Applying livestock thresholds to examine poverty in Karamoja

Abstract In pastoralist and agro-pastoralist areas, wealth and poverty are closely aligned to levels of livestock ownership and social inclusion. Whereas cash income per capita is a useful measure of poverty in non-pastoralist areas, measures of livestock ownership per capita are needed to understan...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Andy Catley, Mesfin Ayele
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	SpringerOpen 2021
Materias:	Karamoja Livestock Poverty Livestock threshold Animal culture SF1-1100
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/03fd546b82bd40c9a0de23d9535cb14d
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:03fd546b82bd40c9a0de23d9535cb14d
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:03fd546b82bd40c9a0de23d9535cb14d2021-11-28T12:05:52ZApplying livestock thresholds to examine poverty in Karamoja10.1186/s13570-020-00181-22041-7136https://doaj.org/article/03fd546b82bd40c9a0de23d9535cb14d2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-020-00181-2https://doaj.org/toc/2041-7136Abstract In pastoralist and agro-pastoralist areas, wealth and poverty are closely aligned to levels of livestock ownership and social inclusion. Whereas cash income per capita is a useful measure of poverty in non-pastoralist areas, measures of livestock ownership per capita are needed to understand poverty in pastoralist systems. This study estimated a livestock threshold for agro-pastoralist households in Karamoja, being the minimum per capita ownership of livestock needed to sustain a predominantly agro-pastoral livelihood. The study then applied the livestock threshold to pre-existing livestock population data to estimate the proportions of households above and below the threshold. Using an estimated livestock threshold of 3.3 Tropical Livestock Units (TLU)/capita for agro-pastoralism, 56.5% of households in Karamoja’s main livestock-keeping districts were below the threshold and could be categorized as livestock-poor. The ownership of livestock was skewed in two main ways. First, there was a high-end skew with the wealthiest 30% of households owning 69.3% of all livestock in terms of TLU. Second, there was a low-end skew. Among poorer households, below the 3.3 TLU/capita livestock threshold, livestock ownership was skewed away from the threshold. Forty-seven per cent of these households owned only 1.2 TLU/capita or less; 13% of households owned no livestock at all. These findings are discussed, with programming and policy recommendations.Andy CatleyMesfin AyeleSpringerOpenarticleKaramojaLivestockPovertyLivestock thresholdAnimal cultureSF1-1100ENPastoralism, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Karamoja Livestock Poverty Livestock threshold Animal culture SF1-1100
spellingShingle	Karamoja Livestock Poverty Livestock threshold Animal culture SF1-1100 Andy Catley Mesfin Ayele Applying livestock thresholds to examine poverty in Karamoja
description	Abstract In pastoralist and agro-pastoralist areas, wealth and poverty are closely aligned to levels of livestock ownership and social inclusion. Whereas cash income per capita is a useful measure of poverty in non-pastoralist areas, measures of livestock ownership per capita are needed to understand poverty in pastoralist systems. This study estimated a livestock threshold for agro-pastoralist households in Karamoja, being the minimum per capita ownership of livestock needed to sustain a predominantly agro-pastoral livelihood. The study then applied the livestock threshold to pre-existing livestock population data to estimate the proportions of households above and below the threshold. Using an estimated livestock threshold of 3.3 Tropical Livestock Units (TLU)/capita for agro-pastoralism, 56.5% of households in Karamoja’s main livestock-keeping districts were below the threshold and could be categorized as livestock-poor. The ownership of livestock was skewed in two main ways. First, there was a high-end skew with the wealthiest 30% of households owning 69.3% of all livestock in terms of TLU. Second, there was a low-end skew. Among poorer households, below the 3.3 TLU/capita livestock threshold, livestock ownership was skewed away from the threshold. Forty-seven per cent of these households owned only 1.2 TLU/capita or less; 13% of households owned no livestock at all. These findings are discussed, with programming and policy recommendations.
format	article
author	Andy Catley Mesfin Ayele
author_facet	Andy Catley Mesfin Ayele
author_sort	Andy Catley
title	Applying livestock thresholds to examine poverty in Karamoja
title_short	Applying livestock thresholds to examine poverty in Karamoja
title_full	Applying livestock thresholds to examine poverty in Karamoja
title_fullStr	Applying livestock thresholds to examine poverty in Karamoja
title_full_unstemmed	Applying livestock thresholds to examine poverty in Karamoja
title_sort	applying livestock thresholds to examine poverty in karamoja
publisher	SpringerOpen
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/03fd546b82bd40c9a0de23d9535cb14d
work_keys_str_mv	AT andycatley applyinglivestockthresholdstoexaminepovertyinkaramoja AT mesfinayele applyinglivestockthresholdstoexaminepovertyinkaramoja
_version_	1718408179581190144

Applying livestock thresholds to examine poverty in Karamoja

Ejemplares similares