi who is sending remittances a member of the pastoralist community? Is a
migrant to Nairobi who would like to send remittances, but cannot find work, a
member of the pastoralist community?

(c) data defined by administrative units

If appropriate base line data are available on household consumption within an
administrative / geographic unit, then that area may be defined as pastoral, agro-
pastoral or non-pastoral according to Swifts criteria. This approach encounters
different problems. Administrative units for which data are routinely available (e.g.
districts in Kenya) are large and often environmentally heterogeneous containing
some communities who consider themselves pastoralist and who fulfill the criteria
above, and others who do not. Changes over time could be a function of changing
pastoral opportunities, risks or natural hazards OR changes in the composition of
the population, influenced by in-migration by non-pastoralists to cultivate, develop
enterprises, or join the growing urban economy in that area.
Mobility adds extra complexity: should people be considered as members of an
administrative area because they are administratively attached to it (de jure) or
because they are located within that area at the time of data collection (de facto)?
De facto membership is often simplest, but seasonal changes in population size and
composition because of transhumance need to be considered and understood. De
facto data can provide information on mobility out of the area but it will be unclear
whether such mobility is associated with livestock production or migration for
livelihood diversification.

2.2 Ethnic definitions of pastoralism

Some see pastoralism as an innate characteristic determined by attachment to a specific
social group or ethnicity. Such a definition implies that civil servants or urban based
salaried employees who originate from pastoral ethnic groups perceive themselves to be
pastoralists, retain close contact with their pastoral roots, may invest in livestock to be
herded by kin or contract herdsmen in their area of origin.

3
2.2.1 Routinely collected quantitative data and ethnic definitions of pastoralism:
Close links with communities of origin are likely to be very strong for first generation
rural-urban migrants but will probably decrease over time for many second and third
generation migrants. Individuals who no longer have close ties with their area of
origin, and who no longer speak their maternal language fluently, may continue to
label themselves ethnically as being from that community.
Educated and / or wealthy migrants may invest considerable sums in their home
areas and may be a pathway for channeling of government, NGO or private
resources through networks and contacts. As such they should not be ignored in
terms of welfare in the pastoral lands of origin but it is problematic to use them as
an indicator of pastoral welfare since not all will choose to invest back home.
Ethnic identity can be fluid and people may choose to adopt different ethnic
identities for expediency or the reality of the lifestyle they live (e.g. Rendille &
Samburu, Spencer 1976). Former pastoralists may choose to identify themselves
by non-pastoralist ethnicities.
Migrants living away from pastoral zones are very diverse and are probably
dominated by polar opposites in terms of economic well-being; educated migrants
who leave pastoral areas to get employment (unavailable in remote pastoral zones)
commensurate with their qualifications contrast with the destitute and those who
have left pastoralism because of livestock loss or because migration to urban areas
of a household member is perceived as the best way of household diversification
under adverse conditions. Thus numbers of pastoralist ethnic groups living in urban
areas would be impossible to interpret in terms of livelihoods and welfare.
People from ethnic groups not traditionally perceived to be pastoralists may have
invested so heavily in livestock that the major part of their income is derived from
pastoralism yet they might be excluded if ethnic definitions are used.

2.3 Definitions of pastoralists based on local research

A recent study by Comic Relief and others (Oxfam et al. 2005) using PRA exercises with
diverse pastoralist communities throughout Kenya along with many key informant
interviews identified three types of pastoralist
Nomadic extensive pastoralists with very little income diversification
Sedentary or semi-sedentary pastoralists with considerable income diversification
and much less income from pastoralism
Destitute pastoralists
The study identified the types of capital (social, economic etc) present in each group and
their potential to develop these forms of capital.

This classification is seriously limited by the integral association of mobility with production.
It implies that a household cannot be solely pastoralist unless everyone is highly mobile
yet in ASAL different populations approach livestock mobility requirements in different
ways: through mobility of parts of households, whole household mobility, splitting
households, importing fodder, and, in some higher potential areas, sedentary animal
husbandry. The above classification implies that diversification is not possible whilst
remaining mobile, yet often some household members may remain mobile with livestock
while other members move to urban areas either to work and send remittances or to be
well placed to receive forms of aid. There are many problems in identifying people /
households / communities within these categories since household diversification may
mean that a specific household or a specific community has members who could be

4
classified under all three labels. Such labels, therefore, become individual level
characteristics and are thus fairly unworkable when it comes to using them for analysing
the welfare of pastoral populations

2.4 Definitions of pastoralists by non-pastoralists

Definitions of pastoralists by non-pastoralists with little or no experience of pastoral zones
may be informative about interpretation and management of data for pastoral zones. In
both Kenya and Tanzania most non-pastoralists immediately associate pastoralism with
mobility and nomadism. In general one gets the impression that there is poor
understanding of the motivations for and patterns of mobility. Nomads are perceived to
wander randomly over the landscape, often completely destroying one area before
moving on to another with mobility is a necessary response to environmental destruction.
Not many people seem to understand that mobility is both economically and ecologically
essential to exploit seasonally available resources in ASAL, and usually follows quite
restricted seasonal circuits.

This brings up an important issue with respect to data on the pastoral areas. Data
collection difficulties in these areas are largely determined by peoples mobility and
therefore they are identified by outsiders by this characteristic of mobility. The reason for
their mobility livestock is rarely considered. Many East African government employees
who have had no reason to think about the nature of pastoralism would identify nomadism
and mobility as the key characteristic rather than livestock ownership or herding.

2.5 Resolving the issues of definition

If we are to influence government data collection on pastoralists we need to resolve these
definitional issues, whilst accepting that practicalities demand that compromises will be
inevitable. Where routinely collected data are available (or become available) as a by-
product of another administrative function, then a geographic / administrative definition is
likely to be most appropriate. Ideally this could be disaggregated down to district or
division level. In sample surveys appropriate questions can allow different approaches to
definition but definitions must be used consistently over time.

Defining which districts / divisions are classified as pastoralist (or degree of

pastoralism) could be done on the basis of several criteria:

Livestock Numbers (if such data are available from livestock surveys).
Proportions of households where pastoralism is the primary and secondary source of
livelihood
Ethnic distribution (from the census possible in Kenya, not in Tanzania)
Climate (rainfall, ecological zoning like arid and semi arid lands in Kenya)
Others??????

As far as I am aware nowhere in the world actually produces routine statistics on

pastoralists compared to non-pastoralists presumably partly because of many of the
definitional difficulties outlined above, but also because such a division of the population is
not perceived to be relevant or appropriate for policy and planning. In addition concern
over the cost-effectiveness of such specific surveys has also been raised. On the other
hand all countries publish a range of statistics (both from censuses and other sources) for
different administrative levels. Local knowledge in each country may define these units as

5
pastoral, mixed or agricultural. This may be complemented by rainfall data typifying them
as arid / semi arid etc. This does not get around the fact though that although certain
administrative/ geographical areas may have a reputation as being pastoralist there are
always substantial numbers of non-pastoralists living there.

Mali does have a census category of nomad versus sdentaire [sedentary person]. This
does allow for analysis of census variables by this breakdown and some tables are
routinely published. This classification was used in the 1976, 1987 and 1999 censuses.
However in Mali it is not always clear what is meant by nomad, which is a legacy from
French colonial tax code. The Mali census also collects housing data, distinguishing fixed
from mobile housing. Neither of these categories are effective definitions of pastoralists
because (a) many pastoralists are no longer / never were classified as nomads and (b) not
all nomads are pastoralists (e.g. fishers, hunter gatherers) (c) ethnicity and a range of
historical factors determine whether a person is defined as a nomad.

3. Comparing census and survey data collection on pastoralists:

Kenya & Tanzania
Table 1 compares the data availability on pastoralists in the census, in the DHS and their
probable representation in national sample surveys. Harmonised questions probably
mean that other surveys have similar definitions, although an interesting case is posed by
the Tanzanian Agricultural Sample census (2002-3). In this survey pastoralists are defined
and data can be analysed for them.

The agricultural population is classified as:

(i) crops only
(ii) crops and livestock. Must cultivate a piece of land exceeding 25 sq meter AND
have either at least 1 cow or 5 shoats
(iii) livestock herders: A holding is referred to be a livestock only holding if it has
exercised Livestock husbandry only during the agricultural year. The livestock
can be herded in search for areas of pasture, but the core household unit always
remains in the same place and the herder is rarely away from this place for long 1
periods at a time (United Republic of Tanzania, 2006a, p122)
(iv) livestock pastoralists: practice livestock production as its major income
generating activity and a means of subsistence but moves from one place to
another searching for water and pasture for the livestock. This movement
usually involves long 2 distances and in many cases the whole household moves
with the livestock and they have no permanent place of residence. (United
Republic of Tanzania, 2006a, p122)

For all pastoral and agropastoral groups at least 1 cow, 5 shoats or 50 chickens/ turkeys/
ducks/ rabbits must be owned. Less than 0.05% all households were classified as
pastoralists and about 0.9% as livestock herders. However 34.7% were crops and
livestock (United Republic of Tanzania, 2006a, table 2.2, p64). The proportions varied
substantially by region.

1
NB long not defined
2
NB long not defined.

6
This distinction between livestock herding and pastoralist households based on mobility is
curious in an agricultural production survey, and may be symptomatic of the general pre-
conceptions and misconceptions about pastoralism in Tanzania. Discussions with people
who know the country well, suggest that most traditional pastoralists in the pastoral semi-
arid zones in the north of the country are integrated into the village system, and
households are not highly mobile. There may be a few more mobile households who are
using mobility to exploit seasonally available pastures but generally such mobility is
restricted to young men who move with the herds and most of this would be identified
within the livestock herding category. From what I have been told, there is another
category of pastoralist in Tanzania (who is largely absent from other arid and semi-arid
lands in countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Chad etc) and whose movements
are NOT part of an ecologically and economically sound seasonal exploitation of
fluctuating water and pasture resources in a traditional territory they know well, but who
are more like pioneers moving (generally southward) into new, non-traditional pastoral
zones and whose movements are not an annual cycle but are more linear. The problem is
that there is no way of knowing whether the pastoralists in this survey are mobile
pastoralists practicing an economically and ecologically sound seasonal mobility or these
pioneer pastoralists. 3 The survey used the National Master Sample and it is unclear if
mobile households would have been captured at both the household listing and interview
phases and whether they are properly represented in the survey. The report states (p5):
Village Listing forms were used for listing households in the village and from this list a
systematic sample of 15 agricultural households was selected Given that mobile
households are probably unlikely to have been incorporated into a village structure it
seems likely that more mobile pastoralist households would have been underrepresented.
However, this may not be the case since apparently everyone was listed who was on the
village territory but there was a period of up to three months between the listing and the
actual enumeration.

With the exception of this survey, it would be difficult to identify pastoralists from most
national surveys in both countries (although the difficulties differ by country). It is not clear
to what degree pastoralists are actually represented in the surveys, but the more mobile
ones are certainly underrepresented, particularly in Tanzania.

4. Other data issues

4.1 Definition of a household
It is essential to use some social unit above the individual both for practical data collection
and for meaningful analysis of demographic and other data (e.g. micro-economic,
nutritional, poverty, gender). All populations live and organize their lives within such units;
often, economic units are coterminous with residential units, consumption units,
childbearing and raising units with members frequently being biologically related. 4 This
basic social unit is usually referred to as the household.

3
This distinction between traditional mobile pastoralists and pioneer pastoralists emerges from my interpretations of
different accounts of what is happening in Tanzania. I have no personal field evidence that this is the case.
4
There are also situations and populations for whom these different units do not coincide (e.g. people who cultivate the
same fields and share a granary may not live in the same house; agro-pastoralists who share fields and granaries may
have separate herds; people may share some food but live in different residential units).

7
In a census each individual must be counted once and once only and thus national
statistical offices have tended to adopt a standard UN definition of a household (which is
very Eurocentric in its conceptualisation) that reduces the possibilities of omission or
double counting. For the Kenyan 1999 census conventional households usually consist of
a person or group of persons who live together in the same homestead/compound but not
necessarily in the same dwelling unit, have common housekeeping arrangements and are
answerable to the same household head (Republic of Kenya, Enumerators Instructions
Manual p8). Additional clarifications are given, e.g. domestic servants who eat with the
household should be included but those who cook and eat separately should be
enumerated as a separate household. In a polygamous marriage, if the wives are living in
separate dwelling units and cook and eat separately, treat the wives as separate
households. The husband will be listed in the household where he will have spent census
night (ibid p9). The Tanzanian definition is similar.

This household definition has wide-ranging ramifications. Basically it takes the smallest
existing residential / consumption group which is often substantially smaller than the
economic cooperating group who might herd together, cultivate together or otherwise
depend upon each other, and share resources etc. By ensuring that within a polygamous
unit one or more married women is, by definition, a female headed household, apparently
without an adult male, this definition creates substantial problems in identifying available
income, manpower and access to resources. It is an effective practical definition for a de
facto (counting people who are physically present at a specific time) census; it is much
less useful if one wants to understand social and economic dynamics at the level of the
most important social unit. This household definition is not just problematic for
understanding pastoral household dynamics and welfare, it is also inappropriate for many
African agricultural populations although the definition may work better in urban areas.

The census definition of household is repeated in all the household based sample surveys
undertaken in Kenya and Tanzania. In the Kenyan 2003 DHS mean household size is 4.4
individuals (3.5 urban, 4.7 rural) with more female-headed households in rural areas. Thus
despite recognizing that The household is central to the development process. Not only is
the household a production unit but it is also a consumption, social and demographic unit
and citing a UN statement about households affected by social and economic change
and themselves suppliers of labour and other inputs which make the changes
possible (p59 Kenya Ministry of Planning and National Development 2003) the unit
used in the household surveys is usually NOT this basic social unit. The consequences
can be seen in the Kenya Poverty Report (2005) where of the 30% female-headed
households many are really headed by polygamous men. Poverty may be exaggerated by
such a household definition because, where assets are owned by a man but all his wives
and children benefit from them, such assets will be invisible for households where the
man is not recorded. Distortions in the household recording of poverty may be particularly
acute for pastoralist populations if (a) they are highly polygamous and / or (b) livestock and
other resources are largely owned by men, even if allocated to women.

Thus the English word household has become an entity in its own right. Those who
collect and analyse data may know the definition (but possibly not the implications). Those
who use the household level data see the word and assume it means what it does in
Europe: a production / consumption, social and demographic unit.

8
The alternative to the census definition of the household is to use an indigenously defined
unit which may be closer to the ideal of a production, consumption, social and
demographic unit. Unfortunately, such units differ from population to population and are
not strictly comparable. Thus a Maasai olmarei, a Turkana awi, a Somali rer may be
locally socially and economically meaningful but are differently organised from each other.
However in terms of diversification, mutual support, access to resources etc. such units
may be far more appropriate for understanding pastoralists strategies and the evolution of
pastoral populations over time. The problem is that no routine surveys undertaken by the
National Statistics offices would ever be based on such units. Specific purpose-designed
studies would have to be commissioned.

It is perfectly possible to collect data using these indigenous household definitions whilst
also simultaneously recording residence in sub-units, which would allow strict
comparability with the census household definition. This has been done successfully in
several demographic studies of pastoralists (Coast 2001, Hampshire 1998, Randall 2005).

4.2 Poverty indices

The Maasai think they are rich because they have lots of cows. We think they are poor
because they dont develop their houses. Tanzanian civil servant interviewed April 2006

Most of the poverty indices used in poverty monitoring are derived from the data collected
in censuses and sample surveys (exceptions being school enrolment data and data on
health services availability, quality and use). The implications for pastoralists are:

(a) if they are underrepresented / misrepresented / hidden in surveys they will also be
underrepresented / misrepresented / hidden in poverty indices
(b) the indicators can only be derived from the data / categories which are collected.
Thus if livestock ownership is never mentioned in census/ surveys then it is difficult
to develop indicators, which might use livestock.
(c) In both countries all the data use the definition of household outlined above and are
therefore likely to overestimate numbers of female headed households and
overestimate numbers of household without access to key possessions

See Table 2. In general the indices used to measure poverty are doing so on a value
system determined by an ideology of sedentary living and an ability to acquire material
possessions. Livestock ownership is completely absent as an indicator of wealth in both
countries (as are agricultural holdings). However the implicit assumption is that wealthier
people will invest in material possessions and housing quality which may be a false
assumption if mobility remains important.

5. Discussion

In general pastoralists are probably underrepresented and misrepresented in both

countries. The under-representation is largely a function of mobility and might be seen as
inevitable since mobility is an underlying problem of under enumeration in all countries in
the world. Designing surveys for mobile populations for example, poses challenges
particularly in capturing households/families in subsequent surveys.

9
However there is potential for improving practice, especially in Tanzania where those
migratory people who ARE captured by the census do not provide any detailed data and
are assumed not to live in households.

The mis-representation emerges from the range of data collection techniques and then
measures used to indicate welfare and poverty which do not take into account any of the
practicalities or values associated with a pastoralist lifestyle. However it is now incumbent
upon us to discuss what sorts of variables / indicators should be used and the practical
implications of such choices.

10
 Table 1: Data on pastoralists: Kenya & Tanzania Census, National Sampling Frame, DHS
Data source Kenya
CENSUS
Coverage Total population but issues of mobility and
security in pastoralist regions
Identifying
pastoralists
Ethnicity Collected and coded
Occupation Labour force particulars: P30: What
wasmainly doing during the last 7 days
preceding census night? 11 possible pre-
coded responses. The only possible reply
for a pastoralist is 04: worked on own family
agricultural holding. Ambiguity in the
enumerators manual which states a
holding in this case is the unit of land, farm
or shamba which is owned or rented by the
family and is used for purposes of
cultivation or rearing livestock for
subsistence - indicates a combination of
agricultural activity (including livestock
husbandry) with ownership/renting the land
a condition that is not fulfilled in pastoral
zones where land is common property.
Poverty
Housing Tenure / roof/floor/walls/ water supply,
characteristics sanitation/ cooking fuel/lighting
Household
ownership of key No ownership of key items recorded
items
Tanzania
Short questionnaire: total population
Long questionnaire: 25% normal EAs
Special Enumeration Areas include migratory
population = pastoralists and migrant fishers.
Migratory population
(a) Not enumerated in households
(b) No definition given in methodology report
(c) Not in sampling frame for long questionnaire
Not collected
Only collected for 25% research sample and not
the migratory population.
Occupation 19: what kind of work did do for
the last 7 days?
13 pre-coded responses
09 Farmers
10 Livestock keepers
11 Fisherman
Roof/walls/floor material
Cooking energy (dung not included)
Water supply / sanitation
Radio, telephone, bicycle, hoe, electricity,
wheelbarrow, charcoal/electric iron,
Comments
In all populations mobile groups and those
involved in conflict are underreported in census
and data are likely to be poor. In Tanzania, not
collecting data through household reporting is
likely to increase underreporting for the migratory
population. No socio-economic data at all are
available for migratory populations cant
separate out fishers, miners and pastoralists
Pastoralists cannot be identified separately from
all agricultural workers in Kenya but could be
identified in Tanzania
Mobile pastoralists inevitably classified as poor
because most of these are inappropriate
investments when people are mobile
Hoe / wheelbarrow inappropriate for pastoralists.
NOTHING on livestock ownership
11
 Kenya
National Sample frame (developed from census, used for all national samples except possibly DHS)
Inclusion of NASSEP National Master Sample
pastoralists Excluded all North East province before
1999. Since 1999 includes whole country.
However mobile individuals and households
more likely to be excluded from listing, less
likely to be located at time of survey (and
not replaced with similar household). In
areas of conflict or very remote, selected
enumeration areas may be dropped from
final survey because of costs
DHS SURVEYS
Inclusion of North East province excluded until 2003
pastoralists survey. Mobile pastoralists probably
underrepresented
Poverty: Wealth quintiles based on consumer
durables: Radio, TV, phone, refrigerator and
transport options (bicycle, motorbike,
car/van)
Can be estimated by ethnic grp / province.
Infant & child BUT Maa peoples serious underreporting
mortality
Identifying Not from occupational questions. Could be
pastoralists identified by ethnicity if Maasai, Turkana or
Somali (all other pastoral ethnic grps
combined with others)
Tanzania
Since the 1999 census and the drawing up of the
475 clusters selected from census Enumeration
Areas therefore probably excludes migratory
population.
Not clear what happens during listing. Report
says a complete listing was done of all
households before selecting 22. Not clear
whether temporary households in the area are
included and what happened if had moved by
survey time
Should represent all pastoralist and agro-
pastoralist households who are part of village
structure and present at time of survey. If
replacement is used for households which are
not located then will be a shift towards the less
mobile population
Not specifically excluded. Not clear how the
mobile populations were listed, mapped and
then located.
Wealth quintiles based on material possessions:
electricity, paraffin lamp, radio, telephone, TV,
iron, refrigerator and transport (bicycle,
motorbike, car or truck)
Can only be estimated by region
Complicated questions might mean that
livestock workers could be identified. Q718b
asks if woman owns livestock on her own or
jointly with her husband
Comments
new NASSEP Kenya has made a huge effort to
include the pastoralist areas in surveys. This can
only improve the data. In Tanzania it is harder to
determine what the biases are but they seem
likely to under-represent the more mobile
households.
Probably underrepresented
Material possessions somewhat weighted
towards those that would be useful in sedentary /
farming lifestyle. No mention of livestock
Many pastoralists are Maa speaking with strong
taboo against talking about dead.
Underestimation of mortality. Looks like they are
better off than really are
Would be difficult to identify pastoralists, and
given indicators can usually only be estimated for
province / region, it would be difficult to use
geographical areas
12
Table 2: Indices used in poverty measurement and monitoring in Kenya and
Tanzania

Indices used Relevance to pastoral

to measure Tanzania Kenya poverty
poverty
Publications United Republic of Geographic Dimensions of
Tanzania 2005. Poverty & Well-being in Kenya
Human Development (Republic of Kenya 2005)
Report 2005 Poverty estimates for all
(some indices at division, Kenya at constituency
district or region) level

Basic needs Estimated from HBS and 1999 census data Relevant if data accurately
poverty line not updated since 2001 combined with the 1997 collected in first place. Rural
Consumption data are Welfare Monitoring Survey. data collection is probably
and food The 1997 Welfare
derived from households largely oriented around
poverty line in the census using Monitoring Survey agricultural households and may
regression models. excluded rural households not capture the vulnerability of
Household details in NE Province. Estimates herding households or seasonal
unavailable for migratory for this province are fluctuations in terms of trade.
population in census extrapolated from Coast
province
data.
The capital assets / forms of
Census: Radio, Census: No data on transport recorded in census and
Possessions telephone, bicycle hoe, material possessions surveys could all be seen as
listed in wheelbarrow, hoe, iron, being useless or an
census and electricity encumbrance to pastoralists with
surveys DHS: electricity, paraffin the exception of a mobile phone
lamp, radio, TV, DHS: electricity, solar which might be extremely
telephone, iron, power, radio, TV, important as a consumer item
refrigerator telephone, refrigerator, and valuable for production.
Own/use land for bicycle. Motorbike, car/van
agriculture /grazing Land in Tanzania for grazing
does not seem to allow for use of
common property resources
Education Net enrollment, gross Net enrollment, gross Some pastoral districts have the
enrollment, various enrollment, various lowest levels of adult literacy and
progression statistics progression statistics low levels of child enrollment.
Tanzania Poverty Report Actual participation might be a
suggests that school better index than enrollment for
system may not be well more mobile communities. In
adapted to pastoralism pastoral communities low
(one should also consider enrollment is not necessarily an
whether modern indication of poverty it may
education is also well also be an indication of wealth
adapted). (children required to work with
large herds) and a different set
of priorities.
Health IMR, CMR, immunisation, IMR, CMR, immunisation, Mortality and nutritional status
prevalence of stunting, prevalence of stunting, are fairly objective measures of
wasting, HIV prevalence, wasting, HIV prevalence, well-being and relevant to
knowledge of HIV knowledge of HIV pastoral poverty.
transmission, Births in transmission, Births in IMR / CMR are lowest nationally
health facilities, health facilities, population in both countries in Maa

13
 population within certain within certain distances of speaking areas (around Arusha,
distances of health health facilities. Bed net Narok & Kajiado) Maa speaking
facilities. Bed net usage, usage, HIV groups have a strong taboo
HIV against mentioning any dead
people and it is highly likely that
mortality is seriously
underestimated here (Coast
2000).
Kenya HIV prevalence lowest in
North East province. Could just
be interpreted as manifestation
of poverty, poor infrastructure,
isolation
Water and Household main water Household main water Absence of sanitation is not
sanitation supply and type of human supply and type of human necessarily an indication of
waste disposal waste disposal poverty for a population who is
mobile for some of the year.
Sanitation is impractical/
impossible for mobile housing.
For more settled pastoralists
absent sanitation may be an
indicator of poverty but it might
equally well be an indicator of
different priorities.
No seasonal change
incorporated into data
Child labour From census & Labour From Census & labour Problem of different value
(& not in Force survey Force Survey systems. Child labour could be
school) High in Shinyanga, perceived as providing the
Tabora and parts of essential training / knowledge of
Arusha, especially environment and pastoral
Ngorongoro & Monduli management for effective
extensive pastoralism as adult
Housing Census: housing Census: housing materials Even for sedentary pastoralists,
character- materials / sanitation / / sanitation/ water traditional house construction
istics water: No indication of mobility of may be more prestigious /
No indication of mobility housing comfortable than more modern
of housing materials.

14
References
Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) Kenya Census 1999 Analytic reports: V. Mortality, IV
Fertility & Nuptiality, XI Gender Dimensions, IX Labour Force. Nairobi, Kenya
Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) Ministry of Health (MOH), and ORC Macro. 2004.
Kenya
Coast EE (2001) Maasai Demography. PhD thesis (Unpublished) University of London
Hampshire KR (1998) Fulani Mobility: Causes, Constraints and Consequences of
Population Movements in Northern Burkina Faso PhD thesis (unpublished),
University of London
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and ORC Macro. 2005. Tanzania Demographic and
Health Survey 2004-05. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: National Bureau of Statistics and
ORC Macro.
National Bureau of Statistics, 2003. 2002 Population and Housing census, Volume 1,
Methodology Report, Central Census Office, Dar es Salaam
Oxfam, Practical Action, Comic Relief, Acacia Consultants, Resource Projects Kenya,
EPAG (K), Pastoralists Special Initiative Research Project Final report July 2005
Randall Sara (2005) Demographic consequences of conflict, forced migration and
repatriation: a case study of Malian Kel Tamasheq. European Journal of Population,
21 2-3, pp291-320
Republic of Kenya (2005), Geographic Dimensions of Well-being in Kenya: Who and
where are the poor? A constituency level profile. Vol II CBS, World Bank, SIDA,
SID
Republic of Kenya: Population and Housing census 24/25 August 1999, Enumerators
Instructions Manual
Swift, J. (1988) Major Issues in Pastoral Development with Special Emphasis on Selected
African Countries, Rome, FAO.
United Republic of Tanzania 2005. National Strategy for growth and reduction of Poverty
(NSGRP), Vice presidents Office, Dar es Salaam
United Republic of Tanzania 2005. Poverty & Human Development Report 2005
United Republic of Tanzania 2006a. National sample census of Agriculture 2003/3: small
holder agriculture Vol III: Livestock Sector, National Report. National Bureau of
Statistics.
United Republic of Tanzania 2006b MKUKUTA Monitoring system Master Plan, draft 3.
Ministry of Planning, Economy and Empowerment

15