Evaluation Of the Regional Pastoral

Programme in the HECA Region

Full Report

Oxfam GB Programme Evaluation

March 2009

Commissioned by: Oxfam GB

Evaluators: Cathy Watson, Mike Wekesa
ExecutiveSummary
ThisreviewoftheOxfamGBRegionalPastoralProgrammewascarriedoutbetweenJanuaryandMarch
2009,toassesstheprogrammesimpact,effectivenessandaddedvalue.TheRPPwasinitiatedin2003as
a regional programme encompassing the individual pastoral programmes in 6 of the 8 countries in the
HECARegion,togetherwitharegionalcomponent.Thisreview addressesonlytheregionalcomponent,
hereafterreferredtoastheRPP.

Largely because of the organisational changes within Oxfam GB, including the shift to Country
Programmes (CPs) as the key business unit, the RPP has become relatively detached from the country
pastoral programmes and no longer plays a coordinating role. It has also suffered from a lack of
institutional understanding and support as well as from the more general uncertainty surrounding
regional roles visvis the CPs. The RPP currently carries out four key functions: information sharing;
managing specific projects (namely ROSP, DCM/IPL, and REGLAP); technical backstopping for CPs; and
someinvolvementincrossborderwork.

Pastoralists continue to be significantly marginalised economically, politically and socially across the
region,andthemobilitythatunderpinstheirlivelihoodstrategiespresentsachallengeforbothreliefand
developmentinterventions.Theneedforaregionalapproachtomanyofthekeyissuesfacingpastoralists
isrecognisedbymoststakeholders.

ThekeyachievementsoftheRPPoverthelastthreeyearphase,wherebyvaluehasbeenaddedtoOxfam
(largely internally) include: information sharing and technical support; training and capacity building;
somekeyoutputsofthespecificRPPprojects;andhelpingtosustainaregionalperspectiveonpastoralist
issueswithinOxfam.Thegreatestvalueaddedisstillpotentialyettoberealised.

TheconstraintsandchallengestheRPPhasfacedcomprise:thelackofclarityontheRPPsmandate,lack
of institutional support and understanding about the aims and origins of the programme; absence of a
clear fundraising strategy; high staff turnover and loss of institutional memory; and the failure to
maximiseexternallinkagesandadvocacyopportunities.

TheconclusionoftheReviewisthatthereisajustifiableneedforapastoralcomponentatregionallevel,
butdifferentfromtheRPP.Thisconclusionisbasedonthecontinuedmarginalisationofpastoralistsand
the need to address pastoral issues at the regional level; Oxfam GBs experience and reputation in this
field;thepotentialforaregionalinitiativetoimplementOxfamsoneprogrammeapproachsincemany
ofthekeyissuesrelatetogovernance,tolivelihoodsandtohumanitarianresponseratherthanonlyone
ofthethree;andtheconsequentopportunitytomainstreampastoralismintheregionusingatwintrack
approach.

The main recommendation of the Review therefore is that a Regional Pastoral Initiative (RPI) be
established,withaclearmandateandinstitutionalsupportfromtheorganisation.Fivekeyfunctionsare
recommended: advocacy and policy with regional institutions; promoting learning; support to cross
border work; facilitating capacity building on specific issues (mainstreaming pastoralism); and
fundraising. A 3year Strategy has been developed (available as a separate document) based on these
functions,whichincludesalogframeanddetailedwaysofworkingforthefutureoftheRPI.

Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY...........................................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................4
1. BACKGROUNDTOTHEREGIONALPASTORALPROGRAMME...........................................................................5

1.1TheoriginsoftheRPP.....................................................................................................................................5
1.2TheRPPtoday................................................................................................................................................5
1.3Thechangingorganisationalcontext..............................................................................................................6
1.4Theexternalcontext:pastoralismintheHornandEastAfrica........................................................................7
2. ACHIEVEMENTSANDVALUEADDEDOFTHERPP...........................................................................................9

2.1Keyachievements...........................................................................................................................................9
2.2Valueadded.................................................................................................................................................10
3. CONSTRAINTS,CHALLENGESANDKEYLESSONSLEARNED............................................................................12
4. COORDINATION,LINKAGESANDRELATIONSHIPS.........................................................................................14
5. KEYCONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................16

5.1Keyconclusions.............................................................................................................................................16
5.2Recommendations........................................................................................................................................17
ANNEXES.............................................................................................................................................................21
Annex1:TermsofReferencefortheReview.......................................................................................................21
Annex2:PeopleConsulted.................................................................................................................................23
Annex3:DocumentsConsulted..........................................................................................................................25
Annex4:PastoralPopulationsintheHECARegion.............................................................................................27
Annex5:SummaryofRPPmanagedprojects.....................................................................................................28
Annex6:TheRoleofPastoralismintheNationalChangeStrategies..................................................................29
Annex7:ListofAcronyms...................................................................................................................................31
Annex8:Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................31

Introduction
Oxfam GBs Regional Pastoral Programme (RPP) was initiated in 2003 to address the poverty and
marginalisationofpastoralistsintheHornandEastAfrica.Theprogrammecovers6ofthe8countriesin
theHorn,EastandCentralAfricanRegion(HECA):Ethiopia,Kenya,Somalia,Sudan,TanzaniaandUganda.
The RPP was originally conceived as an integrated programme across the HECA Region, comprising
individualpastoralprogrammeswithineachofthe6countries,supportedbyaregionalcomponent.

This Review takes place at the end of the second 3 year phase of the RPP, and in the context of
restructuringattheHECARegionalCentre(seeSection1.3below).ThemainobjectiveoftheReviewis:to
assesstheimpactoreffectivenessoftheRegionalPastoralProgrammetodate,andinparticulartoassess
theaddedvalueoftheregionalcoordinationbodyonprogrammeimpactwithincountryprogrammes.The
outcomeofthisReviewwereusedasabasisfordevelopingastrategyforOxfamsworkonpastoralismat
theregionallevel.ThefullTermsofReferenceareattachedbelowasAnnex1.

The Review was carried out between January and March 2009. The methodology was based on the
followingprocess:

Interviews (either facetoface or by telephone) with country directors, country pastoral

programmestaff,andregionalstaff(seeAnnex2forfulllist)

InterviewswithOGBpartnersandotherexternalstakeholders(seeAnnex2)

Areviewofprogrammereportsandrelevantdocumentation(listedinAnnex3)

CirculationofafirstdraftoftheReviewReporttoallcontributors

Aworkshop(heldon11th12thMarch)withkeypastoralprogrammestafftodiscussthefirstdraft
oftheReviewReportandformulateaStrategyforthewayforward

Presentation and discussion of the Review findings and Strategy with members of the Regional
ManagementTeam(16thMarch)

FinalisationoftheReviewReportandStrategy(theStrategyisavailableasaseparatedocument)

1. BackgroundtotheRegionalPastoralProgramme
1.1TheoriginsoftheRPP
Pastoralists comprise at least 12% of the population of the six focus countries in the HECA Region (see
Annex4forpopulationdata)andareconsideredtobeamongthemostvulnerableandmarginalisedinthe
region.TheRPPwasestablishedinrecognitionofthisandthefactthatmanyoftheissuespastoralistsface
arecommon acrossnational boundaries in the region,largely asaresult of the mobilitythatunderpins
theirlivelihoodstrategies,crossinginternationalandlocalborders.

The RPP was established in 2003 as a 15 year programme, with the explicit intention of making an
institutionalcommitmentonthepartofOxfamtolongtermpastoraldevelopmentintheregion.Theaim
of the RPP was: to support pastoralists to integrate more effectively into political, social and economic
systems, enjoying the same rights and fulfilling the same obligations as other citizens. As such, the
programme was considered to fit within Oxfams Strategic Aim 4: the Right to be Heard (RTBH). The
overallthrustoftheprogrammewasontheempowerment(bothpoliticalandeconomic)ofpastoralists
throughtheirowninstitutionsinparticulartodevelopamovementofpastoralorganisationsacrossthe
regionandonincreasingtheawarenessandunderstandingofothers.Thisisreflectedinthefouroutputs
listedintheRPPlogframe,whichappliedtotheindividualcountrylevelpastoralprogrammesaswellas
totheregionalcomponent:

1. Broadbased alliances of pastoral and other organisations improving attitudes towards

pastoralism

2. Increaseresponsivenessofgovernmentandotherinstitutionstopastoralistsneeds

3. Strong,vibrantpastoralorganisationseffectivelyrepresentingtheinterestsofpastoralists

4. Programme developed and managed based on strong learning and sharing, and contributing to
widerpastoraldevelopmentthinkingandpractice.

TheRPPwasestablishedtoworkatfourlevels:thelocallevelwithincountries,thenationallevel,cross
borderwhererelevant,andtheregionallevel.Planningwasaniterativeprocessbetweenthesedifferent
levels.

The RPP was reviewed at the end of its first phase, in 2006. Key recommendations from this review
included: the continuance of the RPP, including the individual country programmes and the regional
component;theneedtodebatethemanagementofcrossborderinitiativesandconsideraddressingthe
linkages between HIV/AIDS and pastoralism, and between disability and pastoralism; developing new
approaches to capacity building in country programmes; building broader alliances at regional level;
encouraging debate about future scenarios for pastoral development in the region; and developing the
ReportontheStatusofPastoralism(ROSP)asaninternalandexternaladvocacytool(Morton2006).

1.2TheRPPtoday
The RPP has retained the log frame and its associated purpose and objectives, but the nature of the
programme has changed significantly since it was originally established, largely due to the internal and
institutionalchangeswithinOxfamGBdiscussedbelow.ThecurrentRPPisbasedonfourkeyfunctions:

 1. Sharinginformationandprogressbetweencountrypastoralprogrammes,basedonthebiannual
CoordinationGroupmeetings

2. Managing specific activities at regional level: the Improving Pastoral Livelihoods (IPL) project,
whichgrewoutofworkonDroughtCycleManagement;theReportontheStatusofPastoralism
(ROSP)project;andhostingtheRegionalLivelihoodsAdvocacyProject(REGLAP)whichisrunbya
consortiumofNGOsincludingOxfamGB(seeAnnex5formoredetailsontheseprojects).

3. Technicalbackstopping:supporttopastoralworkwithincountryprogrammes,generallyonanad
hocbasis

4. Crossborderwork:historically,therehasbeenalackofclarityabouttheroletheRPPshouldplay
in crossborder work. The RPP has been and remains involved in some crossborder projects,
although in general the responsibility for such projects rests with the relevant country
programmes.

Pastoralism continues to be a key focus of all six country programmes (see the table in Annex 6 which
summarisestheroleofpastoralisminthenewNationalChangeStrategiesofeachcountryprogramme),
butitisclearthattheynolongerseethemselvesaspartofanoverarchingregional programme,asthe
RPPwasoriginallyconceived(henceforthinthisreport,RPPisusedtodenotetheregionalcomponent
only,anddoesnotincludethepastoralworkoftheindividualcountryprogrammesintheregion).Thelack
of support and understanding of the RPP within the region, together with the shifting of some country
pastoralprogrammestositwithinothersectorssuchasgovernanceorASAL,meansthatOxfamitselfmay
beindangerofcontributingtothemarginalisationofpastoralistsdescribedbelowinsection1.4.

Although the RPP was established under the governance (RTBH) strategic aim and many people still
consideritasarightsbasedprogramme,thetableinAnnex6showsthattheactualfocusoftheworkin
thevariouscountryprogrammesincludesbothgovernancerelatedactivities(capacityandlocalinstitution
building for example) and livelihoodsbased support (for example development of services, support to
livestockhealthandtrade).Atthesametimemanypastoralareasareaffectedbycrisesofdifferentsorts
(in particular drought and conflict) and are therefore the recipients of humanitarian interventions by
Oxfam,whichmayormaynotbeintegratedintotheongoingpastoraldevelopmentworkinthearea.

1.3Thechangingorganisationalcontext
The development of the RPP since its inception has been strongly influenced by changes in the
organisational context within Oxfam GB. Along with other regional offices around the world, the HECA
RegionalOfficewasestablishedinthelate1990swiththeaimofincreasingcoherence,consistencyand
costeffectivenessbetweentheindividualcountryprogrammesinaregion.TheRPPwasestablishedsoon
afterwards and reflected this concept of coherence and common strategic thinking across the
programmeswithintheHECARegion.However,in20034therewasashiftinorganisationalpolicywithin
Oxfam GB which led to an emphasis on country programmes as the key business unit. As part of this
shift, the National Change Strategy process was initiated, whereby each country programme has
developedoverthe last 18months a strategy outliningthe key driversof change andthe changesthey
wishtocontributetowithintheircountrycontext.

Asaresultofthisshiftinorganisationalpolicy,theRPP,alongwithothertechnicaladvisoryrolesbasedin
theRegionalCentre,hassufferedadegreeofuncertaintyandlackofclarityaboutitsroleinrelationto
countryprogrammes(aswashighlightedintherecentReviewoftheHECARegionalCentreseeCoventry
2008). Another organisational feature of the evolution of the RPP since its inception has been its
6

dependence on champions of pastoralism and its susceptibility to personnel changes (both within and
outside the programme). Rather than an institutional commitment to working on pastoralism in the
region(aswasanticipatedinthecreationofa15yearlogframe),theRPPhasbeensomewhatdependent
on individuals within the programme, and the personal commitment of key managers outside the
programme,foritsabilitytooperate.Changesinthesekeypersonnelhaveaffectedthewayinwhichthe
RPP is viewed within the organisation and its perceived legitimacy, as well as contributing to a loss of
institutionalmemoryonpastoralismwithintheRegion.

Finally, the HECA Regional Centre is currently undergoing a restructuring process, which also has
organisationalimplicationsfortheRPP.TheRPPnowneedstojustifyitscontributiontotheHECARegion,
inparticularintermsofaddedvaluetocountryprogrammes,inthecontextofadiminishingresourcebase
(particularlywithregardtounrestrictedfunding).ThisReviewaimstopresentaconcretewayforwardfor
theRPPinthelightofthesechallenges,basedonthepotentialoftheRPPtocontributetoOxfamsaimsin
theregion.

1.4Theexternalcontext:pastoralismintheHornandEastAfrica
AsshowninAnnex4,pastoralistscompriseasignificantproportionofthepopulationoftheHornandEast
Africa, and form a disproportionate percentage of the marginalised and vulnerable. In many cases this
vulnerabilitymaybelinkedtopoverty,butinothersitisalsoareflectionofthechallengingenvironments
in which pastoralists live. Forexample,some pastoralists are assetrich in terms of livestock ownership,
but remain highly vulnerable to external shocks in particular drought and the increasing effects of
climatechangebutalsotopolicyshocksasaresultoftheirpoliticalandsocialmarginalisation.Devereux
(2006) illustrates this distinction between poverty and vulnerability by noting that in some regions of
Ethiopia pastoralists are much less likely to suffer from chronic malnutrition (compared for example to
smallholderfarmersinthepoorhighlandagriculturalareas)butaremuchmorelikelytosufferfromacute
malnutritioninresponsetoshocks.

Inspiteofsomeprogress inpastoraldevelopment inthelasttwodecades,pastoralists intheHornand

EastAfricaremainlargelymarginalisedfromnationalpolitical,socialandeconomicprocesses,chieflyasa
result of the continued lack of understanding of, and at times prejudice against, pastoral production
systems,1inparticularthestrategyofmobility.Acontinuedfocusonpastoralismasalivelihoodstrategy
andawayoflifethereforeremainsapriorityfordevelopmentagenciesintheregion.

JohnMortonsrecentpastoralismscopingstudyforDFID(Morton2008)summarisessixkeythemeswhich
have come to the fore in recent years, building on the new thinking with regard to disequilibrium
environmentswhichwasdevelopedinthe1990s:

1. Addressing the reliefdevelopment continuum, through for example Early Warning systems,
DroughtCycleManagement,andDisasterRiskReductioninitiatives

2. Recognising the continued need to address governance and rights with regard to pastoral
development,andthatvoicepovertyconstrainsdevelopmentinpastoralareas

3. Increasingaccesstolivestockmarketsandeconomicinfrastructure,vitaltoaddresspastoralists
economicmarginalisation

1
ForexampletheWorldInitiativeforSustainablePastoralism(WISP)states:Inrecentyearstherehasbeenagrowingconsensus
thatpastoralpovertyisrootedinthesocial,economicandpoliticalmarginalisationofpastoralists...Inordertoachievethetwin
goalsofWISP,rangelandenvironmentalsustainabilityandpastoralpovertyreduction,itisthereforenecessarytoovercomeanti
pastoralprejudiceandbringanendtodamagingpolicyandpractice.(www.iucn.org/wisp)
7

 4. Diversifyingpastorallivelihoodsandidentifyingalternativelivelihoodsforsomepastoralistsand
expastoralists

5. Researching new forms of economic valuation, to identify the real contribution of the pastoral
economy (projects such as ROSP have a large contribution to make here; see also recent WISP
studiesontheeconomiccontributionofpastoralism:WISP2006,2008)

6. Investigatingthepossibilityofpaymentforenvironmentalservicesinthefuture.

OtherstakeholdersconsultedduringthisReview (forexamplepartnersRECONCILEandMPIDO,andthe
World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism WISP) echoed many of these points, highlighting the
importance of strong pastoral organisations, the development of pastoral area infrastructure, and the
creation of diverse livelihood strategies as key issues facing pastoralism today. The importance of
advocacy to address the negative view of pastoralism which persists among many governments and
decisionmakersintheregionwasalsoemphasisedbythesestakeholders.

Oneofthekeyissuesthatdistinguishespastoralistsfromotherslivinginaridandsemiaridlands(ASALs),
and which necessitates their special treatment, is their mobility and the transboundary strategies they
employ.Thismobilitymaybelinkedtoproduction(followingnaturalresourcestomaximiseproductivity);
toexchange(toobtainaccesstomarketsorfoodaid);orforescape(toavoidconflictordrought)(Swift
2008). This movement may not respect international boundaries yet remains vital for pastoralists
survival.Forexample,inthe19992001drought,Turkanapastoralistswereabletosavearound100,000
head of cattle and avoid a major catastrophe by successfully negotiating for water and pasture in the
KidepoNationalParkinUganda(AkliluandWekesa2002).

This mobility however presents a number of challenges. First, pastoralists are not easy to reach, and
hencedialogueandworkwiththem(forexampleoncensuses,diseasecontrol,provisionofbasicservices)
is expensive for governments and other agencies. Second, they occupy peripheral areas along national
bordersanditissometimesunclearwhichsidetheybelongto,sinceacommonlanguageisoftenspoken
onbothsidesoftheborderanotherchallengefornationalgovernments.Third,pastoralistsaccessto
markets,trade,naturalresources,goodsandservices,includingveterinarydrugs,mayinvolvethecrossing
ofinternationalbordersbybothpeopleandlivestock.Fourth,pastoralistareasaregenerallydrylandswith
limitedinfrastructureandfrequentlyinsecure,whichcanactasadisincentiveforgovernmentsandother
agenciestoworkthere.Thesefactors,whilstmakingworkwithpastoralistsallthemorechallenging,are
alsothereasonwhypastoraldevelopmentworkrequiresspecificstrategiestoaddressthetransboundary
natureoftheirlivelihoodsandshouldbeclearlydistinguishedfromworkwithotherlivelihoodgroupsin
ASALandotherareas.

Theneedtoaddresssomeoftheseissuesattheregional,aswellasnationalandlocal,levelisincreasingly
recognised by external stakeholders. For example, the East African Community is in the process of
establishing a Technical Steering Committee on Pastoralism, which will aim to provide leadership,
coordination and harmonisation for pastoral and drylands development in the EAC region, as the draft
Terms of Reference for the committee notes: pastoralism issues are transboundary in nature and
thereforerequirenotonlynationaleffortsbutalsoregionalinitiatives(EastAfricanCommunity2008).The
commonalityofpastoralissuesrequiresthisresponse,atthesametimeastheacknowledgementofthe
diversityandheterogeneityofthevariouspastoralcommunitieswithineachcountry.

2. AchievementsandValueAddedoftheRPP
Perceptions of the RPPs achievements and value added vary considerably within and outside Oxfam
accordingtotheperspectiveofthoseconsulted.Forexample,theEastAfricanCommunityandtheArid
Lands Resource Management Project within the Office of the President in Kenya, together with Oxfam
GBsSomaliaCountryProgrammeandtheNgorongoroPastoralProgrammeinTanzaniaconsidertheRPP
as a useful and important aspect of Oxfams engagement with pastoralists in the HECA Region. Other
agencies such as CORDAID and World Vision also look to Oxfams regional work with pastoralists as a
model for learning and programming, particularly with regard to crossborder work. In contrast, some
Oxfam GB Country Directors consulted in this Review felt that support to pastoralism within the region
maybeadequatelydeliveredundertheremitofCountryProgrammesalone.

ThisrangeofviewsisinpartaresultofthelackofclarityintheRPPsmandate,particularlyinthecontext
oftheshiftofemphasistoCountryProgrammesasthekeybusinessunit,asdiscussedaboveinSection
1.3. The programmes rather loose logical framework2 also contributes, since the four outputs of the
programme(asoutlinedinSection1.1above)arenotlinkedtotangibleindicatorsandarehencedifficult
tomonitorprogressagainst.Nonetheless,theRPPhasmadesomesignificantachievementsinthecurrent
phase,assummarisedbelow.Theseachievementsarepresentedaccordingtothefourfunctionslistedin
Section 1.2, namely: sharing information; managing specific projects; technical backstopping; and cross
borderwork.

2.1Keyachievements
a.Sharinginformation:

The RPP facilitates regular regional meetings of Country Pastoral Programme Coordinators who meet
togethereverysixmonthstosharelessonsandexperiences,planjointactionsandallocateresponsibility
forimplementation(seeSection4belowformoredetails).Meetingshavecoveredtopicssuchaswomens
empowerment,participation,andcrossbordertrade,andaregenerallyhighlyvaluedbythecountrylevel
pastoralstaff.Theexpandedmeetings,includingprojectpartners,aredeemedtobeparticularlyuseful.
Thechallengeremainshowevertoensurefollowupandeffectiveimplementationofagreedactionpoints.

b.Specificprojects3:

Disaster Risk Reduction/Drought Cycle Management Training: Under the RPP a Drought Cycle
Management (DCM) Learning Toolkit was developed to strengthen capacity in DCM and hence
improve the timeliness, appropriateness and effectiveness of drought mitigation, preparedness,
response, and recovery activities. The training focused on pastoral programme and partner staff,
CountryDirectorsandhumanitarianprogrammecoordinatorsaswellasregionallevelmanagersand
advisors.To datethistraininghasbeenverywellreceived andthetraining materialswellregarded.
ForexampleOxfamandpartnerstaffinSomaliacommentedthattheirknowledgeandskillsinDCM
haveimprovedasaresultofthisinitiative.ThisportfoliohasnowbeenexpandedtoincludeDisaster
Risk Reduction issues and new materials are being developed. This work has the potential to
contributetotheintegrationofOxfamshumanitarian,developmentandcampaigningwork,although
thispotentialhasnotyetbeenfullyrealised.

2
ThisloosenesswasdeliberateatthestartoftheRPP,inordertogivecountryprogrammesflexibilityintheirinterpretationofit.
ParadoxicallyhoweverthisloosenesshasmadeitdifficultfortheRPPtomonitorandproveitseffectiveness.
3
SeeAnnex5forsummaryofRPPmanagedprojects
9

 Report on the Status of Pastoralism (ROSP): ROSP has enormous potential to benefit regional
governments and partners in terms of providing muchneeded statistics on the contribution of
pastoralismtonationaleconomiesandonthesocioeconomicstatusofpastoralistsinthecountriesof
the region. However, this potential has yet to be realised. Implementation challenges such as
contractualagreementswithpartners,thelackofanexitstrategy,andtheabsenceofafundraising
strategy(seebelow,Section3)havealsolimitedthecapacityoftheROSPtoachieveitspotentialin
thefuture.

RegionalLivelihoodsAdvocacyProject(REGLAP):REGLAPisnotanOxfamprojectperse,butamulti
agencyinitiativehostedbyOxfamandmanagedthroughtheRPP.Itaimstoaddressakeyconstraint
topastoraldevelopmentintheregion,namelyalackofsoundpolicyimplementation.Itistooearlyto
assesstheachievementsofthisproject,althoughitdoeshavesignificantpotentialtobringtangible
advocacybenefitstotheregionandtoOxfamsowninitiatives.

c.Technicalbackstopping:

Some country programmes, for example the Somalia Country Programme and its partners, have
requestedtechnicalbackstoppingfromtheRPPandhavebenefittedgreatlyfrominputsfromforexample
the Regional DCM/Livelihoods Advisor and the Regional Programme Development Manger in the past.
This technical backstopping also includes support to fundraising from external donors. Other country
programmes such as Kenya and Uganda rely less on this type of support, and only occasionally consult
with RPP technical advisors. In general technical backstopping appears to be carried out on an ad hoc
basisandislinkedtopersonalrelationshipsbetweenindividuals,ratherthaninstitutionalarrangements
the culture of personal networking to get things done (HECA Review, Coventry 2008). There appears
however little justification or mandate for continuing this backstopping function in the future, in the
currentorganisationalandfinancialcontext.

d.Crossborderwork:

AlthoughithasnotalwaysbeenclearwhatroletheRPPshouldplaywithregardtocrossborderwork,the
programme is currently involved in coordinating the SomalilandEthiopia Cross Border programme and
has developed guidelines onmanaging crossborderwork. The RPPhas alsobeen asked byfive country
programmestocoordinateajointapplicationtotheRegionalDroughtDecision.

2.2Valueadded
The status of the RPP as a regional component placed outside the line management structure of the
countrypastoralprogrammes meansthatitneeds tobeabletoprovetheaddedvaluethatitbringsto
Oxfaminordertojustifyitsexistence,hencevalueaddedisoneofthekeyquestionsofthisReview.The
keyareasinwhichtheRPPhasaddedvaluetoOxfamsworkinthecurrentphasearesummarisedbelow:

TheexistenceoftheRPP,andmorespecificallythecurrentRPPCoordinator,hassucceededinspite
ofthelackofclarityinmandateandrolediscussedelsewhereinthisreportinsustainingaregional
perspective on pastoralist issues within Oxfam, contributing to regional lesson learning and
documentationoftheseexperiences.Thepresenceofastaffmemberatregionallevelhasalsohelped
to maintain the profile of pastoralism at the regional management level. This is very important for
Oxfams liaison with external stakeholders and also for its own internal institutional memory,
particularlybecauseofthehighturnoverofstaffatbothcountryandregionallevel.

10

 The RPP has added value to the work of some country programmes through technical support. For
exampleRPPtechnicalstaff(particularlytheDCM/LivelihoodsCoordinatorandtheRPPCoordinator)
have been available and accessible to country programmes for specific technical backstopping for
DCMissuesandproposaldevelopmentforfundraisingfromdonors.

TheRPPhasalsoaddedvalueintermsoftrainingandcapacitybuilding.Forexample,theworkon
DCM, climate change and poverty monitoring and information gathering has been particularly
appreciated,especiallybytheEthiopia,Kenya,andSomaliacountryprogrammestaff.

As it currently stands, the greatest value added of the RPP is largely potential, not actual. Given
Oxfams standing and experience in pastoralism in the region, there have been and continue to be
significant opportunities to develop linkages with regional institutions (such as the Inter
Governmental Authority on Development, the East African Community, and the African
Union/Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources) which have not yet been maximised. A review in
2006 of Oxfams crossborder work in the region made concrete recommendations for further
developingtheroleandaddedvalueoftheRPPwithregardtocrossborderworkandhowaregional
level perspective could add significant value to the work of country programmes in this area, but
these recommendations do not appear to have been implemented. Similarly, the ROSP project
representsahugepotentialforadvocacyinthefuture,yettoberealised.

11

3. Constraints,ChallengesandKeyLessonsLearned
Asimpliedintheprevioussections,theRPPfacesanumberofconstraintsandchallenges,summarisedas
follows:

LackofclarityregardingRPPmandateandinstitutionalsupport:fromitsinception,theRPPhasbeenthe
subjectofdebatewithinOxfam,reflectingperhapstheongoingwiderexternaldebateontheviabilityof
pastoralism and also the internal debate within Oxfam about whether pastoralists constitute a distinct
targetgroupornot.Theoriginalformulationofanintegratedprogrammeoperatingatregional,national
andlocallevelwithcommonstrategicdirectionhasbeenovertakenbyorganisationalchanges.Theshiftof
focus to country programmes was not accompanied by a rethink of the RPPs mandate, with the result
that it is currently operating without a clear agreed goal, objectives and measurable indicators and
consequentlyattractingsome(understandable)criticismwithintheorganisationforitsperceivedlackof
purpose,tangibleoutputsandaccountability.Thedependenceonpastoralchampionstopromoteboth
the programme and the issue of pastoralism within the organisation has enabled the programme to
continuetoexistwithoutconcreteorganisationalsupport.Somemanagementsupporthasbeengivento
the RPP from the Regional Management Team and other regional staff, but this appears to have been
largelybasedonindividualstaffrelationshipsandsympathytothepastoralcause,ratherthanstructural
managementsupportfortheprogramme.Itisalsonotclearwhetherpastoralismfeaturesprominentlyor
isconsideredacrucialsectorattheOxfordlevel.

Lackofclarityregardingwaysofworking:theRPPworksthroughrelationshipswithcountryprogrammes,
most directly with pastoral programme coordinators, with whom it does not hold a line management
relationship. These relationships therefore need to be negotiated and are largely dependent on the
goodwill and support of the relevant Country Directors. There is no structured agreement between
countryprogrammesandtheRPPtodeliverspecificregionaloutputsandhencetheRPPremainsrelatively
vulnerable and powerless to implement activities, and at the same time open to criticism from country
programmesthatitdoesnotdeliveroraddvaluetotheirwork4.WithregardtotheNorthSudancountry
programme,thereappearstohavebeenacommunicationbreakdown:theRPPappearstofeelthatSudan
prefers not to be linked into the regional pastoral programme and resents any supposed interference;
whilethestafffromtheNSudanofficeinterviewedfortheReviewimpliedawillingnesstobeconnected
withtheRPP,assumingtherecanbeclearcommunicationabouttheSudaneseprogrammesneedsand
howtheRPPcouldhelptomeetthem.

Absenceofaclearfundraisingstrategy:theRPPdoesnotappeartohaveanagreedfundraisingstrategy,
bothfortheprogrammesoverallactivitiesnorforsomeofthespecificcomponents(e.g.ROSP).Thereis
currentlyasignificantamountofgoodwillamongdonorsforregionalprogrammingwhichtheRPPhasnot
taken advantage of. However, specific funds have been raised from the European Unions Regional
Drought Decision (RDD) and support given to specific country programme staff with regard to proposal
formulation, largely by the DCM/Livelihoods Advisor. The failure to address fundraising for the ROSP in
theyearssinceitsinitiationisagrossomission.Itistheopinionofthereviewersthatfundingcouldhave
been obtained from external donors even before the final product is available; failing that, an interim
prototype could have been produced as a basis for fundraising. Failure to do this has jeopardised the
futureofaninitiativethathasthepotentialtobeaveryusefulandhighlyregardedadvocacytool.

4
Thislackofclaritywithregardtowaysofworkingisinpartsymptomaticofthebroaderambiguitysurroundingregionaladvisory
rolesingeneral,asdiscussedelsewhereinthisreport.

12

Lack of institutional commitment and clear strategy at the regional level for crossborder work: the
historyofcrossborderworkwithintheRPPisoneofsomeconfusion.Theoriginalintentionwasforthe
RPPtobeinvolvedinsomewayincrossborderwork.Withtheshifttocountryprogrammesasthekey
businessunit,crossborderprojectsaregenerallymanagedbycountryprogrammes.Howeveratthetime
ofthelastRPPreviewthedebatewasstillcontinuingabouthowcrossborderworkshouldtakeplace,and
asnoted above,it appearsthattherecommendationsof thereviewof crossborderworkin 2006were
not in general implemented at the regional level. Crossborder work is undoubtedly difficult and
expensive,andrequiresalongtermcommitment.Itisunlikelythatdonorswillcommitlongtermfunding
tosuchworkunlessthereisstrongparticipationofregionalgovernmentsandbodiessuchasIGAD,EAC,
COMESAandtheAU,tohelpensurecooperationandsustainability.5Inspiteofthesechallenges,across
border approach to pastoralism in the region remains vital to address many of the issues facing
pastoraliststoday,asdescribedinSection1.4above.

Skills and capacity within the RPP, and high staff turnover: the RPP Coordinator position requires a
multiple skill set including an understanding of ASAL and pastoral livelihoods, networking, advocacy,
liaison,training,fundraisingandmanagementskills,amongothers.Previousholdersofthispositionhave
hadsomebutnotalloftheseskills,withtheresultthattheprogrammehasleanedtowardsoneorother
aspectofthewideremit.Itmaynotbepossibletofindalltheseskillsembodiedinoneindividual,andthis
highlightsthefactthatapastoralfunctionatregionallevelmayrequiremorethanonepersontosupport
itwhichmayincludetheuseofadditionaltemporaryorpermanentstaff,and/orincreasedcollaboration
withotherstaffanddepartments(mainstreamingpastoralismseeSection4below).Highstaffturnover
inotherpositionsintheHECARegionalsolimitsthewiderunderstandingoftheoriginsandpurposeofthe
RPP outside the programme. This also contributes to limited institutional memory with regard to the
Regionspastoralwork.InadditionparticipantsattheStrategyplanningworkshopalsonotedthatinsome
partsofOxfamtherestillremainsafundamentallackofunderstandingofpastoralsystems.

Failure to maximise external linkages and advocacy opportunities: in 2003, the RPP established an
informal regional coordination group involving ITDG EA (now Practical Action), AU/IBAR, the Pastoral
Communication Initiative (PCI) and Oxfam, in order to establish linkages with other agencies. However,
this group appears to have lapsed, and over the current phase of the RPP linkages with external
stakeholders do not appear to have been maximised and opportunities for learning and influence have
consequently been lost (although the REGLAP project is now participating in a Horn of Africa Pastoral
ForumtogetherwithUNOCHAandPACAPSandhenceisbeginningtoaddressthisissue).CORDAIDand
World Vision are both currently in the process of planning regional pastoral work, with significant
potential for collaborationwithOxfam.Such collaboration mayalsocontributetoleveragingfunds. The
PACAPSCOMESA initiative aimed at developing a structured regional pastoral strategy framework, and
theEACsestablishmentofaregionalpastoralcoordinationcommitteeareindicatorsoftherecognitionof
theurgentneedforregionalcooperation,collaboration,advocacy,networkingandsharingofresourcesto
address the issues facing pastoralists in the region. The RPP has in general failed to maximise these
opportunities and make such linkages with regional governments, regional bodies and likeminded
stakeholdersandhencemissedanadditionalopportunitytoaddvaluetoOxfamsworkwithpastoralists
atcountryandlocallevel.

5
TherecentdisarmamentinitiativesinnorthernUgandaareacaseinpoint:intheabsenceofcooperationandsimultaneous
activityontheKenyanside,theUgandanworkwasunderminedandprovedlargelyineffective.

13

4. Coordination,LinkagesandRelationships
When the RPP was established a Coordination Group was set up, consisting of the country pastoral
coordinators (or if none, a relevant pastoral staff member), the RPP Coordinator and one of the two
Regional Programme Managers (now Deputy Regional Directors). The Group meets twice a year in
differentlocationsintheregion,andsomeofthemeetingshavebeenexpandedtoincludelocalpartners
and the relevant Country Director. According to the RPP Programme Framework, the tasks of the
CoordinationGroupareasfollows:

TakecollectiveresponsibilityforthedirectionoftheRPP
Provideaforumforsharingexperiences
Decide strategic direction and alliances, allocation of regional resources, shape of the regional log
frameandprioritiesoftheRPPCoordinator
Ensureacoherentapproachacrosstheprogramme
Identifyrelevantpolicyissuestobetakenforward
Coordinatelearningandcapacitybuildingacrosstheprogramme

The coordination role of the RPP was always intended to be light but to help maintain strategic
coherenceacrosstheHECARegion.However,theorganisationalchangesdescribedaboveinSection1.3
haveimpactedontheabilityoftheCoordinationGrouptofulfilthisroleinotherwordstheGrouphas
sufferedfromthegenerallackofclarityaboutregionalrolesandregionalstrategyaffectingtheRegional
Officeoverall.Inparticular,theshiftinemphasistothecountryprogrammesandthesubsequentlackof
clarity regarding regional advisory roles, together with the change in personnel and personalities, have
limited the scope of the Group, especially with regard to ensuring coherence across the country
programmesanddefiningacommonstrategy.

Consequently the RPP log frame is largely ignored by most of the country programmes or considered
irrelevant to their planning processes. The key achievements of the Coordination Group in the current
phase have therefore focused on support to pastoral staff and sharing of information and project
experiences, a role which is clearly appreciated by the participating staff themselves. However, the
Country Directors do not appear on the whole to value the Group, viewing it as unfocused and lacking
usefuloutputs.

Partlyasaresultoftheissuesoutlinedabove,theRPPhasbecomeratherisolated fromtherestofthe
Regional Office in recent years. This means that horizontal linkages with for example humanitarian and
advocacyteamshavenotbeenmaximised,inspiteofthefactthatthepotentialforpositivecollaboration
appearstobequitehighinthecurrentinternalcontext.Forexample,theRPPhasconsiderablepotential
to contribute further to the new one programme approach, combining advocacy, livelihoods and
humanitarian work. The current work on Disaster Risk Reduction and Drought Cycle Management has
contributed to the development of this approach in the region and has also made linkages with the
humanitarian team, with the potential to develop this more, particularly given the fact that many
emergencies in the region take place in pastoral areas. Most staff acknowledge that appropriate
emergencyresponsesinpastoralareascanonlybemadewhentheimplementingstaffhavethecapacity
and skills to design interventions appropriate to pastoral areas. There is potential scope therefore for
further mainstreaming an understanding of pastoral systems into humanitarian responses, as well as
increasing capacity and understanding of humanitarian interventions among pastoral programme staff
and partners. This work has begun in Kenya through the merging of the pastoral and humanitarian

14

programmes into a single ASAL programme, and also in Somaliland, where the key country programme
workispastoralbased.

Similarly, with regard to policy and advocacy, the potential for increased linkages and collaboration
betweenthecomponentsoftheRPPandtherelevantregionalstaffishighandyetdoesnotappeartobe
maximised at present. For example, the REGLAP programme does not have obvious linkages with the
campaigns staff (although this in part reflects the focus of the campaigns team until recently on wider,
nonprogrammerelated issues), nor has the ROSP project, which will provide a huge advocacy and
campaigns opportunity in the near future. Communication between these programmes appears to be
little and concrete collaboration not planned for. Similarly, regional campaigns staff noted unused
potentialforleveragingOxfamspastoralwork,includingthatoftheRPP,forexampleusingthemediato
changepublicperceptionsofpastoralism.

15

5. KeyConclusionsandRecommendations
5.1Keyconclusions
TheRPPasoriginallyconceived(i.e.acollectionofindividualcountryprogrammeslinkedtogetherundera
commonstrategy,withvalueaddedattheregionallevel)isnolongerappropriatenorfeasibleintheHECA
RegionalOfficeinthecurrentcontext.However,itisthekeyconclusionofthisReviewthatthereremains
ajustifiableneedforapastoralcomponentatregionallevelbutdifferentinnature and functionfrom
theexistingRPP,forthefollowingreasons:

PastoralistsareakeymarginalisedgroupintheHECARegionandformasignificantproportionof
Oxfamstargetgroup,asidentifiedbytheNationalChangeStrategies.

Oxfamhasconsiderableexperienceandreputationinpastoraldevelopmentintheregionoverthe
last two decades. A number of stakeholders look to Oxfam as a lead agency in the region on
pastoral development work, disaster risk reduction and humanitarian programming, and the
linkagesbetweenthemexpectationswhicharenotatpresentconsistentlymet.

Pastoralismcontinuestobemisunderstoodandpastoralistsremainpolitically,economicallyand
sociallymarginalisedwithintheregion(seeSection1.5above).Consideringpastoralistsasoneof
several vulnerable livelihood groups will fail to address this misunderstanding and has the
potentialtofurthermarginalisethem.

There is a clear justification for working on pastoral issues at regional level. The HECA Region
Review(2008)highlightstheimportanceofregionalworkingeneral:manyofthepovertyrelated
issues in the regionarecrossborder andthere isscope for a clearer regional frameworksetting
out, for example, the synergies between countrylevel programmes... There are sufficient cross
border problematics in the region for example, adaptation to climate change, peace building,
vulnerable livelihoods, good governance etc. to suggest that there could be more regional
programming.(Coventry2008:16;40).TheOGBinternalconsultationpaperondefiningregional
and national roles similarly notes the potential for coordination, support, analysis, learning and
campaigningattheregionallevel(HECARegion,Nov2008).Thereisageneralconsensusamong
the people consulted for this Review (both internal and external) that because of its common
concerns and crossborder nature, pastoralism as an issue is suited to a regional approach, to
complementnationalandlocallevelinitiatives.

The pastoral work that Oxfam is currently engaged in within the HECA Region (at both country
programme and regional level) falls under both governance and livelihoods sectors, and
increasingly under the humanitarian sector as well, and hence has great potential for the one
programme approach. Pastoral work cannot therefore be easily slotted under one or other of
theseareasandindeedhasconsiderablepotentialtocontributetothedevelopmentoftheone
programmeapproachwithintheregion.

Issuesrelatingtoclimatechangeanddisasterriskreductionareincreasinginstitutionalpriorities
forOxfam.Bothissuesimpactsignificantlyonpastoralistpopulationsintheregion,whileatthe
sametimepastoralprogrammingcangenerateusefulopportunitiesforlessonlearningandpolicy
debateonthesetopics.

16

 Pastoraldevelopmentrequiresatwintrackapproach6similartothatsometimesusedtoaddress
genderinequalities.Inotherwordsanunderstandingofpastoralismandofpastoraldevelopment
work needs to be more mainstreamed into other programmes and activities (for example
humanitarianresponses,advocacyandcampaigningwork);whileatthesametimesomespecific,
targeted initiatives are needed to address particular needs and issues relating to pastoralism. A
regionalpastoralinitiativehasthepotentialtopilotandadoptthistwintrackapproach.

Howeverthisinitiativerequiresgreaterclaritywithregardtoitsmandate,scopeandactivities,withfull
institutionalandmanagementcommitmenttowhateverisfinallyagreed.

5.2Recommendations
ItisthereforetherecommendationofthisReviewthattheHECARegionalCentreestablishesaRegional
Pastoral Initiative (RPI) with a mandate from the organisation to support pastoralism in the region,
throughsupporttoCountryProgrammesandthroughexternalnetworkingandadvocacy.ThisInitiative
differsfromtheRPPinanumberofways:

ThenewInitiativehasnoremittoaddressqualitycontrolorcoordinationwithregardtotheindividual
countrypastoralprogrammesandwillfocusonactivitiesattheregionallevel

The new Initiative is to be endorsed by the Regional Management Team and have a clear mandate
withintheorganisation

ThereisasignificantshiftofemphasisinthefocusoftheInitiative,awayfromtechnicalbackstopping
andinformationsharingtoworkingmainlyonpolicyadvocacyatregionallevel(seefunctionsbelow)

UnliketheRPPwhichworkedasastandalone(andrelativelyisolated)programme,theInitiativetakes
a twin track approach to supporting pastoralism, with specific pastoralfocused activities (in
collaboration with other staff) while at the same time building pastoral capacity and understanding
withinotherteams

TheReviewrecommendsthattheRPIfocuseson5keyfunctions,namely:

1.
Advocacyandpolicywithregionalinstitutions
2.
Promotinglearning
3.
Supporttocrossborderwork
4.
Facilitatingcapacitybuildingonspecificissues(mainstreamingpastoralism)
5.
Fundraising

Thefollowingtablepresentsthesefunctionsinmoredetail:

KeyFunctions Activities/Definition Justification/Rationale

1. Advocacy Focusedadvocacytargetingspecific Stakeholdersandanalysts
andPolicy institutionsandpolicyframeworks,based suggestthatthereis
with onadetailedandspecificadvocacy increasingpotentialfor
Regional strategywithclearintendedand influencingregional
Institutions measurableoutputs,incollaborationwith institutionssuchasIGAD,
theregionalcampaignsteamandcountry EAC,AU,andCOMESAon
programmepolicystaff. pastoralissues.

6
Thetwintrackapproachistakenfromtheexperiencesofmainstreaminggenderwithindevelopmentagencies:itisincreasingly
recognisedthatmainstreaminggenderrequiresbothgenderspecificexpertiseandactivitiesontheonehand,andincreasingthe
genderunderstandingandcapacityofallstaffontheother(seeforexampleAPRODEV2004).
17

 Asfarasispossible,thisworkshoulddraw
onprioritiesandexpressedneedsof
pastoraliststhemselvesthroughdirectand
partnerledworkwithpastoral
communitiesandorganisations.
Focusoncrossborderandregionalissues,
suchastradeandconflict(linkwithoneof
thekeythemesidentifiedinSection1.5:
livestockproductmarkets;withthe
potentialalsotoincreasepastoralvoice
inthewaythattheadvocacyiscarriedout)
Keypotentialadvocacytargetsmay
includetheIGADLivestockPolicyInitiative,
theEastAfricanCommunitytechnical
committeeonpastoralism,andthe
COMESAinitiativeonpastoralismthrough
TuftsUniversity.
TheREGLAPprogrammeprovidesauseful
opportunitytochanneltheseadvocacy
outputsintheforthcomingyear
2. Promoting Usingaspecific,targetedlearning
Learning framework,sharingbestpracticeand
experiencefromwithinandoutsideOxfam
amongcountryprogrammes.
Basedontangibleoutputswitha
consistentformatwherepossible(e.g.a
seriesofbriefingpapers)
Thisfunctionmayandshouldoverlapwith
thepolicyworkdescribedinno.1above.
3. Supportto Promotingandfacilitatingcrossborder
CrossBorder work;andsharinglearningbetween
Work programmesandfromelsewhere.
Thissupportdoesnotnecessarilyinclude
themanagementofsuchprojects,which
willgenerallyremaintheprovinceof
individualcountryprogrammes(in
bilateralrelationshipswhereappropriate)
4. Facilitation DisasterRiskReductionandClimate
ofCapacity Changearetwokeytopicswherea
Buildingon pastoralperspectivecanhavemuchto
Specific offerotherpartsoftheorganisation,both
Issues atregionallevelandwithinindividual
countryprogrammes,basedonaclearand
focusedstrategy.
Discussionandshouldbeheldwitheach
CountryProgrammeandwithother
regionalprogrammestoidentifythetopics
18
Oxfamiswellplacedinthe
region,basedonits
reputation,experienceand
currentworkwithpastoral
communities,totakeonthis
role.
ROSPshouldprovidevaluable
evidencetosupportthis
process(andcontributesto
theissueofeconomic
valuationasnotedabovein
Section1.5).
AregionallybasedRPIiswell
placedtofacilitatelearning
betweencountry
programmes,andalsoto
keepabreastofcurrent
debatesonpastoral
development,learningfrom
otheractorsintheregionand
elsewhereandsharing
informationwiththem
Keyissuestoaddressinclude
thosehighlightedabovein
Section1.5,namely:trade,
livelihooddiversification,and
pastoralvoice
Aregionalperspectivecan
addsignificantvaluetocross
borderwork,inparticular
sharinglearningand
successfulapproaches.
TheRPIneedstomoveaway
fromgeneralizedtechnical
backstoppingofcountry
programmes.Althoughthisis
clearlyappreciatedby
pastoralstaffwithincountry
programmes,thistypeof
technicalsupportshould,
accordingtoOxfampolicy,be
increasinglyobtainedlocally.

 whichtheRPIcanuniquelysupportand However,onspecifictopics
whichfitgapsinCPcapacity,andtoagree suchasDRRandCC,theRPIis
waysoffacilitatingthiscapacitybuilding wellplacedtobuildcapacity
Collaborationwiththehumanitarianteam withintheregion.
tobuildthehumanitariancapacityof Thisaddressesoneofthekey
pastoralstaff(andviceversa)is themeslistedinSection1.5,
particularlyimportant namelysupporttotherelief
developmentcontinuum.
5. Fundraising Identifyingdonorsandsecuringfundingto TheRPIneedstowork
supporttheaboveactivities towardsbeingultimatelyself
supporting,ratherthan
relyingonunrestrictedfunds.
Thisshouldalsohelpto
increaseaccountabilityand
transparency

It is the view of the Reviewers that a Regional Pastoral Initiative carrying out these functions has the
potentialtoaddsignificantvaluetothecountryprogrammeworkonpastoralismintheHECARegion.
Thisvalueisaddedbothinwards(supportingcountrypastoralprogrammesthemselves)andoutwards
(drawingonandsynthesisingcountryprogrammeworktodevelopregionalleveladvocacymessagesand
engageinpolicydebateattheregionallevel).

Thesefivefunctionslistedabovewereusedtodevelopa3yearStrategyfortheRPIataworkshopwith
pastoral programme staff which took place on 11th and 12th March (see Annex 2 for participants). The
Strategy,availableasastandalonedocumentseparatefromthisReviewReport,includesalogframewith
clear outputs and indicators and a process for monitoring and reporting, to ensure accountability and
ownershipoftheRPIacrosstheHECARegion.Thisrelativelystructuredapproachisnecessarytoaddress
the previous rather loose arrangement and provide a framework for the future, but also relies on the
developmentofeffectivewaysofworkingwithstaffintheregionalcentreandcountryprogrammes.

ItisfurtherrecommendedthatthefollowingwaysofworkingbeadoptedbytheRPI:

The key functions and mandate of the RPI, together with the Strategy developed during the
pastoral workshop in March 2009, should be agreed by the regional senior management and
endorsedbytheregionalCountryDirectors.

TheimplicationsoftheagreedStrategyfortheRPIforindividualcountryprogrammesshouldbe
identified and as necessary included in their log frames or PIPs, and agreed methods of
communication and liaison established between country programmes (in particular Country
Directors)andtheRPI.

Thesestructuralcommitmentsarenecessarytogiveinstitutionalbackingtothenewinitiativeand
hencetoavoidtheconstraintsthattheRPPhasfacedinrecentyearsincludingarelianceonthe
passionandconvictionofindividualsandthelackofinstitutionalsupport.Atthesametimeitis
recognised that the implementation of the new initiative still requires conviction and personal
commitmentandwilldependonthenegotiationofcollaborativerelationshipsacrosstheregion,
thuscannotrelysolelyonstructuralsupport.

19

 The Strategy contains plans for collaboration between the RPI and other regional sectors,
includingthenewlivelihoodsadvisorypost,thegovernancefocalpoint,thecampaignsteamand
thehumanitarianteam,inordertoensurethatpastoralexpertiseisnotlockedupintheRPIbut
isalsomainstreamedasappropriateinotherprogrammesofwork.

The Strategy also contains a commitment to developing a detailed plan for the future of ROSP.
Giventhepotentialoftheoutputsandtheconsiderableinvestmentinthisinitiativethusfar,itis
importantthatthisopportunityisnotwasted.Theplanshouldincludeafundraisingstrategyanda
sustainability/exitplanforthefuture.

InrecognitionofthewayinwhichpastorallivelihoodsarechangingtheremitoftheRPIshould
encompassallthoselivinginpastoralareas,andnotbeconfinedtopurepastoralists.7Itshould
address issues relating to enhanced pastoral livelihoods, diversified pastoral livelihoods and
alternative livelihoods to pastoralism.8 All such work, both that addressing support to and
diversification of pastoral livelihoods and that which promotes alternative strategies, should be
underpinnedbyathoroughunderstandingofthedynamicsofthepastoralproductionsystem.

TheCoordinationGroupshouldbecomethePastoralismLearningGroup.Eachmeetingshould
focusonaspecificthemeortopic,andbeattendedbypastoralstaffmemberstogetherwithother
relevant internal and external resource people. Key management staff (for example Country
Directors, Regional Directors) may also participate as appropriate to keep informed on pastoral
developmentintheHECARegionandtomaintainmanagementsupportfortheRPI.

The RPI should develop a strategy for extending and maintaining linkages with external actors
working on pastoralism in the region, for example CORDAID and World Vision, as well as with
OxfamInternational.

InordertoimplementtheRPI,atleastonededicatedstaffmemberisrequired.Thisisnecessary
bothintermsoftheworkloadinvolvedincarryingoutthefunctionsdescribedabove,andalsoin
order to maintain Oxfams institutional commitment and prioritisation of pastoral issues at the
leveloftheRegionalCentre.

7
Previousdefinitionsofpastoralistssuchaspeoplewhoderivemorethan50%oftheirlivelihoodfromextensivelivestock
production(Swift1988)arethesubjectofgrowingdebateasmorepurepastoralistsareforcedtodiversifytheirlivelihoods,
dropoutofthepastoralsectortobecomeexpastoralistsinurbancentres,oridentifyalternativelivelihoodsincludingagro
pastoralism.

8
SeeOxfametal2005forausefulbreakdownoffuturepastorallivelihoodstrategies[thefactthatthisreport,which
wascarriedoutbyOxfamtogetherwithotheractors,isnotwidelyknownamongkeyactorsintheRegionfurther
highlightsthelossofinstitutionalmemoryintheRegion]

20

Annexes
Annex1:TermsofReferencefortheReview
1.Background
TheHorn/EastAfricaRegionalPastoralProgramme(RPP)isa15yearprogrammewhichseekstoaddressthepoverty
and marginalisation of pastoralists in the Horn and East African countries of Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya,
Tanzania and Uganda. The RPP officially commenced work in July 2003 and builds explicitly on the previous East
AfricaRegionalPastoralProgrammethatranfrom19982002.

OxfamandotherNGOshaveledthewayindevelopingmoreappropriatelocalapproachestopastoraldevelopment.
However these projects have only covered geographically limited areas and are constrained by unfavourable
nationalpolicyframeworks.Oxfamhasalsomadesomeprogressonadvocatingformorefavourablepoliciestowards
pastoralism in the region. The RPP aims to respond to these challenges by increasing the coherence between
programmes,undertakinglearningandreflectionassignments,coordinatingtheapproachesusedintheprogrammes
andretainingtheprogrammefocusonincreasingthevoiceofpastoralists.

2.TheRegionalPastoralistProgramme
The RPP is an ambitious programme with a longterm objective of bringing pastoralists close to decision making
processes while increasing their integration into political, social and economic systems at national and regional
levels,thusaddressingthefundamentalproblemsofmarginalisationandweakgovernancethatlieattherootofthe
chronicpovertyandvulnerabilityofpastoralareas.

TheRegionalPastoralProgramme(RPP)asawholeconsistsofsixcountrycomponentsandregionallevelprojects,
closelylinkedtoformanintegratedregionalprogramme.Eachcountrycomponentincludesanationalandlocallevel
component.Nationallevelcomponentswillfocusonresearch,policydevelopment/dialogue,andthedissemination
of best practice, in conjunction with government and nongovernment actors. This will derive from locallevel
componentsineachcountrywhichdeliverdirectbenefitstotargetpastoralcommunitiesanddevelopbestpractice
inworkingwithpastoralcommunities(basedonOxfamsapproachesdevelopedtodateintheregion).
TheRegionalPastoralProgrammeisboundtogetherbycommonobjectives,approachesandwaysofworkingforthe
programmeasawholewhichapplyatalllevels(local,national,andregional).

The RPP is now nearing the end of its 2nd threeyear phase and Oxfam GB wishes to carry out a review of the
programme to date to guide the design and implementation of the next phase. The review should focus on the
countryprojectsinitiatedundertheRPP,regionalprojectsoftheRPPaswellasgaugeprogresstowardsmeetingthe
objectivesoftheRegionalPastoralProgrammeasawhole.Thisreviewisnotareviewoftheindividualprogramme
componentsoftheRPPbutratheranoverallprogrammereviewlookingattheprogrammeobjectives,howtheyare
aligned with objectives of country pastoralprogrammes inline with nationalchangestrategies and themes/issues
thataffectpastoralistsintheregion.

3.Organisationalcontext
OxfamGBhasjustconcludedalengthyprocessofstrategicreviewandplanningatcountrylevel.Theresultisthat
eachcountryhasaclearstrategyformovingforwardoverthenext5years.Wehavealsobeenthroughareviewto
assess what the added value and role of the regional centre should be in relation to empowered country
programmes.

There is a need to revisit the current Regional Pastoral Programme both in light of the priorities coming out of
countryprogrammesthroughtheNationalChangeStrategyprocess,andintermsofthedefinedroleofaregional
centre.Weneedtoensurethatanyworkonpastoralismisaddingvaluetocountryprogrammeswhilstsupporting
theregionalvision.Thisisexpectedtoleadtoachangeinfocus,waysofworkingandsetupofadvisoryservicesat
theregionalcentre.Thepastoralprogrammereviewwillbefedintoinformthisprocess.

4.PurposeandObjectiveofthestrategicreviewandplanning
ThepurposeofthisprogrammereviewistoassesstheimpactoreffectivenessoftheRegionalPastoralProgramme
todate,andinparticulartoassesstheaddedvalueoftheregionalcoordinationbodyonprogrammeimpactwithin
countryprogrammes.Inaddition,itwillusethisasabasisfordevelopingastrategyfortakingforwardtheOxfam
GBsworkonpastoralismbasedonthedirectionwhichcountriesaretakingandtheleadership/supportneededata
regionallevel.

21

Specificobjectivesinclude:
Review
Tounderstandtowhatextenttheregionalcomponentoftheprogrammehasachieveditsobjectivesasset
outintheprogrammeframework
To understand what have been the main achievements of the programmes falling under the regional
pastoralprogrammeandwhataddedvaluetheregionalcoordinationbodyhasbroughttothese,ifany
Tocapturethecurrentstrengthsandweaknessesoftheregionalcomponentinrelationtoa)theindividual
programmes implemented by Oxfam GB and partners and b) a wider group of stakeholders inside and
outsideofOxfamGB,andtomakerecommendationsastohowtheregionalcomponentmayincreaseits
impactoneachgroupofstakeholders.
TodrawoutsomeofthekeyemerginglessonslearnedthroughtheRegionalPastoralProgramme.Identify
modelinnovativeprogrammes/projectsincludingcrossborderprogrammes/projectsthatcanaddresslarge
numberoftargetcommunitiesandimpactonattitude,belief,practiceandpolicychangeatwiderscale.
ToappraisetheefficacyofthecurrentmechanismsusedtocoordinatetheRegionalPastoralProgramme
particularlylookingattheCoordinationgroupmechanismandtheextenttowardsachievingitsobjectives.

Strategydevelopment
To develop a common vision for Oxfams work with pastoralists within the region over the next 5 years,
based on input from the National Change Strategies, including an understanding of how change happens
andwhatOxfamsrolewithinthatchangemightbe
Todrawoutwhataddedvalueanyregionalcomponentonpastoralismwouldaddtocountrystrategiesand
ourregionalvision,workingonwhichareas,andwhatthatmightlooklike
Exploregreaterlinksbetweenthepastoralprogrammeandhumanitarianworkwhileensuringthatpastoral
developmentworkismorejoinedupwithotherlivelihoodworkintheregion.

5.Methodology
The consultant will be expected to refine the methodology to be used with the Regional Pastoral Programme Co
ordinator.However,itisanticipatedthatthereviewwillinclude:
Areviewofpublishedandunpublishedprogrammereportsanddocumentation
Field work with selected projects belonging to the RPP in order to capture their understanding of the
strengthsandweaknessesoftheprogramme
DiscussionwithOxfamGBstaffaswellaspartners
Making an overall external environment scanning by meeting at least few key actors in the sector to
know/learnanyexperiencefromtheirwork
Bringingkeyinternalstakeholderstogethertodevelopavisionandstrategyforworkgoingforward,taking
intoaccountavailableresourcestosupporttheprogrammeinitsnextphase

6.Output
Ashortreport(maximum1520pages)settingoutthefindingsagainsteachoftheobjectivesofthereviewprocess
andwithasetofrecommendations.ThereportisintendedprimarilyforaninternalOGBaudience,butshouldbe
writteninsuchawaythatitcanbesharedwithpartnersandotherexternalcontacts.

22

[Annex 2 Removed]
Annex3:DocumentsConsulted
Acacia Consultants, 2006. Coordination, Management and Learning Arrangements for Cross Border
programmes in the Horn and East Africa Oxfam GB Horn and East Africa Regional Pastoral
Programme,Nairobi
Aklilu, Y. and M. Wekesa, 2002. Drought, Livestock and Livelihoods: Lessons from the 19992001
emergency response in the pastoral sector in Kenya Network Paper No. 40, Humanitarian
PracticeNetwork,OverseasDevelopmentInstitute,London
APRODEV, HelpAge International, One World Action and WIDE, 2004. Transforming the Mainstream:
Seminar report on mainstreaming and inclusive approaches in EU development cooperation
London
Bushell,Helen,nodate.ProjectOutline:ImprovingPastoralLivelihoodsOxfamGB
Coventry, Cowan, 2008. Oxfam GB HECA Regional Review: Meeting Expectations, Delivering Cost
effectivelyOxfamGB
Devereux,Stephen,2006.VulnerableLivelihoodsinSomaliRegion,EthiopiaBrighton,IDS
East African Community, 2008. Terms of Reference: The Regional Technical Steering Committee on
PastoralismandDrylandsDevelopment
HECARegion,Nov2008.Definingcountryandregionalcentreroleswithcountryasthekeybusinessunit
Draftforconsultation.OxfamGB
Morton, John, 2006. A Review of Oxfam GBs Horn/East Africa Regional Pastoral Programme Final
Version.OxfamGBNairobi
Morton,John,2008.DFIDsCurrentandPotentialEngagementwithPastoralism:AScopingStudyDFID
Nori, Michele, Michael Taylor, Alessandra Sensi, 2008. Browsing on Fences: Pastoral Land Rights,
Livelihoods and Adaptation to Climate Change IIED Issue Paper No 148. International Land
Coalition,WISP,IrishAidandIIED,London
OxfamGB,nodate.IntegrationofDroughtCycleManagementintoPastoralDevelopmentProgrammes
inHorn/EastAfrica:ProjectTermsofReference
OxfamGB,2004.OxfamGBSomaliland:CountryStrategyPaperforthePastoralProgramme
OxfamGB,2005.RegionalPastoralProgramme:ProgrammeManagementFramework
OxfamGB,2007a.OxfamGBStrategicPlanSummary
OxfamGB,2007b.TanzaniaNationalChangeStrategy20072017
Oxfam GB, 2008a. Ethiopia National Change Strategy 20092019: The changes that need to happen in
EthiopiaandOxfamGBsrole
OxfamGB,2008b.KenyaNationalChangeStrategy20082011
OxfamGB,2008c.UgandaNationalChangeStrategy20082013
OxfamGB,2008d.SomaliaNationalChangeStrategy20092011
Oxfam GB, 2008e. Principles of CrossBorder work in the SomalilandEthiopia Cross Border Drought
PreparednessProject

25

OxfamGBwebsite:ProgrammeLearning:Livelihoods:Pastoralism
OxfamGB.RegionalPastoralProgrammeCoordinationMeetingReportsandUpdates20032008[March
2003;October2003;February2004(CoordinationPrinciplesandProcedures);September2004;
March2005;September2005;Sept2006;March2007;Sept07;July2008]
OxfamInternational,2008.SurvivaloftheFittest:PastoralismandClimateChangeinEastAfricaOxfam
BriefingPaper116
Pettit, Jethro, etal, 2008. Aim 4Review: OxfamGBs Work on Governance and theRightto beHeard
InstituteofDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofSussex,Brighton
RegionalPastoralProgramme(RPP).RegionalCoordinationWorkplans2005/6;2006/7;2007/8;2008/9
OxfamGBHorn/EastAfrica
Swift, J., 1988. Major issues in pastoral development with special emphasis on selected African
countriesFAO/UNDP,RomeandIDS,UniversityofSussex.
Swift,J.,2008.TheBigPicturepresentationtotheRegionalWorkshopSecuringPastoralisminEastand
WestAfricaNovember10142008,DessalegnHotel,AddisAbaba,IIEDandSOSSahelUK
WorldInitiativeforSustainablePastoralism(WISP)website:www.iucn.org/wisp
WorldInitiativeforSustainablePastoralism(WISP),2006. GlobalReviewoftheEconomicsofPastoralism
IUCN,Nairobi
World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism (WISP), 2008. A Global Perspective on the Total Economic
ValueOfPastoralism:GlobalsynthesisreportbasedonsixcountryvaluationsIUCN,Nairobi

26

Annex4:PastoralPopulationsintheHECARegion

ApproximatenationalandpastoralpopulationsintheHECARegion

Country TotalPopulation PastoralistPopulation Pastoralist Population as

%ofTotal
Uganda 24.4million 340,000 1.4%
Tanzania 33.5million 1million 3%
Kenya 31million 3million 3%
Ethiopia 75million 9million 12%
Sudan 33.5million 5million 15%
Somalia 8million 4.8million 60%
TOTAL 205.4million 24.14million 11.8%
Source:NationalChangeStrategies;individualinterviews

27

Annex5:SummaryofRPPmanagedprojects

1. ReportontheStatusofPastoralism(ROSP)

ROSPwasinitiatedin2005withtheaimofprovidingquantitativedataonthesituationofpastoralistsin
the region, along the lines of the Human Development Report. Similar reports have been produced for
other focus groups around the world for example the Romany people of Eastern Europe and Arctic
populations.Localpartnerswereidentifiedineachoftheparticipatingcountriestomanagetheprocessof
identifyinggapsandcollectingthedata.Linkageswerealsomadewithnationalbureauxofstatistics.The
key outputs will be countrylevel reports from Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, bringing together
data on pastoral populations including their contribution to the national economy. The first reports are
anticipatedinApril2009.

2. ImprovingPastoralLivelihoods(IPL)

The IPL project grew out of the one year Drought Cycle Management (DCM) project, which focused on
integratingDCMintolongtermdevelopmentwork.IPLbroadensthefocusrecognisingthelinkbetween
theproductiveandtheprotectiveaspectsofOGBslivelihoodswork.Theaimoftheprojectistherefore
to enhance and protect the livelihoods of people living in the ASALs through developing and
institutionalisingbestpracticeonintegratedprogramming.

TheIPLandDCMprojectshavetogetherproducedanumberofoutputsthusfar,including:casestudies
ondroughtmanagementcapacityinsixcountries;abriefingpackonDCM;atrainingpackonDisasterRisk
Reduction, which is being rolled out under the Humanitarian department; and a regional DRR/CCA
induction pack to promote awareness and understanding of adaptation and risk reduction issues in the
region.

3. RegionalLivelihoodsAdvocacyProject(REGLAP)

TheReducingtheVulnerabilityofPastoralCommunitiesthroughPolicyandPracticeChangeintheHorn
andEastAfricaprojectisanECHOfundedinitiativewhichaimstoinformthinkingtoenablepolicymakers
to keep abreast of new opportunities and threats in the rangelands. Run by a Regional Coordinator
reporting to a consortium of international NGOs, and hosted by Oxfam GB, the project focuses on five
thematicareas:climatechange;demographictrends;socialprotection;preparednessplanningandcross
border issues. Key activities include knowledge gathering; policy dialogue; policy and practice change
throughadvocacy;andcivilsocietyadvocacynetworkingandcapacitybuilding.Asetofpolicybriefsand
reportsbasedonbaselinestudiesofexistingpoliciesintheregionwillbepublishedinApril2009.

28

Annex6:TheRoleofPastoralismintheNationalChangeStrategies
Country PastoralistsinContext
Ethiopia Pastoralistsareseverelysocioeconomicallyand
politicallymarginalised,amongthevoicelessand
excluded(withwomenandethnicminorities)
Kenya Pastoralistsareoneofthemarginalisedgroupsin
thecountry(alongwithwomen,urbanpoor,young
peopleandPLHIV).
Highestpovertyisinnorthernpastoraldistricts.
Somalia 6070%ofpopulationarepastoralists
Facesofpovertyarepastoralists,womenand
children,urbanpoor,minorityclansandIDPs.
Pastoralistslivelihoodsincreasinglyunderthreat
Sudan9 Highpastoralpopulation(15%);preoilrevenue
livestockcontributed80%ofGDP
Tanzania
9
ItwasnotpossibletoreviewtheNorthSudanNCSdocumentduringtheReview.
Changepropositions/overallstrategy Programmeaimswithregardto
pastoralism
Economicempowerment Focusonpastoralistsandsmallscale
farmers.
ShiftingfromRTBHandservicedeliveryto
emphasisonlivelihoods,inparticular
economicdevelopmentthroughlivestock
commercialisation.
Urbanandruralgroupsclaimtheirrights Workwithpastoralistsisoneof3strategic
andprovideenablingenvironmentfor directions(othersbeingurbanpoor;and
positiveinstitutionalchangetoreduce internalcapacitybuilding)
economicandsocialmarginalisation Pastoralprogrammenowmergedwith
humanitarianprogrammeintosingleASAL
programme,aimtoaddresslivelihoodissues
andatsametimestabilisechronic
humanitariancrises.
Somaliland:improvegovernanceand Threecoreprogrammes:humanitarian;
livelihoodsforpastoralistsandwomen governanceandlivelihoods.Country
SouthernSomalia:providehumanitarian Programmeviewsitselfasapastoral
assistanceandprotectiontoIDPs programme
Workingonstrategicandpracticalneedsof
pastoralists
Plantoshiftemphasisfromservicedelivery
tostateandnationalleveladvocacy
1. TheneedforsystematicDCMand Plantocontinuefocusonpastoralists
communitypreparedness(against Threethemes:governance,livelihoodsand
droughtetc.) education
2. Pastoralcommunitiescandemandfor Nonationallevelpastoralprogramme
theirrights (pastoralworkfallsundergovernancewith

Uganda PovertyisconcentratedintheEast,Karamoja
(pastoralarea)andtheNorth(war).
Pastoralistsidentifiedasoneofthekeyvulnerable
groups,arebehindinallHDRindicators.
Hugedisparitybetweennorthandsouthofcountry
withregardtolivelihoodopportunitiesandrights
tobasicservices.
3. Peopleinmarginal/vulnerableareas regardtomanagement)
canhavethrivinglivelihoodsiftheir
rightstoassetsandresourcesare
upheld
1. Reduceruralpoverty Otheragenciesarelookingforagreater
2. Increaseresiliencetodisasters leadershiprolefromOxfamonpastoralism.
3. Buildaccountability Pastoralismcontinuestobeaspecificfocus
4. Promotewomensrights area,withinthebroadthemesoflivelihoods
andgovernance/voice.
Pastoralistsgenerallyconsideredasunder
marginalisedgroupsbyUgandaCP
Source:NationalChangeStrategies,supplementedbyindividualinterviews
30

Annex7:ListofAcronyms

ASAL Aridandsemiaridlands
AU AfricanUnion
AU/IBAR AfricanUnion/InterafricanBureauforAnimalResources
CC ClimateChange
COMESA CommonMarketofEasternandSouthernAfrica
DRR DisasterRiskReduction
DCM DroughtCycleManagement
EAC EastAfricanCommunity
HAVOYOCO OxfamGBpartnerorganisationinSomaliland
HECA Horn,EastandCentralAfrica
IDP internallydisplacedpersons
IGAD InterGovernmentalAuthorityonDevelopment
IPL ImprovingPastoralLivelihoodsproject
MPIDO MainyoitoPastoralistIntegratedDevelopmentOrganisation
OGB OxfamGreatBritain
OI OxfamInternational
PACAPS PastoralAreasCoordination,AnalysisandPolicySupport(USAIDfunded)
REGLAP Regional Livelihoods Advocacy Project (Reducing the Vulnerability of Pastoral
CommunitiesthroughPolicyandPracticeChangeinHornandEastAfrica)
ROSP ReportontheStatusofPastoralism
RPP RegionalPastoralProgramme
RTBH Righttobeheard(Oxfams4thStrategicAim)
WISP WorldInitiativeforSustainablePastoralism

Annex8:Acknowledgements
Grateful thanks are due to all staff, partners and other stakeholders (listed in Annex 2) who gave their
time to discuss the RPP,inparticularthosewhoattendedtheStrategy Workshop.Particularthanks are
duetoJohnLetaiforhissupportandsmoothfacilitationofthelogisticsoftheReview.
 Oxfam GB 2009

First published online by Oxfam GB in 2010.

This document is part of a collection of programme evaluations available from Oxfam GB in

accordance with its evaluation policy.

This document was originally written for internal accountability and learning purposes, rather
than for external publication. The information included was correct to the evaluators best
knowledge at the date the evaluation took place. The views expressed in this report are those
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect Oxfams views.

The text may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy, campaigning, education,
and research, provided that the source is acknowledged in full. The copyright holder requests
that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any
other circumstances, or for reuse in other publications, or for translation or adaptation,
permission must be secured and a fee may be charged. Email publish@oxfam.org.uk

For further information on the issues raised in this document email phd@oxfam.org.uk

Oxfam is a registered charity in England and Wales (no 202918) and Scotland (SC 039042).
Oxfam GB is a member of Oxfam International.

www.oxfam.org.uk