Do pastoralists have a role in domestic and export livestock trade? PACAPS/RELPA Garissa 22-25 Sep, 2008

Pastoralists in domestic and export trade The commonly accepted ‘fact’ is pastoralists accumulate wealth through livestock accumulation and don’t sell surplus animals. Therefore: Group 1: So, they don’t contribute that much for domestic and export markets. Government should support them to be engaged in commercial production systems to maximize benefit from livestock marketing. Group 2: No, they contribute a lot to domestic and export markets and need not be persuaded to be engaged in commercial production systems.

Livestock population of Eastern Africa (Kenya, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia) Type Number in millions % of Africa % of the world Cattle 119.8 51 8.8 Sheep 86.8 36 8.4 Goats 93.3 43 12.7 Camels 10.7 74 57.7

ASAL AREAS Sudan Ethiopia Kenya Land area Nearly 100% 60% 80% Pastoral population 10 million 10 m 8-10

The Contribution of Livestock to GDP Variables Ethiopia Sudan Kenya Share of Agric to GDP (%) 55 42 33 Share of livestock to agric. GDP (%) 40 20 Share of livestock to total GDP (%) 8 12

ASAL’s contribution to domestic and export markets 70% of the domestic meat demand in Kenya 25 - 35% in Ethiopia 100% in Somalia and Sudan 85% export revenues in Somalia 25% in Sudan, before oil <5% in Ethiopia and Kenya

ASAL’s contribution to domestic and export markets 70% of the domestic meat demand in Kenya 25% in Ethiopia 100% in Somalia and Sudan 85% export revenues in Somalia 25% in Sudan, before oil <5% in Ethiopia and Kenya

Volume of exports (2006) Type Sudan Somalia Ethiopia Kenya Live sheep 23,000 NA Live cattle 5,000 50,000 103,000 2,000? Chilled carcass (shoats) 500,000 600,000 800,000 ? Camels 2,000 (racing) 10,000? 4,000 1,000

Value of livestock and meat exports (2006) Sudan - $125 million Somalia - $200 million Ethiopia - $25 million Kenya - ? Nearly all the livestock exported from the region were sourced from pastoral areas Note: excluding revenues from hides and skins

Major export destinations Saudi Arabia (during the Haj) UAE, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, Egypt However, this potential trade is from time to time affected by bans on real and perceived fears Such bans seriously affect the livelihoods of pastoralists

Cross-border and international livestock trade

Sheep exports from Sudan

International meat trade The global meat trade is dominated by Brazil, Australia, Uruguay, Argentina, USA, New Zealand and of late, India and EU Capable of exporting to high and low-end markets In 2015, Global meat consumption is projected to be 315 mmt In 2005, traded poultry was 7.5 mmt, beef, 7.4 mmt and sheep meat 1.2 mmt

Trends Growth in meat demand is forecasted to level off at 2% per annum after 2,015 The EU is expected to be a net importer of 530,000 MT in 2015 (against a net export volume of 1.5 mmt in 2005) Despite the opportunity, none of the EA countries are likely to export to high end markets due to SPS and other factors

Challenges for EA A growing demand for particular cuts that allow ease of preparation An increasing requirement by importers for certification, sometimes by third parties Greater need for product safety (traceability) Greater concern for animal welfare Developed countries will continue to be the major players in growth in global meat production and consumption The use of SPS as a highly effective form of protection

Trends - cont' Increasing standards in MENA countries also threatens the likelihood of exports from EA region (unless and if standards are compromised by acute meat shortages) This necessitates: Investments in SPS systems Investments in economy of scale processing capacity (including meat grading systems) Commercial production (stratified marketing system) Integrated marketing systems

Issues in SPS Obviously, upgrading and strengthening Veterinary services, animal disease reporting, surveillance and control is critical to bring the SPS status to an acceptable standard The economic viability of establishing new DFZs, however, requires serious consideration Because initial and maintenance investments are high, technically difficult, recognition takes too long and the costs of social exclusion are high 70-80% of the national livestock population belonging to communities in Botswana, Namibia and S.Africa are excluded from international markets Is CBT an alternative to DFZs?

African exporters position in the EU