Risks and their impacts on pastoralist livelihoods

by | Oct 13, 2025 | Climate Change, Community of Practice, Conflict, Dialogue, Drought, Drylands, Eastern Africa, Horn of Africa, ICPALD, Livestock, Pastoralism, SPARC | , ,

Our recent joint event on ‘Building the Resilience and Prosperity of Pastoralists and Dryland Communities’ featured a session that examined the diverse and interconnected shocks and risks facing pastoralist communities. Here we provide a short report from the session and links for further information.

While much research and aid related to pastoral populations focuses on drought, support for pastoral livelihoods requires broader understanding of the interconnected nature of risks and shocks that characterize these livelihoods. This session examined some drivers of risk in pastoralist contexts, aiming to to provide a richer and truer reflection of the complex risk environments in which pastoral households operate.

After an introduction by Hassan Bashir (CEO of Nourishing Nomads Ltd), the session focused on three categories of shocks and their impacts. Each topic area comprised a couple of short presentations followed by audience interaction.

Topic 1 on risks associated with markets featured short presentations by Kelvin Shikuku (ILRI) and Mercy Kinoti (Strathmore University). Topic 2 on the interconnectedness of shocks featured short presentations by Nathan Jensen (University of Edinburgh) and Jackson Wachira (Centre for Humanitarian Change).  Topic 3 on perceptions of risks and behaviours featured short presentations by Wendy Chamberlin (SPARC), Marcos Sugastti (University of Edinburgh) and Susan Njambi-Szlapka (University of Edinburgh).

Key insights presented:

  • Market access is crucial for pastoralist resilience and recovery, with markets contributing to de-risking of pastoralist systems, though market data remains unavailable for many markets.
  • Pastoralists face multiple interconnected risks including extreme events (droughts, floods), violent conflict, pest and diseases, price volatility, and pandemics.
  • The livestock sector accounts for 80% of arid and semiarid lands (ASAL) economies, presenting opportunities for socio-economic models through cooperatives and trusted service providers.
  • Innovative approaches include livestock self-insurance (one goat insuring four others), community finishing feedlots, and promoting local materials for animal feed.
  • The first shock increases the likelihood of a second shock, requiring early warning systems that account for pastoralist-environment interactions.
  • Machine learning models can forecast and predict diseases using climate and other datasets.

Main points of discussion or debate:

  • The central debate was on how to position ASALs competitively in marketplaces while preserving positive cultural elements and sense of pastoralism.
  • The tensions around flexible funding approaches. Donors resist flexibility due to corruption concerns, but communities need adaptive management.
  • Discussion on linear versus non-linear problem identification approaches, with criticism that communities are often not consulted in solution design.
  • Debate on accountability frameworks – shifts are needed from rigid compliance to evidence-based outcomes that meet real community needs.
  • Questions raised about comparative analysis between counties/drylands and agricultural productive areas.

Implications for policy, practice and research:

  • Policy implications include developing frameworks for accountability that allow flexibility while maintaining transparency, and reframing funding mechanisms to “crowd in” rather than exclude.
  • Practice requires high-frequency monitoring systems for livestock commercialization and integration of health systems in Horn of Africa.
  • Research priorities include comparative studies across different ecological zones, metadata systems to integrate diverse datasets, and understanding interaction effects between multiple shocks.
  • Need for economic analysis of different risk mitigation strategies and their cost-effectiveness.

Some take-away messages:

  • Derisking approaches are not ‘one size fits all’ – innovation uptake requires community-centered design and genuine consultation.
  • Flexibility in funding and adaptive management is essential but requires new accountability frameworks focused on meeting real needs rather than rigid compliance.

More information – Speakers and presentations (with download links):

 

Other session reports