STATUS OF LIVESTOCK MOBILITY IN KENYA AND ETHIOPIA Mapping livestock routes and case studies on mobility blockages Mohammed Yahya Said, Yasin Getahun, Julius Muyizzi, Irene Nganga, Bedasa Eba, Ambica Paliwal, Irene Mukalo and Fiona Flintan December 2025 TECHNICAL REPORT ISSN 2977-9669 © SPARC Knowledge 2025 How to cite: Said, M.Y., Getahun, Y., Muyizzi, J., Nganga, I., Eba, B., Paliwal, A., Mukalo, I. and Flintan, F. (2025) Status of livestock mobility in Kenya and Ethiopia: mapping livestock routes and case studies on mobility blockages. Technical Report. London: SPARC Knowledge (https://doi.org/10.61755/MXQK8140). This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Readers are encouraged to reproduce material for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. SPARC Knowledge requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. For online use, we ask readers to link to the DOI resource. Views and opinions expressed in this publication are the responsibility of the author(s) and should in no way be attributed to the institutions to which they are affiliated or to SPARC Knowledge. About SPARC Climate change, armed conflict, environmental fragility and weak governance, and the impact these have on natural resource-based livelihoods, are among the key drivers of both crisis and poverty for communities in some of the world’s most vulnerable and conflict- affected countries. Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises (SPARC) aims to generate evidence and address knowledge gaps to build the resilience of millions of pastoralists, agro- pastoralists and farmers in these communities in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. We strive to create impact by using research and evidence to develop knowledge that improves how the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), donors, non-governmental organisations, local and national governments, and civil society can empower these communities in the context of climate change. https://doi.org/10.61755/MXQK8140 Acknowledgements This technical report is published through the Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises (SPARC) programme, which is supported by the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO). Additional writing support was provided by the CGIAR Science Program on Future Food Frontiers. We thank all donors that contribute to the CGIAR Trust Fund. The authors thank the consultants Dr. Samuel Tefera Alemu, formerly Senior Disaster Risk Management Coordinator at Oxford Policy Management and Addis Ababa University, and Dr. Abule Ebro for their review of this technical report. We acknowledge Mauri Vazquez, Head of Policy at ODI’s Global Risks and Resilience programme, UK and Guy Jobbins, Executive Director, SPARC Consortium, UK for final comments and sign-off. Lastly, thank you to the SPARC communications team, including Julie Grady Thomas, along with Terry Earle, ILRI and Ruby Cowling for copyediting, and Valerie Geiger for design and typesetting. In Ethiopia, Mohammed Yahya Said, Yasin Getahun, Bedasa Eba, Julius Muyizzi and Fiona Flintan led the mapping process, with key facilitation and coordination support from Eskatnaf Getachew. We gratefully acknowledge the valuable contributions and support of the following individuals in the development of this work: Abdirahman Mahamoud, Abdu Seid Hassen, Abdikadar Shukri, Aklilu Busawa, Alem Abraha, Ayansa Waqijira, Birrneh Tesfaye, Chane Gebeyhu, Demelash Ayechile, Dinke Keneni, Dr. Bashir Ahmed Mehamed, Dr. Berhanu Alemayehu, Dr. Eskendir Kedir, Dr. Issa Abdujebar, Dr. Kasaye Berhe, Dr. Misganaw Mulugeta, Dr. Pilual Nyoch, Dr. Seid Ahmed, Fasil Weretaw, Gebeyehu Belachew, Gizachew Tazeb, Girma Mulugeta, Hagi Mohammed, Hailu Yirga, Hamedu Ali Hamedu, Jemal Ahmed, Mamo Gobena, Mequanint Damtie, Mesfin Mokonen, Mohammed Abdi Oumer, Mohamud Abdulahi Mohammed, Mulugeta Asefa, Musa Kedir, Mussa Alewi, Omod Okongo, Sultan Hussien, Tesfaye G/maryam, Tilahun Mekonen and Zarihun Janje. In Kenya, Mohammed Yahya Said, Yasin Getahun, Irene Nganga, Blaise Okinyi, Frederick Aloo, Shem Kifugo, Julius Muyizzi and Fiona Flintan led the mapping process, with key facilitation and coordination support from Beth Njoroge and communications support from Polycarp Onyango. We extend our deepest gratitude to all those whose expertise, time and commitment greatly enriched the development of this work. In particular, we acknowledge the valuable contributions of the following individuals: Abdinoor I. Musa, Abraham Kiptanui, Amos Lekukuu, Anthony Gichuki, Benard Ouma, Benard Wanjohi, Bobby Ekadon, Caroline Misiko, Charles Ogechi, Damaris Amolo, David Mukabane, David Musyoki, Dickson Okello Chaulo, Edward Lentoror, Edward Ondigi, Eric Ahenda, Eric Mwatuni, Evans Kiplagat, Evans Mwiti Mathiu, Haret Hambe, Harisson Were, Henry Anjila, Henry Dundo, Henry Odanga, Hussein Madey, Jamin Kipkogei, James Kimathi, Jane Njuguna, John Eipa, John Kolei, Joseph Kilonzo, Joseph Musyoka, Josephat Maluki, Justus Gicovi, Kennedy Osoro, Kenneth Ochola, Margaret Ndumia, Martin Oyindo, Mary Situma, Michael Cheruiyot, Nzioka Wambua, Patrick Mweni, Peter Mwangi Mwai, Peter Ogutu, Peter Tache Golicha, Richard Bundotich, Robert Wakoli, Samuel Ndao, Stephen Musyoka, Teresia Ndung’u, Vincent Muohi, Virginia Ngunjiri and William Bore. sparc-knowledge.org 3 CONTENTS Executive summary� 8 Challenges� 8 Policy recommendations� 9 In conclusion� 9 1. Introduction� 10 2. Mapping livestock routes in Ethiopia and Kenya� 12 2.1 Rationale and limitations of the study� 12 2.2 Mapping methodology and process� 12 3. The livestock route maps� 22 3.1 Ethiopia routes, markets and supporting infrastructure� 22 3.2 Kenyan routes, markets and supporting infrastructure� 28 4. Pastoralist mobility at the local level: challenges and responses� 34 4.1 Context� 35 4.2 Challenges� 35 4.3 Community responses to challenges� 36 4.4 Conclusion� 37 4.5 Recommendations� 38 5. Overall conclusion� 39 5.1 Status of livestock routes’ functionality� 39 5.2 Mobility challenges� 39 5.3 Community responses� 39 6. Policy recommendations� 41 References� 43 SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises4 Annex 1: List of facilitators and participants� 44 Annex 2: Summaries of case studies� 50 Case study 1: Prosopis juliflora invasion in Afar region, Ethiopia� 50 Case study 2: Mobility blockages for pastoralists from Fentale district, Oromia Region, Ethiopia� 52 Case study 3: Limitations to mobility, Eldas Constituency, Wajir County, Kenya� 54 Case study 4: Livestock and mobility in Makueni County, Kenya� 56 sparc-knowledge.org 5 Table 1.  Teams divided by clusters of counties� 15 Table 2.  Summary of mapping attributes� 16 Figure 1.  Cycle of mapping process leading to Livestock Information Systems� 13 Figure 2.  Scanned image of a map tile showing all features coded by the regional mapping team� 18 Figure 3.  Distribution of major livestock routes across Ethiopia as identified by participants in the workshop� 25 Figure 4.  Distribution of major livestock markets across Ethiopia� 26 Figure 5.  Map showing the distribution of livestock infrastructure across Ethiopia� 27 Figure 6.  Major livestock routes across Kenya� 31 Figure 7.  Distribution of livestock markets across Kenya� 32 Figure 8.  Distribution of livestock infrastructure across Kenya� 33 FIGURES AND TABLES SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises6 ACRONYMS ASAL arid and semi-arid lands FGD focus group discussion ICPALD IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development IGAD Intergovernmental Agency for Development KII key informant interview LIS livestock information system MILL Ministry of Irrigation and Lowland sparc-knowledge.org 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pastoral communities of the Horn of Africa depend heavily on livestock mobility: it is the cornerstone of their livelihoods, culture and resilience, particularly in Kenya and Ethiopia. Mobility allows herders access to dispersed grazing lands and water resources across variable climates, thereby sustaining people and ecosystems. This adaptive system is under increasing strain due to land fragmentation, policy restrictions and environmental degradation, which collectively undermine the sustainability of pastoralist livelihoods and the sociocultural fabric of their communities. Pastoralism provides sustenance and income to millions of people, contributes significantly to national GDP and supports food security in the region. Mobile livestock production ensures the flow of animals and trade across borders. However, various pressures including land privatisation, intensive agriculture expansion, the spread of invasive species, urban encroachment and climate change have severely restricted the access pastoralists have to critical grazing areas, routes, and watering points. These constraints disrupt the ecological balance of rangelands and erode social institutions and indigenous knowledge systems that historically managed mobility and resource sharing. Challenges � Land use conflicts: the transformation of communal rangelands into private agricultural holdings has led to increased competition between pastoralists and farmers. This often results in conflicts over land use, undermining traditional grazing routes and diminishing available resources. � Environmental degradation: the encroachment of invasive species, such as Prosopis juliflora, coupled with climate variability, has contributed to the depletion of biodiversity and the degradation of important grazing lands. This compromises livestock health and productivity. � Weakened governance structures: the erosion of traditional governance systems has exacerbated conflicts and complicated resource management. The lack of effective institutions to mediate disputes and manage resources has left pastoral communities vulnerable. � Inadequate infrastructure: poor infrastructure for transport, veterinary services and water supply has hindered pastoralists’ ability to market livestock effectively and maintain livestock health. � Gender dynamics: pastoral women often lack equal access to resources and decision- making processes. This constrains their ability to contribute to community resilience and economic stability. SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises8 Policy recommendations � Provide legal recognition of livestock routes. Governments must establish or strengthen existing legal frameworks that formally recognise and protect traditional livestock routes essential for pastoral mobility. Legal protection is crucial for shielding these vital pathways from encroachment by agriculture and urban development. � Establish livestock information systems. Developing comprehensive national livestock information systems is essential for monitoring livestock routes, resource availability and seasonal mobility patterns. These systems would enhance decision-making related to land use and facilitate better coordination among stakeholders across national borders. � Support participatory mapping initiatives. Facilitating participatory mapping exercises involving pastoral communities will generate up-to-date knowledge of land use patterns. This local knowledge should inform planning and conflict resolution efforts, ensuring that community needs are prioritised. � Invest in infrastructure. Targeted investment in essential infrastructure, such as water points, veterinary clinics and livestock markets, will help improve the health and productivity of livestock while enhancing pastoralists’ ability to access markets. � Strengthen community-based governance. Policies should aim to empower traditional governance systems to ensure sustainable resource management within communities. Strengthening local institutions facilitates efficient conflict resolution and equitable resource sharing. � Support cross-sectoral collaboration. Establish mechanisms that foster collaboration among government sectors (agriculture, environment, livestock, and land use) to ensure cohesive policies. � Promote gender inclusivity. Policies that advance gender equality in resource management and decision-making processes are crucial. Empowering women in pastoral communities enhances resilience and supports sustainable livelihoods. � Harmonise regional policy. Encourage the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) to take a more active role in harmonising policies across member states to support transboundary pastoral mobility. Coordinated efforts mitigate disputes and facilitate livestock movement across borders. In conclusion The resilience of pastoral communities in the Horn of Africa depends on addressing the multifaceted challenges they face. Effective and coordinated policy responses are vital for protecting pastoral mobility, promoting sustainable land use and supporting the cultural identity of these communities. By recognising traditional livestock corridors and implementing policies that bolster their rights, governments can help ensure a sustainable future for pastoralism in the region. The path forward will require collaboration among local communities, national governments, regional bodies and international partners. By prioritising the integration of traditional practices with contemporary governance and resource management strategies, stakeholders can create a supportive environment for pastoralists, ultimately benefiting food security and regional stability. sparc-knowledge.org 9 1. INTRODUCTION Pastoralism is a crucial economic activity in the Intergovernmental Agency for Development (IGAD) region, supporting national GDPs, food security and the livelihoods of millions (ICPALD, 2020b; ICPALD, 2018). To enable pastoralists to effectively use drylands, pastoralists with their livestock need to be able to move across a rangeland of patchily distributed resources, highly influenced by low, variable and comparatively unpredictable rainfall (Scoones, 2024). This includes being able to access the best grazing available at different times of the year, including dry season grazing areas found along rivers or where there is a permanent water source. These ‘key sites’ not only provide critical grazing when grass and browse elsewhere have been depleted, but also are part of strategies to allow the resting of wet season grazing areas and to kill off livestock parasites. Access to these sites is also important for animal husbandry. Additionally, movement is vital for trade and accessing markets, including across country borders. These routes have also been important for building closer economic ties in the region; their use has social and political benefits, allowing herders to adapt to new economic and social challenges and opportunities (Little, 2007; Aklilu, 2008). The cross-border clan relationships that have underpinned trade in the past are increasingly giving way to multiple- clan business enterprises that are based on complex market arrangements and channels. These involve extensive networks of people and help build trust and integration. However, as these traditional and emerging mobility and trade systems evolve, they face the ongoing challenge of land and resource tenure insecurity. Land and resource tenure security in Horn of Africa pastoral areas is weak (Robinson and Flintan, 2022; Flintan et al., 2021). This has contributed to the encroachment of rangelands and allocation of land to non-pastoral uses, which have proceeded at an alarming rate over the last decade (Davies and Moore, 2016; Nkedianye et al., 2019; Flintan et al., 2011). Livestock routes are blocked or are sources of conflict between pastoralists and other land users (Lesorogol and Lesorogol, 2024; Wachira et al., 2024). Land is leased to investors with little, if any, thought or provision for maintaining access to rivers and other water sources (Lind et al., 2020; Lind and Rogei, 2025). With increasing pressure on land and resources, conflicts between different land uses and land users are set to grow. Despite their critical value for local livelihoods and national economic growth in the Horn of Africa, livestock routes receive poor protection (Flintan et al., 2021). No policy or legislation focuses specifically on livestock routes. Livestock routes and their use are poorly documented and detailed maps are either out of date or non-existent. The servicing of routes (including resting places for feed, water and shade) relies on haphazardly planned and implemented local initiatives that are inconsistent and often inadequate. Veterinary posts, if they exist at all, are poorly resourced. As a result, the health and safety of livestock and livestock herders using these routes are at risk, and it is often the case that livestock arrive at their destination in much poorer condition than when they set out, resulting in lower prices and sales. Recognising these challenges and the growing importance of pastoral mobility for regional trade and integration, regional bodies have begun to take steps to improve the governance and coordination of livestock movement. In 2020, the IGAD, or more specifically, the IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (ICPALD) in the Horn of Africa launched the Protocol on Transhumance (ICPALD, 2020a). Through the protocol, IGAD seeks to support SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises10 livestock development through secured and well governed livestock mobility. The purpose of this protocol is to exploit the full social and economic potential of the pastoral system by: � allowing free, safe and orderly cross-border mobility of transhumant livestock and herders in search of pasture and water as an adaptation mechanism in response to climate change and weather variability within the IGAD region � committing member states to invest adequate resources in pastoral regions and in competent institutions managing transhumance � the harmonisation of national laws and policies related to livestock and pastoral development, land use and governance, disease control and cross-border measures. Well-serviced and safe livestock corridors that facilitate movement are the key to the implementation of this protocol. As Article 4 states: The IGAD Secretariat shall coordinate and support member states, with the involvement of respective communities, to identify and map the existing and new stock routes and resources therein and to designate them as ‘transhumance corridors’ through which transhumant livestock and herders may traverse. Additionally, meat and dairy consumption is growing throughout the region and the prospect of both rapid urban population growth and rising incomes suggest that demand will continue to grow significantly. With land pressures increasing, and farmers and herders increasingly operating in the same food production space, there is an urgent need to strengthen protection for livestock corridors and supporting services, to facilitate the necessary movements of livestock and pastoralists while preventing land use conflicts. As the IGAD Transhumance Protocol moves to implementation there arises an important opportunity to support this process, working with member states to develop national maps of livestock routes, determining the status of those routes, conducting research on where route blockages or conflicts are occurring, and making recommendations to member states and IGAD for improvements. In response, SPARC carried out a comprehensive mapping and documentation of livestock route maps in Kenya and Ethiopia to inform resource planning and ensure up-to-date route information. The first and crucial step was to map existing resources – specifically, livestock routes – in a standardised way. This included information on supporting infrastructure and on where routes were blocked or no longer functioning. Information collected will contribute to a database and information system that multiple organisations can use to manage and develop the livestock sector effectively. Following the mapping, the identification of infrastructure and the status of route functionality, local studies were carried out with pastoralist communities to understand why routes are being blocked in four locations. Though the contexts were somewhat different, the responses to those challenges were remarkably similar, highlighting clear intervention points. This technical report provides a summary of the project outputs, including the national mapping process and maps produced in Ethiopia and Kenya and a summary of the pastoralist community case studies. The report concludes with recommendations for policymakers and regional bodies, including IGAD. sparc-knowledge.org 11 2. MAPPING LIVESTOCK ROUTES IN ETHIOPIA AND KENYA 2.1 Rationale and limitations of the study The aim was to produce ‘first-cut’ national maps of major livestock routes which would serve as a starting point for later, more detailed, mapping, validation and data collection. The mapping was done across Kenya and Ethiopia to capture all major routes with particular attention to pastoral areas where mobility is of particular importance. Some routes follow main roads in some locations, where livestock transport shifts to movement by truck rather than walking. Where information was available, grazing reserves and water points were also mapped. Additional livestock infrastructure was also documented (e.g. veterinary posts, livestock loading facilities, quarantine centres and dipping tanks). The maps and supporting information provided here is drawn from the knowledge and data provided by government livestock experts from counties in Kenya and regions in Ethiopia. The process of data collection is described below. Following mapping meetings, gap filling and validation were carried out through follow-up conversations with the same livestock experts and their offices. The data collected is being provided to the national governments to establish databases on livestock routes and supporting infrastructure and can continue to be populated over time. It was not within the scope of this initiative to map routes at lower levels with greater detail; follow-up projects are encouraged to do this. 2.2 Mapping methodology and process The mapping process in both countries started off with introductory meetings with representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture in Ethiopia and the State Department of Livestock, Ministry of Agriculture in Kenya, to reach agreement on the importance of the mapping initiative and garner support for the process. This was followed by preparation for and then actualisation of an intensive mapping process, including three-day workshops that brought together government technical experts and other stakeholders to produce a first version of each national route map. In Ethiopia, the mapping workshop took place in Adama between 26 and 28 February 2025, and, in Kenya, in Nairobi between 27 and 29 May 2025. Mapping livestock routes in both countries followed a structured process to ensure as much accuracy, consistency and broad stakeholder participation as possible (see Annex 1). The initiative began with the acquisition and preparation of baseline topographic maps, which formed the foundation for all subsequent activities. A total of 24 topographic maps in Kenya and 31 in Ethiopia at a scale of 1:250,000 were purchased to cover each country. After map preparation, the process advanced through nine steps (Figure 1), beginning with the establishment of mapping teams. These teams were tasked with systematic data collection, field validation and ensuring the integrity of mapped features. Key mapping attributes included livestock routes, water points, grazing reserves and market access corridors, with geospatial parameters clearly defined for consistency. SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises12 Direct engagement with livestock specialists was central to the exercise. Local knowledge was used to refine mapped features. At the same time, follow-up stakeholder consultations helped validate results, resolve discrepancies and ensure the maps reflected realistic and usable livestock mobility patterns across the two countries. Figure 1.  CYCLE OF MAPPING PROCESS LEADING TO LIVESTOCK INFORMATION SYSTEMS Note: this structured approach provides a replicable model for livestock route mapping in similar contexts. Source: International Livestock Research Institute. Once verified, the data was digitised and compiled into a series of digital map products. These will be stored in a livestock information system (LIS), a centralised platform designed to support regional planning, monitor livestock movement, inform policy decisions and enhance the resilience of pastoralist and agro-pastoralist communities. The LIS will be maintained in relevant ministries. Acquisition of maps Mapping teams Mapping Developing digital maps Defining map attributes Finalising mapping Feedback and consultation Map products Livestock information systems sparc-knowledge.org 13 Step 1: acquisition of maps The first step involved acquiring up-to-date topographic maps to serve as the base layer for all subsequent data collection and mapping activities. After evaluating several options, the team selected high-resolution base maps and printed them from services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/ rest/services/World_Topo_Map/MapServer. This offered reliable and current topographic information suitable for national planning. Given the wide geographic scope of the initiative, a scale of 1:250,000 was chosen. This scale provides an optimal balance between spatial detail and national coverage, making it ideal for identifying the main features of interest. The maps were printed, with additional copies as needed to ensure complete and seamless coverage of all areas. Step 2: mapping teams The success of the mapping exercise hinged on the strategic selection and composition of the mapping teams. These teams were tasked with the systematic mapping of livestock routes across the two countries to ensure comprehensive national coverage and the production of accurate, credible outputs. In Ethiopia, the workshop brought together 41 participants from seven regions or clusters of regions covering the whole country, each working as a team. Participants included: � animal health and veterinary officers from South West Ethiopia, Gambela, Benishangul- Gumuz, Harari, Tigray, Somali, South Ethiopia, Amhara, Oromia and the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) � livestock production and animal science specialists from Afar, Somali, Oromia, Central Ethiopia, Amhara, Benishangul-Gumuz and Gambela � GIS and remote sensing experts from Afar, South West Ethiopia and Somali � marketing and agricultural economics professionals from Tigray and Somali � rural development officers from Afar and Oromia � policy and planning representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Irrigation and Lowland (MILL). In Ethiopia, the mapping built on broader mapping processes already conducted by MILL as part of the Lowlands Livelihoods and Resilience Project and other projects such as One Health Units of Human, Environment, Animals and Livelihoods (see Getahun, 2024). In Kenya, the activity brought together 66 participants from all 47 counties, representing a diverse and experienced team of professionals in livestock production, veterinary services and range management. The majority were county directors of livestock production, deputy and assistant directors, veterinary officers and senior livestock production officers. The mapping exercise was organised through seven regional teams, each assigned specific counties to ensure comprehensive coverage. SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises14 https://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/World_Topo_Map/MapServer https://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/World_Topo_Map/MapServer Table 1.  TEAMS DIVIDED BY CLUSTERS OF COUNTIES Team Counties covered Team 1 Baringo, Elgeyo-Marakwet, Laikipia, Samburu, Trans-Nzoia, Turkana, Uasin Gishu and West Pokot Team 2 Garissa, Isiolo, Mandera, Marsabit and Wajir Team 3 Western region, including Bomet, Bungoma, Busia, Homa Bay, Kakamega, Kericho, Kisii, Kisumu, Migori, Nandi, Nyamira, Siaya and Vihiga Team 4 Central and parts of eastern Kenya, covering Embu, Kiambu, Kirinyaga, Meru, Muranga, Nakuru, Nyandarua, Nyeri and Tharaka-Nithi Team 5 Kitui, Machakos and Makueni counties Team 6 Coastal region, including Kilifi, Kwale, Lamu, Mombasa, Taita Taveta and Tana River Team 7 Kajiado, Nairobi and Narok Source: Authors’ own. The teams’ expertise was instrumental in supporting the mapping of livestock routes across the country. Drawing from their in-depth knowledge of local livestock movement patterns, grazing zones, animal health challenges and cross-border dynamics, the participants provided critical insights and ground-truth data. Their involvement ensured that the mapping process was both technically sound and contextually relevant, aligning with county realities and national objectives. The collaborative effort laid a strong foundation for the development of formalised and sustainable livestock routes to enhance mobility, market access and resource management across the two countries. Step 3: defining the map attributes A critical step in the process was defining key map attributes in order to guide data collection, standardise outputs and ensure consistency across regions. The attributes were selected on the basis of their relevance to pastoral mobility, livestock management and rangeland use. Core features included primary and secondary livestock routes, seasonal migration paths, watering points, grazing areas, resting points, markets and crossing points, such as rivers and roads. Additional socioeconomic and infrastructure-related features, such as veterinary service locations, conflict hotspots and enclosure areas, were also considered based on the regional context. The attribute framework was developed collaboratively by technical experts, drawing from national guidelines, field experience and stakeholder consultations. Table 2 outlines the items mapped. These represent the core features essential to understanding and managing livestock mobility across Ethiopia and Kenya. Each feature was further classified to capture functional status and use. Livestock routes were categorised according to their importance and functionality (e.g. major functional, seasonal or non-functional), while markets were classified by hierarchy and operational status, including primary, secondary and border markets. Water points included boreholes, dams, salt licks and wells, which are vital for livestock hydration. Infrastructure covered facilities such as animal health centres, dip tanks, checkpoints and slaughterhouses. sparc-knowledge.org 15 Table 2.  SUMMARY OF MAPPING ATTRIBUTES Main feature Class Livestock routes Major functional Minor functional Major functional seasonal Minor non-functional Major non-functional Markets Primary Primary/non-functional Secondary Non-functional Primary/secondary Border Water points Borehole Salt licks Dam/pond Well Infrastructure Animal health centre, clinic, laboratory Loading and off-loading facility Check point Night camp Dip tank Quarantine facility Holding ground Slaughterhouse Pasture area Shared Shared and conflict pastures Conflict Source: International Livestock Research Institute. Step 4: mapping Capacity building and skills development The mapping exercise was designed not only as a data collection effort but also as a practical, hands-on learning experience for participants. As part of the process, participants were equipped with essential skills in map reading, mapping techniques, standardised coding of geographic features and effective notetaking. These skills were developed during the mapping exercise itself, allowing participants to immediately apply what they learned in real-time mapping conditions. Emphasis was placed on accurately interpreting topographic maps at a 1:250,000 scale, identifying key features such as livestock routes, water points and grazing areas. Training on coding geographic objects ensured that all teams used a consistent framework for data classification, which improved the reliability and comparability of results across regions. Documentation practices were also strengthened, enabling teams to capture both spatial and contextual information effectively. This integrated approach to skill development enhanced the accuracy, consistency and credibility of the data collected, while also contributing to institutional capacity building for future livestock and rangeland monitoring efforts. Participatory mapping process The mapping was designed as a participatory and collaborative process between government experts, engaging their regional teams in hands-on data collection and map interpretation. The first step involved sorting and assembling the topographic map sheets specific to each region. Once the relevant maps were prepared, they were distributed to the respective teams, who began the mapping work simultaneously. SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises16 Each team was composed of diverse experts and local representatives and was tasked with identifying and marking key features directly onto the printed maps. To ensure coordination and accountability, each team appointed a team leader, a notetaker and a designated ‘mapper’ responsible for marking features on the maps. These roles were crucial in managing group discussions, recording local knowledge and maintaining the accuracy of the mapped information. The participatory mapping process spanned three full days. Each day focused on a different mapping theme, such as livestock routes, water points, infrastructure and grazing areas, with at least half a day dedicated to each thematic layer. This allowed adequate time for discussions, verification and consensus building within each team. On the final day, all sub-teams met to review and consolidate their outputs to ensure that mapped features were seamlessly aligned across administrative boundaries, avoiding overlaps or gaps. This was achieved by creating a mosaic of all regional maps into a single, harmonised national map and dataset. The participatory approach strengthened the technical accuracy and local relevance of the mapping and promoted ownership and shared understanding among stakeholders involved. The photos in this report provide a visual summary of the participatory mapping process, capturing key moments. An integral component of the mapping process involved scanning and digitising all annotated regional maps. Each hardcopy map, containing both coded features and accompanying field notes, was scanned at a high resolution and saved in TIFF format to preserve detail and ensure compatibility with GIS software. Prior to digitisation, each scanned map was georeferenced using map coordinates to accurately align it within the national spatial framework. Digitisation was then performed by extracting and encoding spatial features according to a predefined classification scheme, developed in alignment with the structure and requirements of the central livestock route database. This ensured consistency between the spatial data and the recorded attributes. Figure 2 is an example of a scanned and georeferenced map used in the digitisation process. Part of the mapping involves scanning all the maps and digitising the work, aligning what was coded in the map and what was written. All the maps were scanned and saved as TIFF files and each map was registered using the map coordinates before digitising. The coding was based on the scheme of the database designer. Figure 2 shows the scanned image. Mr. Blaise Okinyi Akite, Assistant Director of Livestock Production, State Department of Livestock, Kenya officially opening the workshop on Mapping Livestock Routes in Kenya, 27 May 2025. © International Livestock Research Institute sparc-knowledge.org 17 Figure 2.  SCANNED IMAGE OF A MAP TILE SHOWING ALL FEATURES CODED BY THE REGIONAL MAPPING TEAM Source: International Livestock Research Institute. Coding the maps using symbols of different colours. © International Livestock Research Institute SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises18 Step 5: feedback and consultation Feedback and consultation were critical components of the mapping process, ensuring that the outputs were technically sound and validated by the stakeholders involved in the mapping process. Throughout the exercise, teams engaged in regular discussions and reviews, both within their regional groups and during the final consolidation phase. Additionally, inputs were gathered from field experts, local authorities and technical personnel who contributed valuable insights on the functionality and accuracy of mapped features such as routes, water points and grazing areas. This feedback loop helped refine the classification of features, resolve discrepancies across administrative boundaries and enhance the reliability of the final maps. The consultative approach strengthened stakeholder (particularly government) ownership of the data and increased the relevance of the outputs for planning and decision-making at both regional and national levels. Step 6: finalising the maps This step brought together the outputs from all regional teams into a cohesive national map dataset. This involved a thorough review, verification and harmonisation of the mapped features in discussions with the livestock experts through email or phone to ensure consistency, completeness and spatial accuracy across regional boundaries. All scanned and digitised maps were cross-checked against field notes and standardised coding schemes to correct any discrepancies and align with the national database structure. Key features such as livestock routes, water points, markets, infrastructure and grazing areas were systematically validated and integrated into a unified digital map. The final output represents a comprehensive, accurate and user-informed representation of the livestock mobility network in both countries, ready for use in decision-making, policy planning and further analysis within a livestock information system. Step 7: developing digital maps Following the finalisation and verification of the mapped features, the next phase focused on the development of high-quality digital maps. Using GIS software, the digitised data from all regions were compiled and integrated into a single geospatial database. Each mapped feature was digitised according to the established classification scheme, with standardised attribute tables ensuring consistency and usability. Spatial editing and topology checks were conducted to eliminate overlaps, gaps and other geometric errors. Legends were added to the maps to enhance readability and interpretation. Teams in Ethiopia assembling maps for their regions. © International Livestock Research Institute sparc-knowledge.org 19 Step 8: map products and major outputs of the mapping exercise The major outputs of the mapping exercise consist of six thematic maps, each representing a critical element of the countries’ livestock mobility and rangeland management systems. These six maps cover: � livestock routes � livestock markets � infrastructure � water resources � pasture areas � all five themes combined in an integrated map. Each map provides spatial insights into the distribution, functionality and connectivity of livestock-related features across the country. The final maps are still being completed and will be presented in country reports. Below, we provide examples of the maps produced to date. Additionally, a geospatial dataset of major functional seasonal livestock routes across the two countries was produced. It captures critical attributes, such as the origin and destination of each route, the complete travel path and the underlying reasons for livestock movement ranging from seasonal grazing to market access or, in some cases, informal or illegal trade. Each route entry is enriched with metadata, including classification, total length and data source. The full data will be consolidated in forthcoming country reports. Step 9: developing livestock information systems A livestock information system (LIS) is a structured framework for collecting, storing, analysing and disseminating data related to livestock production, health, movements and marketing. It integrates various types of information, such as animal identification, breeding records, disease surveillance, vaccination history, feed resources and pasture conditions, to support evidence-based decision-making by farmers, veterinarians, policy-makers and researchers. By enabling real-time monitoring and efficient data sharing across stakeholders, a livestock information system will enhance livestock management, improve traceability and food safety, support early warning systems for disease outbreaks and contribute to sustainable agricultural Mapping participants in Kenya. © Polycarp Onyango/ILRI SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises20 development. In regions where pastoralism and agro-pastoralism are prevalent, such systems are especially critical for managing mobility, resource access and responding to climate and market variability. It has been recommended to both the Ethiopia and Kenya Ministries of Agriculture that they establish a LIS using the data produced by this mapping process. For this to happen, the following actions are recommended: � Mobilise long-term funding commitments to enable the consistent acquisition, processing and updating of base maps and livestock movement data. Budget allocations should support both analogue and digital components of the mapping process. � Form regional or county-based mapping teams within national livestock and land-use agencies composed of GIS specialists, livestock officers, local community representatives and ICT technicians. Cross-sectoral expertise improves data richness and integration. � Develop a national policy or guideline to define the minimum required spatial attributes (e.g. route type, usage frequency, seasonal variation) to enable interoperability across districts, systems and planning sectors. � Mapping outputs should be subject to structured feedback loops with communities and end users before finalisation. Legislation or technical protocols should require consultation steps to validate the accuracy and cultural relevance of mapped information. � Mandate public agencies to convert paper maps into digital formats and store them in centralised livestock information platforms. Policies should promote open data access while protecting sensitive community data. � Integrate livestock mobility maps and derived products into broader infrastructure, health, land-use and climate resilience planning frameworks. This increases their relevance and impact across government functions. � Develop interoperable systems, where digital maps feed directly into the LIS, to link with agriculture, climate and emergency response systems for real-time decision support. � Harmonise livestock mobility policies with environmental protection, land tenure and rangeland governance frameworks to reduce conflict and ensure sustainable use of communal grazing corridors and water points. Mapping participants in Ethiopia. © Bedasa Eba sparc-knowledge.org 21 3. THE LIVESTOCK ROUTE MAPS 3.1 Ethiopia routes, markets and supporting infrastructure Ethiopia livestock routes It was noted by livestock experts, particularly in Afar and Somali regions, that if the mapping was done at a lower level and with more detail, many more non-functional routes would be identified. The blockage of routes is becoming a critical problem that demands an immediate response if pastoralism production is to be optimised and continue contributing to food and livelihood security. The distribution of livestock routes across Ethiopia’s regions reflects a wide range of functionality and seasonal usage, totalling 330 routes. The Oromia region ranks first with 119 routes, predominantly minor functional (89), indicating well-used but less developed paths. Somali Region ranks second with 94 routes, mainly major functional (26) and major functional seasonal (20), reflecting the region’s strong reliance on pastoral mobility. South Ethiopia regions rank third with 46 routes, with a notable share of minor functional (23) and major functional seasonal (6). Afar ranks fourth with 24 routes, of which 23 are major functional seasonal, underscoring strong seasonal movement patterns. Amhara ranks fifth with 22 routes, split almost evenly between major functional (10) and minor functional (10). Gambela follows closely, also with 22 routes, but more diversified across categories, including major functional seasonal (10) and major non-functional (4). Benishangul-Gumuz ranks seventh with 12 routes, with major functional (4) and minor functional (4). South West Ethiopia ranks eighth with 12 routes, showing notable major functional (7) and major functional seasonal (5). Sidama ranks ninth with 19 routes, dominated by minor functional (13). Central Ethiopia ranks tenth with 13 routes, while Tigray ranks eleventh with only 6 routes. Among city administrations, Dire Dawa (four routes), Harari (four routes) and Addis Ababa (three routes) contribute a limited share to the overall network. Overall, the data highlights a diverse but uneven distribution of routes across Ethiopia, with Oromia and Somali together accounting for more than 64% of all routes, underscoring their central role in livestock mobility (Figure 3). The distribution of livestock routes across Ethiopia, measured in kilometres and categorised by functionality and region, highlights considerable diversity in extent and utility. The total mapped network measures 25,504 km, with the majority composed of major functional (12,863 km) and minor functional (6,263 km) routes, underscoring the importance of both long-distance corridors and local connections in livestock mobility. Oromia has the most extensive network (7,383 km), dominated by minor functional routes (4,536 km) complemented by major functional routes (2,061 km) and 716 km of seasonal corridors, emphasising its central role in livestock movement, trade and connectivity. The Somali region (4,839 km) follows, with a balance of major functional (2,644 km) and SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises22 seasonal routes (2,140 km), consistent with its predominantly pastoral systems. Amhara (2,992 km) and Afar (1,714 km) also maintain significant networks, with Amhara showing a mix of major (2,291 km) and minor functional (601 km) routes, while Afar is notable for its reliance on major seasonal corridors (1,507 km) supporting transhumant and migratory grazing patterns. Smaller but important networks are evident in Sidama (1,426 km), South Ethiopia (1,213 km), Gambela (1,113 km) and Benishangul-Gumuz (958 km), each combining functional and seasonal pathways. In Gambela, however, 288 km of major routes and 25 km of minor routes are classified as non-functional, reflecting abandonment or obstruction due to factors such as land conversion, insecurity or infrastructure development. Similarly, Oromia has 70 km of non- functional major routes, adding to the national total of 382 km of disused corridors (357 km major, 25 km minor). Smaller administrative regions also play a role: Addis Ababa (570 km), Harari (552 km), Central Ethiopia (828 km), South West Ethiopia (785 km), Dire Dawa (428 km) and Tigray (703 km), though limited in extent, provide vital localised connections for livestock movements. Excluding the non-functional segments, the cumulative useful length of Ethiopia’s livestock routes is 25,122 km, forming a critical backbone for pastoral and agro-pastoral livelihoods, facilitating market access and supporting sustainable rangeland and land use planning. Ethiopian markets During the mapping process, 499 livestock markets were mapped and categorised by functionality and type. This covers larger markets and is not exhaustive, missing smaller but no less important informal markets. It is recommended that further mapping and details at lower levels be added in time. Most mapped markets are classified as primary markets (318 in total), underscoring their central role in Ethiopia’s livestock economy, with 181 secondary markets. Oromia dominates with 238 markets, including 180 primary and 53 secondary markets, alongside 4 border markets, reflecting its leading position in national livestock trade (Figure 4). Amhara follows with 64 markets, consisting of 49 primary and 14 secondary markets, with an additional primary/non-functional facility, while South Ethiopia (38 markets) combines 9 primary markets, 10 primary/non-functional facilities and 19 secondary markets, highlighting a mix of active and partly functional infrastructure. Somali Region (50 markets) is characterised by 14 primary markets and a relatively high number of 33 secondary markets, showing the importance of localised and cross-border trade links, despite 3 non-functional facilities. Other regions report smaller totals: Afar has 19 markets (13 primary and 6 secondary); Tigray 21, with 10 primary and 8 secondary markets; and South West Ethiopia 22, which includes 11 primary, 5 primary/secondary and 3 secondary markets. Benishangul-Gumuz (14) stands out for its 3 border markets and 3 primary/border markets, highlighting its role in cross-border exchanges. Gambela (22) has a mix of 8 primary, 2 secondary and a notably high 5 non-functional markets, suggesting infrastructure gaps. Notably, 13 border markets across several regions facilitate cross-border livestock flows, while 10 non-functional markets and 3 primary/non-functional sites signal areas in need of revitalisation. Some markets were also noted in the administrative zones of Addis Ababa, Dire Dawa and Harari, but were not sufficiently captured and need further data collection. Overall, the data highlights the dominance of Oromia and Amhara in livestock trade infrastructure, the important role of secondary markets in Somali and South Ethiopia and the strategic value of border markets in Benishangul-Gumuz, Gambela and Tigray. At the same sparc-knowledge.org 23 time, the persistence of non-functional markets underscores the need for targeted investment to restore or upgrade key facilities, particularly in regions where pastoralism and cross-border trade are critical for livelihoods. Ethiopian livestock infrastructure In total, 401 livestock infrastructures or facilities were categorised by region and type. The Oromia mapping team identified 97 facilities, reflecting the most diversified livestock service infrastructure. The team recorded the highest number of animal health clinics (19), a strong network of checkpoints (23) and a significant number of slaughterhouses (31), underscoring its central role in livestock health, trade and meat processing (Figure 5). South Ethiopia Region follows with 42 facilities, dominated by animal health centres (31) and slaughterhouses (11), pointing to substantial veterinary service coverage. South West Ethiopia Region (37) and Benishangul-Gumuz (36) also have robust livestock infrastructure, with the latter notable for its concentration of checkpoints (8) and night camps (8), along with animal health centres. Somali Region (65 facilities) ranks third overall, with a distinctive mix of checkpoints (17), dip tanks (9) and loading/off-loading facilities (11), combined with 9 night camps and 2 quarantine facilities, reflecting the region’s pastoral mobility and cross-border trade dynamics. Afar (27 facilities) and Amhara (26) show moderate but diverse infrastructure, with Afar standing out for its relatively high number of animal health centres (17) and Amhara for a mix of animal health centres (17), loading/off-loading facilities (4) and slaughterhouses (2). Tigray (15 facilities), Sidama (18) and Central Ethiopia (26). Gambela (9 facilities) records the lowest presence of livestock facilities, suggesting significant gaps in service provision despite the region’s pastoral and agro-pastoral systems. Some infrastructure was also noted in the administrative zones of Addis Ababa, Dire Dawa and Harari, but was not sufficiently captured; further data collection is needed. Overall, the data highlights the uneven distribution of livestock support infrastructure across Ethiopia, with Oromia, Somali and Southern regions hosting the bulk of facilities, while pastoralist-dominated regions like Afar and Gambela remain underserved. These disparities underscore the need for region-specific investments in veterinary, transport and trade-related infrastructure to strengthen livestock production and pastoral livelihoods, particularly in marginalised regions. SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises24 Figure 3.  DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR LIVESTOCK ROUTES ACROSS ETHIOPIA AS IDENTIFIED BY PARTICIPANTS IN THE WORKSHOP Note: This is a high-level mapping. Lower-level mapping would reveal many more routes. Source: International Livestock Research Institute. sparc-knowledge.org 25 Figure 4.  DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR LIVESTOCK MARKETS ACROSS ETHIOPIA Note: This is a high-level mapping. Lower-level mapping would reveal many more routes. Source: International Livestock Research Institute. SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises26 Figure 5.  MAP SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF LIVESTOCK INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS ETHIOPIA Note: This is a high-level mapping. Lower-level mapping would reveal many more routes. Source: International Livestock Research Institute. sparc-knowledge.org 27 3.2 Kenyan routes, markets and supporting infrastructure Kenyan livestock routes Mapping livestock routes across counties in Kenya highlights the complexity of pastoral mobility and the varied conditions of movement corridors. In total, 31,598 km of routes were identified, and classified into major functional, major functional seasonal, major non-functional, minor functional and minor non-functional categories. These classifications reflect both the importance of routes in sustaining livestock mobility and the challenges associated with their functionality (Figure 6). Of the total mapped routes, 14,925 km (47%) were categorised as major functional routes, indicating corridors that are actively used and remain vital for the regular movement of livestock. Another 4,825 km (15%) were designated as major functional seasonal routes, highlighting the importance of seasonal mobility during dry or wet periods. Meanwhile, 3,424 km (11%) were classified as major non-functional, showing infrastructure or access challenges that limit their use. This represents a significant number of routes that are no longer accessible. Additionally, 8,186 km (26%) were identified as minor functional routes, which provide important more localised mobility options and require further local validation. Only 237 km (1%) were categorised as minor non-functional, representing corridors that have lost viability altogether. The counties with the most extensive livestock route networks are those in arid and semi- arid lands (ASALs), where pastoralism dominates. Turkana (3,083 km), Garissa (3,071 km), Marsabit (2,982 km), Isiolo (2,727 km), Wajir (2,511 km) and Mandera (2,185 km) together account for nearly half the national total. These counties are heavily dependent on these routes to facilitate seasonal migrations in search of pasture and water. Seasonal routes are particularly prominent in Turkana (1,647 km), Isiolo (792 km), Tana River (456 km) and Marsabit (433 km), reflecting the reliance on flexible grazing strategies tied to climatic variability. In contrast, counties in central and western Kenya, such as Bungoma, Kakamega, Kisumu, Kericho and Vihiga, recorded relatively smaller networks of routes. These counties are less reliant on large-scale mobility due to the dominance of mixed farming systems, though localised routes remain important for smallholder herders. Coastal counties such as Kilifi, Kwale and Lamu also have substantial route networks, pointing to the role livestock corridors play in linking coastal grazing areas with inland rangelands. Overall, the data illustrate that livestock mobility in Kenya is highly dependent on functional route networks, particularly in the ASAL counties. While a significant number of corridors remain operational, the presence of over 3,400 km of major non-functional routes indicates growing pressures from land fragmentation, infrastructure development and land use change. Addressing these challenges through route protection, rehabilitation and cross-county planning will be critical to safeguarding pastoral mobility and reducing conflict over resources. As such, it requires urgent attention. SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises28 Kenyan livestock markets Mapping livestock markets across counties in Kenya identified a total of 626 markets, distributed across primary, secondary, border and mixed-function categories. These markets form the backbone of livestock trade and mobility, linking producers to local, national and even cross-border value chains. Most markets, 388 in total, were classified as primary markets, underscoring their central role as the first points of sale where pastoralists and farmers bring animals for trade. In addition, 89 secondary markets were identified, along with a smaller but significant number of border (6) and non-functional (21) markets. Several markets were found to operate under multiple classifications, reflecting the fluid and overlapping nature of Kenya’s livestock marketing system (Figure 7). Counties with the highest concentrations of markets included Mandera (32), Turkana (30), Samburu (37), West Pokot (26), Kitui (29), Makueni (24) and Homa Bay (26). These areas demonstrate both the importance of livestock to local economies and the need for a dense network of markets to support pastoral and agro-pastoral communities. Counties such as Isiolo, Garissa, Marsabit and Wajir also have significant numbers of markets, many of which are strategically located along trade corridors that connect the arid and semi-arid counties to terminal markets in Nairobi, Mombasa and regional hubs. Notably, border markets in Turkana, West Pokot, Marsabit and Lamu highlight the role of cross-border trade with neighbouring Ethiopia, Uganda and Somalia. The mapping also revealed challenges in market functionality. Non-functional markets (21 in total) were spread across several counties, including Samburu, Kwale, Marsabit and Wajir, often reflecting issues such as insecurity, poor infrastructure, or lack of demand. Furthermore, 100 markets were classified as primary/secondary, while 12 were identified as primary/border and a few as secondary/border or primary/secondary/border, demonstrating how market roles can shift depending on seasonality, trade volumes and connectivity. These overlapping functions emphasise the dynamic nature of livestock trade in Kenya, where markets frequently adapt to meet shifting pastoralist needs and regional trade flows. Overall, the analysis highlights that Kenya’s livestock marketing system is both diverse and uneven. While counties in pastoral areas have dense networks of functional markets that sustain livelihoods and cross-county trade, other regions face challenges of underuse or market breakdown. Strengthening infrastructure, ensuring security and promoting cross- county and cross-border coordination will be essential to enhance the efficiency of these markets and support the resilience of pastoral economies. sparc-knowledge.org 29 Livestock infrastructure The mapping of livestock infrastructure across Kenyan counties shows a total of 2,047 facilities, reflecting varied capacities for livestock management, disease control, and market access. The largest share comprises dipping tanks (940 operational and 139 non-operational). Other key infrastructure includes slaughter slabs (411) and slaughterhouses (314), underscoring significant local meat processing activity. Additionally, holding grounds (99 functional and 2 non-functional) and loading/off-loading facilities (57) demonstrate moderate logistical support for animal transport and trade. However, it was said that only six export abattoirs and a single quarantine facility exist nationally, revealing major limitations in facilities required for international livestock trade and disease containment. According to the participants, infrastructure for animal health and breeding remains limited, with only 41 animal health centres, 5 breeding centres, and 24 vaccine cold chain facilities across all counties – indicating gaps in veterinary and genetic improvement services. The distribution of facilities is uneven, with Uasin Gishu (494 such facilities), Trans-Nzoia (218), and Bungoma (203) counties having the highest concentrations. In contrast, counties such as Nyamira, Siaya, and West Pokot have minimal infrastructure, highlighting regional disparities. These imbalances suggest a strong need for livestock infrastructure investment across the country, and particular investment targeted to the gaps identified. SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises30 Figure 6.  MAJOR LIVESTOCK ROUTES ACROSS KENYA Note: This is a high-level mapping. Lower-level mapping would reveal many more routes. Source: International Livestock Research Institute. sparc-knowledge.org 31 Figure 7.  DISTRIBUTION OF LIVESTOCK MARKETS ACROSS KENYA Note: This is a high-level mapping. Lower-level mapping would reveal many more routes. Source: International Livestock Research Institute. SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises32 Figure 8.  DISTRIBUTION OF LIVESTOCK INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS KENYA Note: This is a high-level mapping. Lower-level mapping would reveal many more routes. Source: International Livestock Research Institute. sparc-knowledge.org 33 4. PASTORALIST MOBILITY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL: CHALLENGES AND RESPONSES Following the national mapping exercises, case study research was undertaken in locations where the mapping process had identified route blockages. The aim was to understand why routes were blocked and the impact on local communities. Mixed methods were used: � Focus group discussions (FGDs) engaged participants from villages. Discussion groups were separated by gender to capture gendered perspectives on livestock mobility and challenges faced. This participatory approach enabled a rich, context-based understanding of the issues at hand. � Key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted with community leaders, agricultural experts and representatives from local NGOs to gather expert insights about the broader socioeconomic dynamics affecting pastoralists. � Participatory mapping and other tools involving community members in identifying important rangeland resources and traditional mobility routes allowed for a visual representation of the challenges posed by ecological changes and land use shifts. These visualisations helped communities reflect on the blockages and discuss responses, providing a basis for collective action. Case studies were undertaken in: � Bure Mudaiyitu, Amibara, Dulecha and Gewane districts, Afar Region, Ethiopia � Fentale district, Oromia Region, Ethiopia � Eldas Constituency, Wajir County, Kenya � Makueni County, Kenya The following sections provide a summary of common features and issues, with more details provided on the case studies in Annex 1. SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises34 4.1 Context The pastoral communities in all the case study areas rely heavily on livestock for their livelihoods. Livestock forms the economic backbone of their culture and identity. As a community member from Fentale district, Ethiopia, poignantly stated, ‘Our animals are our wealth and our life.’ These communities traditionally engage in migratory practices that allow for effective use of ecological resources, particularly grazing lands. They have rich cultural and historical ties to their land. Livestock serves as a source of food and as a critical economic asset; for many, livestock is synonymous with wealth. The migratory patterns ingrained within these cultures have allowed pastoralists to adapt to seasonal variations and environmental challenges for generations. However, significant changes have occurred over the past few decades due to land subdivision policies that have transitioned communal lands into private ownership (particularly in Makueni, Kenya), agricultural encroachment into traditional grazing territories, environmental degradation from climate change and invasive species such as Prosopis juliflora. Such transitions have fostered competition between different land users, exacerbating tensions and leading to contested grazing spaces. Community narratives point to declining livestock health as a direct consequence of reduced mobility and access to veterinary services, further complicating the pastoralists’ way of life. Livestock populations have significantly shifted, with pastoralists increasingly reliant on resilient small ruminants like goats and sheep. As one member said, ‘The goats and sheep are our safe bets; they provide us with income and are easier to manage during hard times.’ Though the context and history of each case study is somewhat different, the challenges and responses are similar. This points to common entry points for coordinated and cross-country policy change and action. 4.2 Challenges The challenges expressed by those interviewed are multifaceted yet common across the four case studies. These include: Environmental degradation The quality of grazing areas and consistent access to livestock pathways has been impacted both by climatic changes and by invasive species. Prolonged droughts and erratic rainfall patterns are devastating pastoral lands, forcing herders to adapt to increasingly difficult conditions. In addition, the rapid spread of invasive plants like Prosopis juliflora has been notable in all the case study sites. This hinders access and diminishes the quality of the remaining forage, impacting livestock health. In Afar, herders lament that ‘Prosopis has taken over many grazing areas, impacting not just our animals but our way of life.’ Another said: ‘Every year, Prosopis takes more of the area where we used to graze. It blocks the paths.’ Prosopis juliflora was the most mentioned invasive species; however, others such as Lantana camara, Parthenium hysterophorus and Opuntia spp. are also said to be causing problems. sparc-knowledge.org 35 Land use conflicts As agricultural practices expand into traditional grazing areas, the competition for land between farmers and pastoralists has intensified. Participants in the Eldas, Kenya, study noted: ‘The new farmers do not understand our needs; they only see the crops they want to grow.’ Pastoralists have historically navigated these landscapes through seasonal rotations, but the alteration of land use leaves them with fewer options, elevating tensions between communities. Disputes over access to resources were mentioned in all study areas, including in Ethiopia, where, until the last two to three years, they had been mainly absent. The inability to share resources peacefully leads to further destabilisation within communities. Governance and policy issues Traditional governance structures that historically managed common resources and resolved disputes are weakening. This exacerbates tensions and complicates dispute resolution. A participant from Fentale district, Ethiopia, noted the loss of communal decision-making: ‘We used to have community meetings to make decisions together; now it feels like everyone is out for themselves.’ Furthermore, the lack of formal policies recognising pastoral mobility routes amplifies the vulnerabilities faced by these communities, as highlighted by one pastoralist also in Fentale: ‘Without a law to protect our routes, we are vulnerable to losing everything.’ Socioeconomic pressures The disruptions to mobility have economic repercussions, as families are often forced to sell livestock at lower prices. The decline in livestock health due to reduced mobility and access to veterinary services has further strained household economies. A community member said, ‘We sold livestock at throwaway prices and still couldn’t feed our families.’ Gendered impacts The study revealed a gender divide in the experiences of pastoralists, illustrating how men and women face different challenges and employ various coping strategies in response to mobility disruptions. While men highlight negotiating new routes, women emphasise communal action and collective resilience. 4.3 Community responses to challenges Communities across the study areas have exhibited resilience through various adaptive strategies: Changing routes and negotiating access Pastoralists must find new routes to move their livestock to avoid farmers’ fields or other blockages. In Eldas, Kenya, for example, pastoralists have begun using longer, less accessible routes to navigate the blockages. One elder said, ‘Mobility is part of our life. When one path is blocked, everyone’s pattern is disturbed.’ Communities are also finding new ways to negotiate and advocate for their mobility rights, displaying a shift toward proactive engagement. SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises36 Diversification of livestock and livelihoods Communities have shown resilience by diversifying livestock ownership, focusing on smaller ruminants that require fewer resources and engaging in small-scale farming alongside traditional pastoralism. In Fentale, Ethiopia, families are increasingly combining pastoralism with small-scale farming: ‘It’s not just about herding animals anymore; we are all trying to farm where we can,’ said one community member. This approach can provide a safety net against the risks of livestock losses, yet farming is also a risky business and will also fail in times of drought. Additionally, more land converted to crop farming will lead to more mobility challenges. Community cohesion and collective action There has been an emergence of community groups aimed at resource management and knowledge sharing. A focal point in many discussions has been the unified approach towards managing invasive species after recognising them as a shared threat: ‘We all agree: Prosopis must be removed if we hope to restore our lands and lives.’ An elder from Fentale said, ‘Together we can figure out how to deal with Prosopis and find new ways to move when traditional paths are blocked.’ There have also been some shifts in gendered decision-making. Increasingly, women are being incorporated into discussions concerning resource management. A participant from Eldas highlighted this evolution, saying, ‘For the past 10 years, men would sell part of the livestock only, but now discussions involve both men and women.’ The shift toward inclusivity enhances community cohesion and resilience. Advocacy for legal recognition In times of conflict, pastoralists increasingly appeal to elders and local leaders for negotiation. Increasing participation in advocacy for their rights signifies a shift towards proactive engagement by community members. Community dialogues underscored a strong desire for formal policies that protect traditional livestock routes and grazing rights. As noted above, members said, ‘Without a law to protect our routes, we are vulnerable to losing everything.’ This call for legal recognition reflects the urgency of restoring secure access to traditional grazing lands and requires a response from national governments and regional bodies such as IGAD. 4.4 Conclusion The case studies emphasise the critical need for integrated approaches that address the multifaceted challenges faced by pastoral communities. The findings from the case studies illustrate a clear link between the breakdown of traditional mobility and the erosion of both social and economic security among these communities. As one community elder said, ‘If we restore the paths, we restore our lives.’ Community resilience is intrinsically tied to both the empowerment of individuals and collaborative action, fostering a fabric of unity necessary to adapt and mitigate adverse impacts. The collective responses highlight a resilience that, while strained, strives for adaptation and survival. Holistic strategies that incorporate traditional knowledge, legal protections for mobility and sustainable management practices are essential for enhancing the resilience and livelihoods of pastoral communities in regions affected by these challenges. This needs collaborative effort involving local communities, government actors and NGOs to sparc-knowledge.org 37 develop solutions that are sensitive to the traditional lifestyles of pastoralists while addressing the urgent environmental and economic challenges they face. 4.5 Recommendations The following recommendations are offered based on the information gathered during the case studies: � Establish legal frameworks. Formal legal recognition of traditional grazing routes through policy and legislation is essential to protect community rights against encroachment. Governments should adopt policies that acknowledge and support pastoralist practices. Regional bodies such as IGAD can promote the development and harmonisation of such policies, which will also facilitate cross-border movement and trade. � Promote participatory rangeland management and collective action for dealing with invasive species. Integrating local knowledge into environmental management strategies can mitigate the adverse effects of invasive species and promote sustainable land practices. Processes such as participatory rangeland management can provide an appropriate framework for this and require investment (ICPALD, 2024; Flintan and Cullis, 2010). Invasive species require a coordinated and large-scale intervention with long-term funding to ensure the land is managed well after clearance to prevent reinfestation. � Give urgent attention to invasive species. The problem of invasive species has been highlighted in all four case studies. Responding to this problem is beyond the capacity of local communities and requires significant external investment and multi-stakeholder collective action. This is an absolute action priority needed to facilitate mobility and restore the productivity of lands lost. � Revitalise community governance structures. Continued emphasis on community organising will serve to enhance collaborative responses to immediate challenges while fostering social cohesion. Restoring traditional governance systems is vital in allowing collective decision-making processes to regain strength. Such structures foster unity and facilitate conflict resolution. � Encourage gender inclusivity. Policies must reflect the complexities of gender dynamics within pastoral communities, ensuring that women’s voices are integral in resource management discussions. SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises38 5. OVERALL CONCLUSION Mobility in pastoralism in the Horn of Africa is paramount for the survival and livelihood of livestock-producing communities, particularly pastoralists. Mobility allows pastoralists to access critical resources such as water and grazing areas across arid and semi-arid landscapes. This facilitates the well-being of livestock and secures the economic stability of those dependent on livestock production. It is fundamentally woven into the social fabric and identity of pastoral communities, supporting cultural practices, social ties and resilience amidst environmental variability. 5.1 Status of livestock routes’ functionality In Ethiopia, the status of livestock routes is quite varied, reflecting a diverse yet uneven distribution that signals potential challenges. The country has approximately 25,504 km of mapped livestock routes, categorised into major functional, minor functional and non- functional types. Notably, Oromia Region has the highest number of active routes, making it essential for livestock mobility within the country. However, significant concerns arise from the extent of non-functional routes. Over 382 km are classified as non-functional due to urban expansion, agricultural encroachment and invasive species, particularly Prosopis juliflora. In Kenya, the network of livestock routes spans about 31,598 km. Most of these routes (14,925 km) are categorised as major functional, indicating their active use for livestock movement. Despite this, over 3,400 km are classified as major non-functional, highlighting similar challenges to those faced in Ethiopia, with a significant spread of invasive species and land use changes impacting the pastoral mobility that communities historically relied upon. These blocked or unusable livestock corridors result in heightened competition for grazing lands. 5.2 Mobility challenges The challenges faced by pastoral communities in Ethiopia and Kenya due to disrupted mobility pathways are significant. In Ethiopia, individualisation of land has led to restricted access to communal lands, culminating in increased disputes over grazing resources. Similarly, despite the potential of the Community Land Act 2016 in Kenya, the encroachment of agricultural land into traditional grazing areas has intensified competition between pastoralists and farmers. This land use change reduces the space available for livestock mobility, directly affecting livelihoods. Additionally, governance fragmentation, characterised by weakened traditional leadership structures, exacerbates disputes over land use, making it challenging for communities to resolve conflicts amicably. 5.3 Community responses Faced with these mobility challenges, communities in both countries have demonstrated resilience and adaptability. Community members must take alternative routes to navigate blocked pathways. In some regions, diversification of livelihoods has become more common. Pastoralists are increasingly integrating small-scale agriculture alongside traditional herding practices; however, the more rangeland is converted to cropping land, the more mobility will be restricted. sparc-knowledge.org 39 On a positive note, there has been increasing engagement in collective action within communities. The restructuring of groups focused on resource management signifies a renewed emphasis on proactive governance within pastoral communities. Initiatives aimed at addressing invasive species collaboratively have emerged, reflecting a shared understanding of communal risks. These require investment and implementation at scale. In conclusion, the mobility of pastoral communities in the Horn of Africa is a vital aspect of their cultural, economic and social existence. By implementing focused policies and collaborating with pastoral communities, stakeholders can help ensure that the livelihoods and cultural heritage of these vulnerable groups are sustained for generations to come. The resilience of pastoralists is not just about enduring harsh conditions; it is rooted in their intricate connections to the land, culture and community, emphasising that restoring the routes is synonymous with restoring their way of life. SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises40 6. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS To safeguard pastoral mobility systems and strengthen the resilience and economic potential of pastoral communities in the Horn of Africa, urgent and coordinated policy action is required. The findings of this study highlight both the opportunities and the risks: without clear protection, investment, and governance, critical livestock corridors will continue to degrade – undermining livelihoods, food security and regional stability. The following recommendations outline concrete actions for governments, IGAD and development partners: Legal recognition of livestock routes Both Ethiopia and Kenya should prioritise enacting formal legal frameworks that recognise traditional livestock routes. Such formal recognition would serve to protect these vital pathways from encroachment and degradation, land conversion, and infrastructure developments that obstruct pastoral movement. Legal protection should be complemented by clear enforcement mechanisms and integration into land-use planning and tenure systems. Establishment of a livestock information system (LIS) Building on the datasets and maps produced through this initiative, governments should develop a comprehensive livestock information system to monitor route functionality, infrastructure conditions and seasonal access. The LIS should serve as a central decision- support tool for integrating pastoral mobility into national land use planning, climate adaptation strategies and regional trade frameworks. It should be housed within a competent government institution, with collaboration from IGAD, research organisations and private sector partners for data management and dissemination. Expand and deepen mapping of livestock corridors The current national-level maps provide a strong foundation, but finer-scale mapping is essential to capture local-level realities, including routes around major markets, water points and grazing zones. Governments, supported by IGAD and partners, should institutionalise regular mapping exercises that update information on route status and functionality, feeding directly into the LIS. This will ensure a dynamic, living database that supports planning, policy and investment decisions. Infrastructure development Governments and development partners must invest in well-planned and climate-resilient livestock infrastructure along key routes – including water points, veterinary facilities, resting areas and quarantine stations. Investments should be guided by spatial analysis from the mapping exercise to ensure optimal placement at convergence points and high-traffic corridors. Such infrastructure will directly improve livestock health, reduce losses and enhance the competitiveness of the livestock sector. sparc-knowledge.org 41 Strengthen community-based governance and conflict resolution Community institutions are central to sustainable management of mobility corridors. Strengthening traditional governance systems and integrating them into formal decision- making processes will enhance accountability, reduce conflicts and ensure equitable access to rangeland resources. Support should focus on capacity building, inclusive decision-making, and recognition of customary authorities in route and rangeland governance. Promote cross-sectoral and cross-border collaboration Governments should establish multi-sectoral coordination mechanisms that bring together ministries responsible for livestock, environment, land, infrastructure and trade to align policies affecting pastoral mobility. Similarly, cross-border coordination frameworks should be strengthened to align national policies with regional mobility and trade objectives. Partnerships among government, NGOs and pastoral associations will be key to ensuring coherence between pastoral and agricultural land uses. Institutionalise participatory mapping and knowledge sharing Engaging pastoralist communities in the ongoing participatory mapping of livestock routes and grazing areas ensures local ownership and long-term sustainability. Such participatory processes not only validate route data but also empower communities to monitor and protect their own mobility corridors. Regular updates should be built into local development planning cycles and shared through regional knowledge platforms. Strengthen IGAD’s leadership in regional harmonisation IGAD and its specialised agency, ICPALD, have a pivotal role in driving the regional harmonisation of national actions under the Transhumance Protocol. IGAD should encourage all member states to undertake similar mapping and protection of livestock routes, provide technical guidance for planning and servicing corridors, and mobilise significant regional investment for implementation. Regional coordination will ensure that pastoral mobility systems function seamlessly across borders – advancing the Transhumance Protocol goals of free movement, trade integration and resilience. These actions are essential not only to protect livestock routes but also to secure the economic and ecological foundations of the pastoral system. Strengthening policy, legal, and institutional frameworks around mobility will be critical for climate adaptation, regional integration and long-term stability in the Horn of Africa. SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises42 REFERENCES Aklilu, Y. (2008) Livestock marketing in Kenya and Ethiopia: a review of policies and practice. Addis Ababa: Feinstein International Centre. Davies, M.I. and Moore, H.L. (2016) ‘Landscape, time and cultural resilience: a brief history of agriculture in Pokot and Marakwet, Kenya’ Journal of Eastern African Studies 10(1): 67–87. Flintan, F.E. (2011) ‘Broken lands: broken lives?’ Causes, processes and impacts of land fragmentation in the rangelands of Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda. Nairobi: DLCI (https://dlci-hoa.org/assets/upload/key- resilience-and-climate-change/20200804010023501.pdf). Flintan, F.E. and Cullis, A. (2010) Introductory guidelines to participatory rangeland management in pastoral areas. USA: Save the Children (https://hdl.handle.net/10568/99430). Flintan, F.E., Robinson, L.W. and Allen, M. (2021) A review of tenure and governance in the pastoral lands of East and West Africa. SPARC Report. London and Nairobi: ODI and ILRI. Getahun, Y. (2024) ‘Mapping livestock resources in Miyo, Moyale and Filtu Districts’. Addis Ababa: ILRI (https://hdl.handle.net/10568/155436). ICPALD – IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (2024) Participatory rangeland management: guidelines for practitioners. Nairobi: ICPALD and ILRI (https://hdl.handle. net/10568/145167). ICPALD (2020a) IGAD Protocol on Transhumance. Nairobi: ICPALD (https://icpald.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/06/IGAD-PROTOCOL-ON-TRANSHUMANCE-Final-Endorsed-Version.pdf). ICPALD (2020b) Total economic valuation of pastoralism in Ethiopia. Nairobi: ICPALD (https://icpald.org/ wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Total-Economic-Valuation-of-Pastoralism-in-Ethiopia.pdf). ICPALD (2018) Assessment of the total economic valuation of pastoralism in Kenya. Nairobi: ICPALD (https://icpald.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Assesment-of-the-Total-economic-valuation-of- Pastoralism-in-Kenya.pdf). Lesorogol, C. and Lesorogol, P. (2024) ‘Community-based wildlife conservation on pastoral lands in Kenya: a new logic of production with implications for the future of pastoralism’ Human Ecology 52(1): 15–29. Lind, J. and Rogei, D.S. (2025) ‘Contestation, conflict and claims-making around the Lake Turkana Wind Power windfarm, northern Kenya’ World Development 188(5): 1–10. Lind, J., Okenwa, D. and Scoones, I. (2020) ‘Introduction: The politics of land, resources and investment in Eastern Africa’s pastoral drylands’ in J. Lind, D. Okenwa and I. Scoones (eds) Land, investment and politics: reconfiguring Eastern Africa’s pastoral drylands. Woodbridge: James Currey, pp. 1–32. Little, P. (2007) ‘Unofficial cross-border trade in eastern Africa’. Paper presented at the FAO workshop on ‘Staple food trade and market policy options for promoting development in eastern and southern Africa’, 1–2 March 2007. Rome: FAO. Nkedianye, D.K., Ogutu, J.O., Said, M.Y., et al. (2019) ‘Livestock-wealth inequalities and uptake of crop cultivation among the Maasai of Kenya and Tanzania’ World Development Perspectives 14 (https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2019.02.017). Okoth-Ogendo, H.W.O. (1991) Tenants of the Crown: evolution of agrarian law and institutions in Kenya. Nairobi: ACTS Press. Robinson, L. and Flintan, F. (2022) ‘Can formalisation of pastoral land tenure overcome its paradoxes? Reflections from East Africa’ Pastoralism 12(1): 1–12. Scoones, I. (2024) Navigating uncertainty: Radical rethinking for a turbulent world. Cambridge: Polity Press. Wachira, J., Atela, J., Stacey, P. and Outa, G. (2024) ‘NGO-led community-based conservation: a new frontier of territorialization with implications for pastoralists’ land tenure and climate change adaptation’ Land 13(6): 740 (https://doi.org/10.3390/land13060740). sparc-knowledge.org 43 https://dlci-hoa.org/assets/upload/key-resilience-and-climate-change/20200804010023501.pdf https://dlci-hoa.org/assets/upload/key-resilience-and-climate-change/20200804010023501.pdf https://hdl.handle.net/10568/99430 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/155436 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/145167 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/145167 https://icpald.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IGAD-PROTOCOL-ON-TRANSHUMANCE-Final-Endorsed-Version.pdf https://icpald.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IGAD-PROTOCOL-ON-TRANSHUMANCE-Final-Endorsed-Version.pdf https://icpald.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Total-Economic-Valuation-of-Pastoralism-in-Ethiopia.pdf https://icpald.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Total-Economic-Valuation-of-Pastoralism-in-Ethiopia.pdf https://icpald.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Assesment-of-the-Total-economic-valuation-of-Pastoralism-in-Kenya.pdf https://icpald.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Assesment-of-the-Total-economic-valuation-of-Pastoralism-in-Kenya.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2019.02.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2019.02.017 https://doi.org/10.3390/land13060740 ANNEX 1: LIST OF FACILITATORS AND PARTICIPANTS Table A1.  ETHIOPIA FACILITATION TEAM Facilitator name Institution Position 1 Bedasa Eba ILRI Addis Research officer and range ecologist 2 Yasin Getahun ILRI Addis GIS expert 3 Eskatnaf Getachew ILRI Addis Assistant to project manager 4 Julius Muyizzi ICPALD GIS & remote sensing officer 5 Dr. Mohammed Yahya Said ILRI Consultant System ecologist with expertise in participatory mapping, spatial modelling, integrated landscape analysis and extensive experience in facilitating multi-stakeholder processes Source: authors’ own. Table A2.  ETHIOPIA PARTICIPANTS Participant name Region Expertise Institution 1 Dr. Berhanu Alemayehu Southwest Ethiopia Animal health Regional Livestock and Fishery Bureau 2 Gizachew Tazeb Southwest Ethiopia Animal science Regional Bureau of Agriculture 3 Mesfin Mokonen Afar/Semera GIS Afar Land Bureau 4 Hagi Mohammed Afar/Semera GIS Afar Land Bureau 5 Abdu Seid Hassen Afar/Semera GIS Agriculture and Natural Resource Bureau 6 Dr. Seid Ahmed Afar/Semera Animal health Livestock and Fishery Resource Development Bureau 7 Jemal Ahmed Afar/Semera Livestock production Livestock and Fishery Resource Development Bureau 8 Omod Okongo Gambella Animal science Livestock and Fishery Bureau 9 Fasil Weretaw Gambella Veterinary Livestock and Fishery Bureau SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises44 Participant name Region Expertise Institution 10 Dr. Pilual Nyoch Gambella Animal health Livestock and Fishery Bureau 11 Hailu Yirga Benishangul/Assosa Animal production Livestock and Fishery office 12 Ayansa Waqijira Benshangul/Assosa Livestock production Livestock and Fishery office 13 Dr. Issa Abdujebar Harari Animal health Agriculture Bureau 14 Tesfaye G/ maryam Tigray/Mekelle Animal health Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development 15 Alem Abraha Tigray/Mekelle Marketing Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development 16 Mohammed Abdi Oumer Somali/Dire Dawa Agricultural economist Pastoral Development Bureau 17 Abdikadar Shukri Somali/Jijiga Livestock marketing/ GIS Pastoral Development Bureau 18 Mohamud Abdulahi Mohammed Somali/Jijiga Livestock production Pastoral Development Bureau 19 Muse Shek Abdi Somali/Jijiga Animal science Pastoral Development Bureau 20 Dr. Bashir Ahmed Mehamed Somali/Jijiga Animal health Pastoral Development Bureau 21 Abdirahman Mahamoud Somali/Jijiga Livestock production and pastoral development Pastoral Development Bureau 22 Dr. Eskendir Kedir South Ethiopia Animal health Regional Livestock Office 23 Zarihun Janje Sidama Region/ Hawassa Animal science Regional Livestock Office 24 Dr. Kasaye Berhe Sidama Region/ Hawassa Animal health Regional Livestock Office 25 Tilahun Mekonen Benshangul Animal health Livestock and Fishery office 26 Demelash Ayechile Amhara/Bahirdar Animal production Regional Livestock Office 27 Mequanint Damtie Amhara/Bahirdar Livestock production Regional Livestock Office 28 Birneh Tesfaye Central Ethiopia Animal and rangeland Regional Livestock Office 29 Mussa Alewi Central Ethiopia Dairy Regional Livestock Office sparc-knowledge.org 45 Participant name Region Expertise Institution 30 Hamedu Ali Hamedu Afar Livestock Bureau Rural development Regional Livestock Bureau 31 Dr. Misganaw Mulugeta South Ethiopia Animal health Livestock Bureau 32 Dinke Keneni Oromia Bureau of Agriculture Animal production Livestock and Fishery office 33 Sultan Hussien Oromia Bureau of Agriculture Animal production Livestock and Fishery office 34 Mulugeta Asefa Oromia Bureau of Agriculture Animal production Livestock and Fishery office 35 Mamo Gobena Oromia Bureau of Agriculture Animal science Livestock and Fishery office 36 Aklilu Busawa Pastoralist Office of Oromia Rural development Pastoral and Irrigation Bureau 37 Musa Kedir Oromia Bureau of Agriculture Animal science Livestock and Fishery office 39 Gebeyehu Belachew Ministry of Agriculture Animal science State Ministry of Livestock and Fishery Development 40 Girma Mulugeta Ministry of Agriculture — State Ministry of Livestock and Fishery Development 41 Chane Gebeyhu Ministry of Irrigation and Lowland — Ministry of Irrigation and Lowland Source: authors’ own. Table A3.  KENYA FACILITATION TEAM Facilitator Name Institution Position 1 Irene Nganga ILRI Nairobi Research associate 2 Yasin Getahun ILRI Addis GIS expert 3 Beth Njoroge ILRI Nairobi Programme administrative assistant 4 Polycarp Onyango ILRI Nairobi Communications 5 Julius Muyizzi ICPALD GIS and remote sensing officer 6 Blaise Okinyi State Department of Livestock, Kenya Range management and resources specialist 7 Frederick Aloo State Department of Livestock, Kenya Range management specialist 8 Japheth Kasimbu ICPALD Project coordinator – transhumance 9 Shem Kifugo PhD Student, University of Groningen GIS and participatory mapping SPARC Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises46 Facilitator Name Institution Position 10 Dr. Mohammed Yahya Said ILRI Consultant and Lead Facilitator System ecologist with expertise in participatory mapping, spatial modelling, integrated landscape analysis and extensive experience in facilitating multi-stakeholder processes Source: authors’ own. Table A4.  KENYA PARTICIPANTS Name County Job title Department 1 Peter Mwangi Mwai Laikipia County Director Veterinary Services Veterinary 2 Henry Dundo Siaya Principal Livestock Production Officer Livestock 3 Patrick Mweni Kilifi Senior Livestock Production Officer Livestock 4 Kenneth Ochola Lamu County Director Livestock Production Livestock 5 Samuel Ndao Kwale County Director Livestock Production Livestock 6 Nzioka Wambua Tana River County Director Livestock Production Livestock 7 Martin Oyindo Taita Taveta Assistant Director Livestock Production Livestock 8 Abraham Kiptanui Uasin Gishu County Director Livestock Production Livestock 9 Richard Bundotich Baringo County Director Livestock Production Livestock 10 William Bore Elgeyo-Marakwet County Director of Livestock Production Livestock 11a Amos Lekukuu Samburu Veterinary Officer Veterinary 11b Joseph Kilonzo Samburu County Director of Livestock Production Livestock 12a Peter Tache Golicha Marsabit Livestock Officer Livestock 12b Edward Lentoror Marsabit Sub-County Livestock Production Officer Livestock 13 Evans Mwiti Mathiu Meru Deputy Director Livestock Production Livestock 14a Benard Ouma Wajir Deputy Director Livestock Production Livestock 14b Abdinoor I. Musa Wajir Deputy Director Agriculture Livestock sparc-knowledge.org 47 Name County Job title Department 15 Hussein Madey Mandera County Director Livestock Production Livestock 16a Eric Ahenda Kajiado County Director Livestock Production Livestock 16b John Kolei Kajiado Livestock Production Officer Livestock 17 Jamin Kipkogei Narok Assistant Director Livestock Production Livestock 18 Josephat Maluki Kitui County Director Livestock Production Livestock 19 Joseph Musyoka Machakos County Director Livestock Production Livestock 20 David Musyoki Makueni County Director Livestock Production Range management 21 Justus Gicovi Mombasa Deputy County Director Livestock Production Livestock 22 Michael Cheruiyot Kericho County Director Livestock Production Livestock 23 Robert Wakoli Nandi County Director Livestock Production Livestock 24 Evans Kiplagat Bomet County Director Livestock Production Livestock 25 Edward Ondigi Nyamira County Director Livestock Production Livestock 26 Dickson Okello Chaulo Isiolo County Director Livestock Production Livestock 27a Bobby Ekadon Turkana County Director Livestock Production Livestock 27b John Eipa Turkana Deputy Director Livestock Production Range management 28 Mary Situma Bungoma County Director Livestock Production Livestock 29 David Mukabane Busia County Director Livestock Production Livestock 30 Henry Odanga Kakamega County Director Livestock Production Livestock 31 Harisson Were Trans-Nzoia County Director Livestock Production Livestock 32 Caroline Misiko West Pokot Livestock Production Officer Livestock 33a Eric Mwatuni Garissa State Departme