Content uploaded by Saverio Krätli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Saverio Krätli on Jul 14, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
PROJECT EVALUATION SERIES
Evaluation of FAO’s contribution to the
Pastoralist Knowledge Hub cluster
“Pastoralist Knowledge Hub Part 1: Support to pastoralists in
advocacy and policy matters” (GCP/GLO/536/GER)
and
“Pastoralist Knowledge Hub Part 2: Technical support to
pastoralists livelihood and resilience” (GCP /GLO/611/GER)
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
OFFICE OF EVALUATION
September 2019
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
ii
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Office of Evaluation (OED)
This report is available in electronic format at: www.fao.org/evaluation
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this
information product do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any
country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific
companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been
patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or
recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are
not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.
© FAO 2019
FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in
this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may
be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and
teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services,
provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and
copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views,
products or services is not implied in any way.
All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other
commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-
us/licence-request or addressed to copyright@fao.org.
For further information on this report, please contact:
Director, Office of Evaluation (OED)
Food and Agriculture Organization
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153 Rome
Italy
Email: evaluation@fao.org
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
iii
Contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... iv
Acronyms and abbreviations ...................................................................................... v
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 6
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Purpose the evaluation ................................................................................ 7
1.1.1 Intended users .............................................................................................. 7
1.2 Scope and objective ..................................................................................... 7
1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................ 8
2 Background and context of the project ............................................................. 9
2.1 Highlights of the context ............................................................................ 9
1.4 Premises, context and organization of the project ................................ 11
1.5 The theory of change ................................................................................. 14
3 Evaluation questions: Key findings .................................................................. 16
3.1 Relevance and design ................................................................................ 16
3.2 Effectiveness ............................................................................................... 20
3.3 Sustainability .............................................................................................. 36
4 Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................. 37
4.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 37
4.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................... 39
Annex 1. List of stakeholders consulted ..................................................................... 42
Annex 2. References .................................................................................................... 44
Annex 3. Tests of ‘knowledge repository’ and ‘database of organizations’ ........................... 44
Annex 4. Theory of change ...................................................................................................... 44
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
iv
Acknowledgements
The FAO Office of Evaluation (OED) team would like to thank all those who contributed
to this evaluation, especially the FAO Pastoralist Knowledge Hub (PKH) for providing
research material, other information and efficient support while preparing this report.
The OED team is also grateful to the lead technical expert Dr Saverio Krätli for his
valuable contributions to the evaluation. We also would like to particularly
acknowledge the Pastoralist Knowledge Hub partners who were very generous with
their time and knowledge in support of this evaluation. The team would also like to
thank all FAO staff who collaborated with and for the PKH. OED is also grateful for all
the support provided by Gregorio Velasco Gil, Natasha Maru and Serena Ferrari. The
evaluation was led by Omar Awabdeh, Evaluation Officer.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
v
Acronyms and abbreviations
AGAG
Animal Production and Genetics Unit (AGAG)
APCN
Arabian Pastoralist Community Network
ASIS
Agricultural Stress Index System
CELEP
Coalition of European Lobbies for Eastern African Pastoralism
CENESTA
Centre for Sustainable Development and Environment
CFS
Committee on Food Security
CILSS
Comité Permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contre la Sécheresse dans le Sahel
COAG
FAO Committee on Agriculture
CIRAD
French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development
CSO
Civil society organization
COPASCO
Coalition of Pastoralist Civil Society Organizations
DAD-IS
Domestic Animal Diversity Information System
ECOWAS
Economic Community of West African States
ESAPN
Eastern and Southern African Pastoralist Network
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GASL
Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock
GIEWS
Global Information and Early Warning System
GLEAM
Global Livestock Environmental Assessment
HLPE
High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition
ICIMOD
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.
ICR
International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry
IFAD
International Fund for Agricultural Development
IGAD
Intergovernmental Authority for Development
IIED
International Institute for Environment and Development
ILC
International Land Coalition
IUCN
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
IYRP
International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralist
LADA
Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands
LEAP
Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance
OED
FAO Office of Evaluation
PKH
Pastoral Knowledge Hub
PRAPS
Regional Sahel Pastoralism Support Project
RBM
Reseau Billital Maroobe
SHARP
Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of Climate Resilience of Farmers and Pastoralists
SP
Strategic Programme (FAO)
SP5
Resilience Programme Management Team
UNEA-2
Second session of the United Nations Environment Assembly
VGGT
Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Forests and Fisheries
VSF
Vétérinaires sans Frontières
WAMIP
World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples
WISP
World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
6
Executive Summary
Knowledge about pastoralism is still today a legacy of misunderstanding and debate within
rural development, a highly politicized territory at the regional and national levels. It is also
a hotspot in an extensive and evolving discussion within the scientific community in the
context of climate change. This was also the case when the PKH was launched in 2014.
Navigating safely through such a difficult context entailed detecting and negotiating the
many misconceptions, and the misinterpretations embedded in data generated from
inadequate assumptions. The evaluation found that the Pastoral Knowledge Hub (PKH)
expected impact and outcome were aimed at improving the functioning of the pastoralist-
policy-science interface, and therefore strongly relevant to the context of intervention.
With respect to FAO’s positioning, engaging in pastoral development was highly relevant
to FAO’s core mandate and strategic objectives. FAO’s engagement in pastoral
development before 2014 was predominantly through technical interventions in animal
health and emergencies, and mostly limited to settled and farming communities. The
approach to the knowledge-generation activities of the PKH had advocacy value and the
merit of maximizing ‘pastoralism’ connectivity and reflection within FAO. The evaluation
recommends the PKH to expand its context of intervention, by reaching out to new
constituencies and into ‘new territories’ of knowledge management and generation.
The project was clearly consistent with and contributed to FAO’s strategic priorities. It
addressed a knowledge gap on pastoralism within FAO that had lasted for over a decade
and beyond, producing a multiplier effect on the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible
Governance of Tenure of Land, Forests and Fisheries (VGGT). Further, it also helped major
programmes to ‘think pastoralism’ – Global Livestock Environmental Assessment (GLEAM),
Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of Climate Resilience of Farmers and Pastoralists
(SHARP), Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA), the Global Information and
Early Warning System (GIEWS), Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS) and
the Agricultural Stress Index System (ASIS). It has also provided a clear institutional space
for connecting and coordinating work on pastoralism previously fragmented under several
FAO Strategic Programmes (SPs). The evaluation recommends that, building on this legacy,
a robust process of institutionalizing pastoralism within FAO be supported, including
beyond the FAO Resilience Programme Team (SP5). Specific support should be given to the
development and running of a pastoralism working group at FAO headquarters and in close
connection with the relevant country offices.
Overall, the PKH made giant leaps in setting up regional pastoralist alliances worldwide,
including a focus on women and youth. These achievements are broad and still to be
strengthened. The evaluation concludes that the consensus among stakeholders, both
within and outside FAO, is that the PKH should continue.
The work should continue in increasing the visibility of pastoralism and its value, both in
order to strengthen pastoralists’ voice and to make the policy-making environment more
receptive to it. This component of the PKH should focus on the systematic identification
and pursuit of opportunities. The evaluation notes that PKH activities need consolidating,
starting from giving the World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples (WAMIP) space and
support to recover as the platform for the representation of pastoralist social movements
at the global level. National and local representation of pastoralist social movements also
needs to be consolidated.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
7
1 Introduction
1. This report presents the results of the Final Evaluation of two projects: “Pastoralist
Knowledge Hub Part 1: Support to pastoralists in advocacy and policy matters”
(PKH1) and “Pastoralist Knowledge Hub Part 2: Technical support to pastoralists`
livelihood and resilience (PKH2) (or PKH when referring to both) managed by the
Office of Evaluation (OED) of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the
United Nations (FAO).
2. PKH1 was implemented from 15 September 2014 to 13 December 2016 with a
budget of US$826 621. Subsequently, PKH2 began on 14 August 2015 with an
initial 15 February 2018 deadline and a budget of US$947 755. It was granted two
no-cost extensions – first until 31 December 2018 and then until 30 April 2019.
The projects were funded by the German Federal Ministry for Food and
Agriculture. Both projects aimed to help pastoralist organizations participate and
contribute effectively in decision-making at the national, regional and global
policy levels, resulting in improved policies, legislations and programmes related
to pastoralism and food security.
3. By the time of the evaluation PKH had 37 partners. The project was also working
closely with three parallel projects (ongoing) financed respectively by the Spanish
Cooperation (GCP/RAF/464/SPA), the International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD) (GCP/GLO/779/IFA) and the Global Environment Facility
(GEF) (GCP/GLO/530/GFF).
1.1 Purpose of the Final Evaluation
4. This Final Evaluation serves a dual purpose of accountability and learning. It
extrapolates findings and conclusions based on the evidence collected, and
identifies good practices and challenges that can inform the design and
implementation of the follow-up project.
1.1.1 Intended users
5. Primary users of the Evaluation report will be FAO, the donor, pastoralist alliances
and networks, project implementing partners and international partners.
Secondary users are regional economic organizations – Economic Community of
West African States (ECOWAS) and the Intergovernmental Authority for
Development (IGAD), line ministries in the governments of the various countries
participating in the project, and any other concerned local and international
organizations, both public and private.
1.2 Scope and objective
6. Scope: The Final Evaluation is limited to the two projects funded by Germany,
covering all activities undertaken at the global and regional level from 2014 to
date.
7. Objectives (including main evaluation questions): The main objective of the
evaluation is to assess the extent to which the PKH enhanced the capacity of
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
8
pastoralist organizations to participate in and contribute effectively to decision-
making at the national and global policy level. Secondary objectives aim to: (i)
assess the likelihood that the PKH will result in improved policies, legislation and
programmes related to pastoralism and food security; and (ii) establish the extent
to which the results can be attributed to PKH (see Terms of Reference, Annex 4).
8. The main evaluation questions were:
Was the PKH relevant to the needs of pastoralist organizations?
To what extent did the PKH increase pastoralists’ capacity to make
themselves heard in decision-making concerning their livelihoods?
To what extent did the PKH contribute to make the relevant decision-making
environments more receptive to the voices of pastoralists?
1.3 Methodology
9. The evaluation adhered to the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms
and Standards and the OED Manual and methodological guidelines and
practices, and was conducted through an inclusive and transparent process. The
evaluation team conducted a targeted desk review of documentation provided
by the PKH project team, integrated with additional documents that emerged
from interviews, and synthesized the PKH website and forum. A total of 48
interviews were conducted with the project team, key informants and
collaborators at FAO headquarters (21), partners (13) and regional pastoralist civil
society networks (14), either face-to-face or via Skype/phone (Annex 1). The
evaluation team triangulated the information gathered from multiple sources to
ensure consistency of the findings and observations.
10. The evaluation team, with active participation by the PKH team, developed a
theory of change (ToC) (Annex 3) to outline and trace the PKH’s positioning and
contributions. An online survey was run for two weeks over the PKH forum
(around 1 200 members). Two main questions focused on: (i) whether the PKH
had achieved its goal of strengthening pastoralist civil society organizations
(CSOs); and (ii) which activities, out of a given set,
1
best describe the impact of
the PKH. The questionnaire included the possibility of writing a personal
comment towards improving the PKH. In the interviews, analysis and presentation
of the findings, the evaluation team acknowledged the delicate nature of some
of the processes supported by PKH and still ongoing at the time of the evaluation,
particularly with regard to World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples (WAMIP)
governance and the institutionalization of pastoralism within FAO.
Stakeholder engagement – Almost all stakeholders interviewed are either from
FAO or from organizations partnering the PKH. The online survey had a return of
around 5 percent (65 out of 1,200), the low response rate can be attributed to
the fact that not all members of the PKH members are active members. While
this is considered normal in this kind of survey, it seems to be a rather low return
1
The set of activities included: facilitating dialogue, networking, providing technical input, supporting participation in
national policy processes, facilitating access to regional/global policy processes, producing data, providing access to
information or arguments (with a lobbying value/tools), providing access to relevant legislations, and developing
capacities.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
9
in view of the strong web-based component of the PKH and its focus on
knowledge management and networking.
Limitations – In addition to a mission to FAO headquarters, the evaluation was
substantially a desk study based on literature and phone/Skype interviews. The
evaluation team talked with representatives from almost all regional networks
(except in Central Asia), but not with the local population. This approach, dictated
by limitations in time and resources, left relatively little opportunity for cross-
checking impressions and information emerging through the interviews. The PKH
played a catalyst or collaborative role in a large number of initiatives and
activities. The evaluation was only able to consider most of them as reported by
the project team.
2 Background and context of the project
2.1 Highlights of the situation at the launch of the PKH
11. The work of a project can only be assessed in light of its context of intervention.
This section discusses the situation at its start. Of particular relevance to the
project were the state of the knowledge about pastoralism, the landscape of
pastoralist social movements, and positioning within FAO. Key points in this
regard are: (i) knowledge about pastoralism was not straightforward: the received
wisdom representing pastoralism in a negative light had been formally
challenged for decades and the development of an alternative framework was
underway; (ii) substantial progress had been made by pastoralist social
movements since at least the late 1990s, but tensions and contradictions were
also present in this landscape; and (iii) the attention paid to pastoralism within
FAO was minimal.
12. Knowledge about pastoralism is still today a legacy of misunderstanding and
debate within rural development, a highly politicized territory at the regional and
national level, and a hotspot in an extensive and evolving discussion within the
scientific community in the context of climate change.
2
In 2014, there had already
been 20 years of debate following the formal challenge of the old paradigm from
within ecology. Identifying, collecting and organizing knowledge for advocacy
activities for the pastoral social movement, as PKH was intended to do, was
therefore a challenging task. Navigating safely through such a difficult context
entailed detecting and negotiating the many misconceptions, and the
misinterpretations embedded in data generated from inadequate assumptions.
3
2
IIED (2009); IUCN (2012); IIED (2015); IFAD (2018); Scoones (2019); and Chapman (2016). The challenges of working
with such a legacy of misunderstanding was acknowledged in the joint evaluation synthesis of FAO's and IFAD's
Engagement in Pastoral Development (FAO and IFAD, 2016).
3
The legacy of inadequate assumptions in pastoral development includes biases in the methodological tools: off-the
shelf definitions, spatial and temporal scales of observations, indicators and mechanisms of appraisals. These tools,
which were designed to capture what had appeared to matter following from inadequate assumptions, produce a
distorted image of pastoral systems (Krätli et al., 2015). Particularly with regard to Africa, this image combines with the
general shortcomings in relevant statistics: Jerven (2013); Pica-Ciamarra et al. (2014); the series of studies, The
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
10
13. Pastoralist social movements had closely followed the transformation in the
knowledge about pastoralism. National networks of pastoralist organizations had
been forming in India and Africa since the 1990s.
4
By 2014, the Association of
World Reindeer Herders, created in 1997, had held five world congresses and had
signed four formal declarations.
5
The World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous
Peoples (WAMIP), created in 2003, had grown from the vision of a small group of
dedicated individuals to a global organization with four gatherings and three
formal declarations on record, including one predominantly by women
pastoralists,
6
detailed statutes and an elected council with 22 representatives in
eight regions in Asia and Africa (2007).
14. Pastoralists’ formal declarations asserted their expertise as livestock professionals,
called for a fundamental re-thinking of pastoral development, away from the
historical bias in favour of large industry, and claimed the right to have a voice in
decisions on their own livelihoods and the direction of their own development.
Throughout the world, pastoralists’ had consistently prioritized calls to reverse
the undermining of pastoral mobility and the conversion of rangelands to other
uses. The 2010 Mera Declaration by women pastoralists also stressed women’s
role as producers in pastoral systems. Connections with broader social movements
via the ‘food sovereignty’ entry point were being explored.
7
15. In 2014, WAMIP claimed 200 members in 48 countries, an open channel with the
International Land Coalition (ILC), and representation in the International
Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC), the United Nations Permanent
Forum for Indigenous Issues, the United Nations Committee on Food Security
(CFS), the Indigenous Peoples Forum (IFAD), the Global Agenda for Sustainable
Livestock and the Steering Committee of the World Initiative for Sustainable
Pastoralism (WISP).
8
This rapid growth was not without weaknesses. The
mechanisms to control the executive organ between congresses appeared
inadequate. Communication between Secretariat and Councillors was unreliable.
A change of the executive body in 2010, had not solved the root problem. In
2013, the congress in Kiserian, Kenya, voted for some fundamental changes to
the governance structure, including extending executive power to a new body of
‘regional coordinators’. Operations then followed the new structure, but the
Contribution of Livestock to the Economies of IGAD Member States, co-funded by FAO: Behnke (2010); Behnke and
Metaferia (2011); Behnke and Muthami (2011); Behnke and Osman (2011); and Behnke and Nakirya (2012).
4
Examples are: Association pour la Redynaminisation de l'Elevage au Niger, founded in 1990; the Pastoralist Indigenous
Non-Governmental Organizations Forum and the Pastoralist Women Council, both established in United Republic of
Tanzania, (1994 and 1997); the Samburu Women Trust in Kenya (2006); and the First Pastoral Parliament in Gujarat
(2008).
5
https://reindeerherding.org/world-reindeer-herders
6
A large meeting on the back of the Global Pastoralist Gathering in South Omo, Ethiopia (2005). WAMIP declarations
were produced by more formal congresses held during the World Gathering of Nomads and Transhumant Herders in
Segovia, Spain (2007), the Global Gathering of Women Pastoralists in Mera, India (2010) and the Global Pastoralists
Gathering in Kiserian, Kenya (2013).
7
The Wilderswil Declaration (2007) and The Kiserian Pastoralist Statement (2013) includes references to ‘food
sovereignty’, a concept introduced by La Vía Campesina and formalized in 1996 in the International Planning Committee
for Food Sovereignty (Desmarais and Nicholson 2013). In 2017, the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa published a
study on pastoralism under their project ‘Strengthening Pastoralist and Civil Society Voices in the EAC and IGAD regions’
(AFSA, 2017).
8
WISP (2014).
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
11
governance changes had not been ratified in the Statutes of through a formal
declaration
9
.
16. Pastoralist social movements did not occur in isolation. A loose network of
supporters across the world, in national and international non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), university departments, research institutes and United
Nations agencies, had accompanied them in various ways, generating and
disseminating relevant evidence and advocacy arguments, unearthing
misconceptions and methodological barriers, and engaging in programmes
specifically aimed at supporting pastoral civil society.
10
By 2014, the impact of
this work had reached policy level and legislation.
11
17. With respect to FAO’s positioning, engaging in pastoral development was highly
relevant to FAO core mandate and strategic objectives
12
. FAO’s engagement in
pastoral development in 2014 was weak, predominantly through technical
interventions in animal health and emergency, and mostly limited to settled and
farming communities.
13
Attention to pastoralism was unsystematic and
fragmented, limited to the personal interest of particular individuals, and focused
on specific sectors. A working group under the then Plant Production and
Protection Division (AGP) had been particularly active in pastoralism during the
1990s, but the momentum was lost when key people retired. As of 2014,
pastoralism had been low on the agenda for over a decade, and dedicated
projects were hard to find.
14
Some of the broad policy and advocacy processes,
however, had a bearing on pastoralism, for example, the Global Agenda for
Sustainable Livestock, and the Strategy for Partnerships with Civil Society
Organizations. Of particular relevance was the process of developing the
Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Forests and
Fisheries (FAO, 2012) and the follow-up activities in support of their
implementation. This is indeed one of the areas in which the PKH was engaged
continuously throughout the life of the project.
2.2 Premises, context and organization of the project
18. The PKH was set up to:
allow representatives of the pastoralist constituency to bring their
knowledge, views, and experiences, to a consultative platform of
9
WAMIP 2007a and 2007b; ICR 2018a and 2018b; also Bassi 2017, and Upton 2013.
10
From 2001 to 2005, IIED and RECONCILE ran the project ‘Reinforcement of pastoral civil society in East Africa’. From
2005 and 2010, the Pastoralist Communication Initiative (PCI) organized several large pastoralist gatherings, including
a global gathering in partnership with United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) .
UNDP published an inventory of the ‘myths about pastoralism’ (UNDP-GDI 2003), and held a ‘Global Pastoral
Programme Formulation Workshop’ in Nairobi in 2004.
11
Some examples are: African Union Policy Framework on Pastoralism (2010); the Kenyan first National Policy for the
Sustainable Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands (MDNKOAL 2012); the Pastoral Code in Niger
(République of Niger, 2010); and the international declarations of N’Djamena (2013) and Nouakchott (2013); followed
by the launch of the Regional Sahel Pastoralism Support Project (PRAPS) by World Bank.
12
FAO-IFAD 2016.
13
All examples of ongoing improvement from this situation, provided in the Management’s response to the 2016
FAO-IFAD Joint Evaluation Synthesis (JES), referred to the Pastoralist Knowledge Hub (FAO-IFAD 2016).
14
The JES found that there was a “lack of a coherent conceptual framework and systematic direction’ and
‘considerable confusion between pastoral development and livestock development, and no clear understanding of
pastoral systems” (FAO-IFAD, 2016).
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
12
dialogue in order to advocate the particular views and needs of their
constituency, to influence policy dialogue on issues related to their
important role in food security, to exchange lessons learned and best
practices, and to further develop the knowledge and capacities of
policy makers and pastoralists alike in an effort to further support
the development of much needed pastoralist policies, in particular
at national level.
19. Within this general programme, PKH1 covered support to pastoralists in
advocacy and policy matters, and the establishment of the Web platform of the
Hub. PKH2 added technical support to knowledge generation and improved
livelihood strategies and resilience of pastoralists. The expected impact of PKH
was improved policies, legislation and programmes related to pastoralism
contributing to food security, poverty reduction and resilience. The expected
outcome was increased capacity of pastoralist organizations to participate in and
contribute effectively to decision-making at the national and global policy level.
According to the project’s own narrative, plans for the PKH were made in
response to a request by the ‘pastoralist constituency’ (i.e. WAMIP) in the Civil
Society Mechanism of the World Committee of Food Security (CSM-CFS) in late
2012. The request was reiterated in a formal statement produced during the
pastoralist gathering in Kiserian in 2013 (also the third WAMIP congress meeting).
In 2014, the plans for the PKH were then also supported by other stakeholders,
for example African Union – Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR),
IFAD, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
20. PKH1 was to set up and start populating an interactive web portal, and running
‘policy and training workshops’ with pastoralist CSOs at the regional level. PKH2
was to continue the development and management of the web portal, and step
up the work with pastoralist CSOs, including national workshops with pastoralists
‘for outreach and education’, and activities for the ‘institutional strengthening of
pastoralist organizations’, especially WAMIP, and support their participation in
policy-making at the international and national levels. This second stage of the
project also aimed to help close the knowledge gap on pastoralism, particularly
with regard to socio-economic data, methods and tools considered relevant to
food security and resilience.
21. In the course of the implementation, this initial set of activities was gradually
organized in what the PKH website described as the ‘three pillars giving
pastoralists the necessary knowledge, networks and partners to participate in
global policy dialogue
15
(i) creating a knowledge repository on pastoralism; (ii)
supporting pastoralist CSOs in networking, organizing and voicing their concerns
at the appropriate policy fora; and (iii) fostering alliances among key partners in
view of sharing information and promoting pastoralist-friendly interventions and
policies. In addition, knowledge-generation activities represented a substantial
proportion of the project, especially the PKH2.
22. The PKH aimed to work with pastoralist CSOs worldwide. At the global level, the
PKH has worked with the WAMIP. At the regional level, the PKH has worked with
15
Pastoralist Knowledge Hub, www.fao.org/pastoralist-knowledge-hub/background/our-pillars/en/
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
13
pastoralist civil society networks in Eastern and Southern Africa, Western and
Central Africa, North Africa and Near East, Latin America, Central Asia, South Asia,
High Asia, Europe and recently, the Arctic. Most of these networks were
established under the PKH initiative.
23. Between 2014 and 2018, the PKH was coordinated by three successive
coordinators, which caused some loss in the institutional memory. The PKH1
team consisted of two people (one full-time consultant and the project
coordinator) and a budget of US$826,621. PKH2 team consisted of two people
and a budget of US$947,755. An additional consultant was hired to work on the
collaboration with the project funded by IFAD. The overall management
arrangements were lean and efficient.
24. The PHK started with a handful of partner organizations working towards
sustainable pastoralism. At the time of the evaluation, there were 37 partners.
PKH had linkages with three ongoing projects financed by, respectively, the
Spanish Cooperation (GCP/RAF/464/SPA), the International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD) (GCP /GLO/779/IFA) and the Global Environment Facility
(GEF) (GCP/GLO/530/GFF).
16
Collaboration with these projects secured PKH’s
additional resources to work towards its outcome, both directly, because the
projects’ expected outputs were consistent with the PKH expected outcome, and
through economies of scale, such as the hiring of a full-time consultant as an
additional PKH team member under the IFAD project. The PKH also played a role
in other projects and initiatives such as Appui à la mise en œuvre des Directives
volontaires pour une gouvernance responsable des régimes fonciers applicables
aux terres, les pêches et les forêts (GCP/GLO/347/MUL), the Global Rangeland
Initiative of the ILC, World Overview of Conservation Approaches and
Technologies (WOCAT),
17
and the preparations for the United Nations
International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralism. There was close collaboration
with the World Bank from the conception of the project, resulting in, inter alia,
the PKH side event during the CFS, which included World Bank work on conflict
prevention and resolution.
25. Within FAO, PKH liaised with several units dealing with animal production and
health, plant production and protection, forest management, partnerships and
South-South cooperation, climate change and emergencies.
26. The project was designed to be highly relevant to FAO’s strategy to improve the
governance of food security and aligned to ensure the achievement of FAO’s five
Strategic Objectives, particularly Strategic Objective 1, Contribute to the
eradication of hunger, food security and malnutrition; Strategic Objective 2,
Increase and improve provision of goods and services from agriculture, forestry and
fisheries in a sustainable manner; and Strategic Objective 5, Increase the resilience
of rural livelihoods to threats and crises. The project design linked the pursuit of
these objectives to the expected impact and outcome of the PKH by
strengthening pastoralists’ voice and participation in the formulation and
16
Only in-kind, no direct financial contribution.
17
The project ‘Rangelands – Guidelines to good practices in sub-Saharan Africa’ was part of the WOCAT Sustainable
Land Management database. The study has just been published (Liniger and Mekdaschi Studer, 2019).
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
14
implementation of public policies related to the four pillars of food security, i.e.
availability, access, utilization and stability. This was to be achieved by building
pastoralists’ capacity and opportunities to make themselves heard in the relevant
policy-making processes while promoting an enabling environment in policy-
making contexts. This would make policy-makers more receptive to pastoralists’
voices. Increasing the knowledge base about pastoralism, including exploring
innovative tools, was part of this design.
2.3 The theory of change
27. The logic behind pursuing this goal rested on an understanding that pastoral
systems play an important role in ensuring food security and resilience in their
respective countries, and at the regional level. It also rested on an understanding
of policies, legislation and programmes related to pastoralism as falling short of
supporting pastoral systems and, consequently, of effectively promoting food
security and resilience. The PKH also seized the opportunity of the growing
interest in pastoralism at the global level. Since the PKH is concerned with
pastoralism as a food production system, ‘pastoralists’ refers not only generally
to a cultural identity, but also particularly to people who make their living as
primary producers in pastoral systems.
28. The entry point chosen by the PKH towards its expected impact was pastoralists’
capacity to make their voices heard in policy-making/decision-making
concerning their livelihoods (including reversing mechanisms of exclusion and
marginalization). The main assumption here was that such processes could
become more effective if the voice of those directly involved could be heard,
leading to improved policies, legislation and programmes.
29. Strengthening pastoralists’ voice was pursued from two directions: increasing
their ability to voice their positions by supporting their CSOs, facilitating their
access to policy-making processes and building their capacity for effective
participation (e.g. by increasing access to evidence-based arguments for
advocacy); and increasing their chances to be heard by making the relevant
decision-making environments more receptive to pastoralists’ voices and their
arguments, reducing the knowledge gap, invisibility and misconceptions about
pastoral systems (i.e. working towards a more enabling environment).
30. The project documents illustrated this logic as follows:
The importance of pastoralism. People in pastoral systems are a significant
constituency from both an economic and an ecological point of view;
therefore, they should be a core concern of development and poverty
reduction efforts. Pastoralism represents a substantial economic contribution
from a considerable number of mostly small-scale producers, including to food
security, especially in areas where other modes of production are difficult.
Moreover, pastoral systems consist in a large land basis with poverty-
environmental degradation nexus, but also specialist knowledge in national
resources management, and environmental services. At the global level, both
the dynamism of pastoralist organizations and the interest in pastoralism by
policy-makers and development actors are gaining momentum.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The!expected!impact!of!the!PKH!was!improved!policies,!!legisla9on!
and!programmes!related!to!pastoralism!contribu9ng!to!food!security!and!resilience.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
15
Pastoralists’ voice. Pastoralist CSOs are still at an infant stage, relatively isolated,
with low capacity and poor visibility. Pastoralist representation in the arena of
politics and development is weak at all levels. Policies favourable to
pastoralists, when produced, have not been implemented.
Knowledge gap is at the root of an unresponsive development environment.
The understanding of pastoral systems is poor, and many old misconceptions
about pastoralism are still at work. Lack of relevant data and poor/inadequate
policies are barriers to pastoral development and the goal of increasing
production and resilience. Pastoralists’ livelihoods and production are
constrained by national policies seeking to settle pastoral communities and
turn them into modern livestock keepers.
31. The PKH also aimed to create a space for working specifically on pastoralism
within FAO, consistently relevant to and in line with most of FAO’s strategic
programmes, especially SP1, SP3 and SP5. Hosting the PKH at FAO was also seen
as having the added value of meeting ‘pastoralists need [for] the
intergovernmental dimension that FAO can especially provide’.
32. Thus, the PKH’s theory of change was as follows:
Conditions to be changed
Pastoralists’ voice in decision-making concerning their livelihoods is weak, which
is one of the causes of inadequate policies, legislation and programmes related
to pastoralism, contributing to food security.
Process
IF
Pastoralists’ capacity to make themselves heard in decision-making
processes concerning their livelihoods, is increased:
i.
pastoralist CSOs including women, are mobilised and networked in
a united front;
ii.
pastoralist CSOs’ network of supporters and partners increases at
national, regional and global level;
iii.
pastoralist CSOs’s capacity for accessing, using, and generating
new knowledge relevant to their agenda is increased;
iv.
pastoralist representatives secure a voice in the relevant policy-
making processes at national, regional and global level.
AND
the relevant decision-making environments become more receptive to
the voice of pastoralists (a more ‘enabling’ environment):
v.
the knowledge-gap on pastoralism is reduced, especially
concerning its economic and ecological rationale and value;
vi.
pastoralist CSOs’s work in advocacy and representation of
pastoralists voice is supported through developing partnerships
and alliances, and through coordination, knowledge-sharing and
cooperation mechanisms;
vii
the visibility of sound knowledge about pastoralism is increased in
the development arena.
THEN
Pastoralists’ voice in decision-making processes concerning their
livelihoods is strengthened (at the national, regional and global policy
level), resulting in improved policies, legislations and programmes related
to pastoralism and food security.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
16
3 Evaluation questions: Key findings
3.1 Relevance and design
EQ1. Was the design of the PKH relevant to the needs of pastoralist organizations?
EQ1.1. Were the PKH’s expected impact and outcome relevant to the context of
intervention?
Finding 1. The PKH’s expected impact and outcome were aimed at improving the
functioning of the pastoralist-policy-science interface, and therefore strongly
relevant to the context of intervention.
33. As seen above [2.2], the context in which PKH was to intervene was characterized
by serious and persistent malfunctioning in the interface between pastoralists,
science and policy. This was partly due to a legacy of misunderstanding of
pastoral systems and their operating environment, starting from some of the
underlying assumptions in the scientific models of representation commonly
used in pastoral development. This was partly due to entrenched misconceptions
about the low intrinsic value of pastoral systems, which prevented giving
pastoralists’ voice the due consideration. Finally, this was partly due to poor
communications across the interface and the often very practical challenges
faced by pastoralists in trying to bring their voices to policy processes (timely
information, travel costs, language and access), even when such processes had a
direct impact on their livelihoods.
34. The focus on food security, especially when understood by the four pillars of
availability, access, utilization and stability, is general enough to work as a
valuable entry point for the concerns that had been voiced by pastoralists in their
formal declarations: exclusion from representation in the decisions concerning
the future of their livelihoods; undermining of mobility as a right and as a strategy
of production; and loss of rangelands to land-use conversion programmes.
Stakeholders’ feedback was unanimous in finding the PKH’s expected outcome
highly relevant.
EQ1.2. Were the activities planned for PKH1 and PKH2 relevant to the expected impact and
outcome?
35. PKH1 activities clustered around creating an interactive web portal and
strengthening and broadening pastoralist civil society. PKH2 activities concerned
improving knowledge and increase the participation of pastoralist organizations
at the technical and policy levels. The goal of strengthening pastoralist civil
society was effectively shared between the two phases of the project: PKH1
focused on the initial mobilization of pastoral civil society, while PKH2 focused
on using the technical work under its output 1 to develop capacity in pastoralist
civil society networks.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
17
Finding 2. The design of the PKH placed WAMIP in a central position but largely
overlooking WAMIP’s governance problems (only partially acknowledged in the
design of the PKH2).
36. The FAO Indigenous Peoples’ Team in the Advocacy Unit provided WAMIP with
advice and indications to prevent a global umbrella organization like WAMIP
from disappearing. This is part of the work that the FAO Advocacy Unit has been
carrying out, not only with WAMIP, but also with other umbrella networks
engaged in areas of work related to FAO’s mandate. There are several other
examples of how global umbrella organizations on the verge of disappearing
have been supported by the FAO Advocacy Unit in different ways without
interfering in their internal issues, which would be beyond FAO’s mandate.
37. WAMIP had a central position in the design of the PKH, although more
pronounced in PKH1.
18
A detailed explanation of the plan of action for the
regional meetings in the PKH1 project document clearly indicates that these
activities were directed to strengthening WAMIP. The project document for PKH1
found that “the outcomes of these meetings in Segovia (Spain), Mera (India) and
Kiserian (Kenya) as well as other activities of the WAMIP Secretariat and other
pastoralist NGOs have raised greater interest in pastoralist representation … This
greater space requires better organization and a higher involvement capacity;
WAMIP has thus strengthened the regionalization process of its strategy, which
implies setting up regional WAMIP platforms to allow active involvement of WAMIP
members in each region … It is therefore a key milestone to organize regional
meetings in all WAMIP constituencies in order to further launch the WAMIP process
of pastoralist representation”.
19
The document also acknowledged “the
experience of WAMIP and other pastoral NGOs concerning the need for face-to-
face meetings in order to set regional processes in motion”.
38. Despite this focus on strengthening the WAMIP, the design of PKH1 did not
acknowledge the weaknesses with WAMIP governance, and indeed showed some
confusion about its structure. PKH1’s planned meetings ‘to further launch the
WAMIP process of pastoralist representation’ included “a WAMIP Council
meeting during the 41st CFS in Rome … In this meeting, the state of global
consultations will be followed up, and the election of a new WAMIP executive
board will be done”.
20
Technically, WAMIP Council post-2013 consisted of 54
representatives,
21
but the project document budgeted for around ten. The
project document calls ‘WAMIP Council’ the group of regional coordinators
resulted from the unratified changes of governance made in 2013 in Kiserian. By
planning to fund a meeting to elect a new executive board on these bases, the
design of the PKH effectively committed the project to implementing the Kiserian
changes. Checking the credentials of the 2013 WAMIP governance structure
would have revealed that it had never been ratified (see above 2.2). The design
for PKH2 placed greater emphasis on the governance of WAMIP, with activity
18
The PKH1 project design mentions WAMIP 35 times; PKH2 mentions WAMIP 16 times.
19
FAO/GCP (2014: 17), emphasis added.
20
FAO/GCP (2014: 18).
21
There were to be six councillors per region. Nominally, there were ten regions but one, North America, had no
councillors (ICR, 2018a).
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
18
2.2.2 consisting in a desk study to ‘develop guidelines around pastoralist
representation’.
Finding 3. The plan for a knowledge repository was highly pertinent. To be more
robust, the design could have defined clear boundaries for the database, providing
systematic and objective criteria on what was to be included.
39. A main task of PKH1 was to set up the web portal. This aimed to facilitate access
to information (the ‘Knowledge Repository’) and serve as a forum for dialogue
and networking between users. The Knowledge Repository was to be initially
populated from “a desk review to collect and analyse relevant research and
project documents from FAO and other organizations (FAOLEX, AU-IBAR, WISP,
IIED, IFAD, WFP, International Land Coalition ILC, etc) including national and
international policy documents and regulation”. This was to “allow the
identification of gaps and opportunities”. Given that sound information on
pastoralism is particularly scattered, and given the difficulties involved in
identifying it among the much larger legacy of works produced from outdated
assumptions, the plan for a knowledge repository was highly pertinent.
40. The Knowledge Repository was conceived as a thematic library where it would be
possible to find a range of materials, from magazines to classic texts. Surprisingly
however, the list of possible organisations to contact for information during the
desk review did not include academic sources. The project design also omitted
to define clear boundaries for the repository/database, providing systematic and
objective criteria as to what exactly was to be included.
22
A project with a strong
knowledge-management component, and that was positioning itself to become
a global reference could have benefitted from a more robust design in this
regard.
Finding 4. The approach in the knowledge-generation activities of PKH2 had
advocacy value and the merit of maximizing pastoralism connectivity and
reflection within FAO.
41. All activities under PKH2 output 1 aimed at producing information on pastoralism
or pastoralism-related topics. The PKH2 project document presents these
activities clustered under three headings: 1. Improving information on and
mapping of pastoralist systems; 2. Understanding drivers of resilience and
providing early warning systems; and 3. Developing methods and tools to
support pastoralist rangeland planning and pastoralist-managed natural
resource regeneration. The other nine headings are clustered under three other
sub-headings: 1.1, Assessing feed resources availability; 1.2, Improving the
gathering and availability of pastoralist socio-economic data;1.3, Validating and
upscaling mobility patterns; 1.4, Mapping breed distribution, feed rations and
livestock productivity; 2.1 Understanding drivers of resilience; 2.2, Expanding ASIS
to rangelands (early warning system); 3.1, Developing a tool kit for participatory
rangeland planning; 3.2, Assessing and mapping restoration potential of agro-
sylvo-pastoral landscapes; and 3.3, Developing tablet-based dissemination tools.
22
The only two passages that qualify the content of the knowledge repository are: ‘all the relevant knowledge
produced by, available at and accessible to FAO’ and ‘relevant information useful to pastoralists and their livelihoods’.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
19
42. The activities, relatively small, rested on ongoing projects, adding a ‘pastoralism’
dimension to tools and platforms designed with other uses and other contexts in
mind (GLEAM, SHARP, LADA, GIEWS, DAD-IS, ASIS).
23
This approach had the
merit of connecting the PKH, with its unique focus on pastoralism within FAO, to
a large portfolio of potentially relevant programmes, either increasing the
visibility and coverage of pastoralism, or introducing it where absent.
43. In the view of the FAO teams directly involved in these activities, the knowledge-
making component of the PKH is best understood from the perspective of its
advocacy value. In this regard, several dimensions have emerged during this
evaluation, some of which are more obvious, such as when the information to be
produced is expected to support advocacy arguments, or when a process aimed
at producing aggregate information (e.g. regional or global estimates) exposes
gaps or weaknesses in the primary data. Other dimensions are less public but
also important, such as when professionals’ engagement in generating
pastoralism-related knowledge increases their awareness of the importance of
pastoralism, or when it triggers a reflection on standard approaches and
methodologies, and dialogue on their limitations.
Finding 5. Overall, the scale of the task and the challenges with respect to the
resources and level of specialization being mobilized, as well as FAO’s internal
demand, were higher than expected at the time of the design of the PKH.
44. A structural gap between overall task and resources/capacity is evident in three
important aspects of the PKH. First, the approach to the state of weakness of
pastoralist civil society (e.g. in organization or in the capacity to speak with one
voice); in particular, there was confusion between representing this weakness as
a primary focus of intervention (strengthening a pastoralist civil society still in its
early stage – see theory of change), and representing it as external to the scope
of the project (constructing pastoralist CSOs as partners responsible for the
success of specific project activities). Second, the structure of the knowledge
repository and more broadly of the knowledge management component of the
project were not as detailed as necessary in light of the exceptional difficulties
associated with the state of the knowledge on pastoralism and the competing
interests around it. Third, the global scope, the large number of heterogeneous
activities to be conducted and the potential for demand within FAO were greater
than the resources of the project – a team of two or at most three, and a
spendable budget around US$100,000 per year.
23
Global Livestock Environmental Assessment (GLEAM); Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of Climate Resilience
of Farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP); Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA); Global Information and Early
Warning System (GIEWS); (Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS); Agricultural Stress Index System
(ASIS). SHARP had only been used in farmer field schools; DAD-IS had been populated with information provided by
governing bodies whose knowledge or even interest in pastoral systems would have required case-by-case close
monitoring that was not possible; GIEWS provided crop market prices but had ignored live animals; GLEAM provided
global environmental assessment for livestock but, as observed only recently, struggled to capture seasonality.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
20
3.2 Effectiveness
EQ2. To what extent did the PKH increase pastoralists’ capacity to make themselves
heard in decision-making concerning their livelihoods?
EQ2.1. To what extent did the PKH succeed in mobilizing pastoralist CSOs and networking
them at the national, regional and global levels?
Finding 6. The PKH kept the mobilization of pastoralist CSOs active, even expanded it,
during years when WAMIP’s capacity for constructive action was minimal.
45. Through the PKH, the regional pastoralist alliances that were decided during the
2013 meeting in Kiserian were systematically established. Under PKH1, this
programme was implemented through Letters of Agreement (LoAs) between
FAO and a selected organization from each region. Seven regional meetings
prompted and funded by the PKH, of which three in partnership with Vétérinaires
sans Frontières (VSF)/IFAD, were attended by a total of 360 participants from 64
countries, an increase by around 30 percent over the number of countries
reached by WAMIP in 2014.
24
In some cases, such as for the Latin America
meeting that the PKH supported in 2015, it was the first time that pastoralist CSOs
in the region “had a chance to meet and start thinking of themselves as a group
with shared interests and problems”.
25
Support from the PKH is considered to
have been determinant in the creation of the Arabian Pastoralist Community
Network (APCN), the Eastern and Southern Africa Pastoralist Network, the World
Yak Herders Association, and the South Asia Pastoralist Alliance, as well as in the
expansion of the European Shepherds Network.
26
Representation from some
areas of the world was still weak in 2016, for example, Southern Africa, where
pastoralism was found to be more disjointed.
27
Formal declarations produced by
each pastoral regional network added a chapter to the history of pastoralist social
movements and moved forward towards meeting the need for organizing into a
united front at least around a core of strict minimum consensus.
28
46. Since 2015, a key email-based forum set up by the PKH has generated substantial
activity.
29
Community dialogue meetings also contributed to some mobilization
at the national level, especially in Africa and in High Asia, where a series of ten
community-dialogue workshops in yak-herding communities, organized by
YURTA, led to the establishment of the World Yak Herders Association, the first
network of this kind. Information on pastoralist CSOs was collected worldwide
and organized into a public database on the PKH website. By the end of the
24
A new region, Artic, joined WAMIP in 2018.
25
From the stakeholder interviews.
26
A proposal for the creation of the APCN was first made by the Arab delegation attending the gathering in Kiserian
in 2013. The proposal was then relaunched by IUCN Jordan at the during the 1st ‘Hima’ Conference in Amman in
2014. The APCN was officially launched in the context of the 2nd Regional Forum on ‘Hima’ in Amman in October
2016.
27
A Focal Point for the Civil Society Mechanism Southern African sub-region was finally elected in April 2019.
28
The Declarations were: Hustai Declaration 2015; Koblenz-Ehrenbreitstein Declaration (2015); Dclaration de Bamako
(2016); Dclaration d’Hammamet (2016); Lukenya Pastoralist Declaration (2016); and Déclaration du Réseau Européen
des Berger (2018).
29
At the time of the evaluation, the e-mail forum had 1,210 members from 64 countries and had generated over 700
discussions on topics such as pastoral land tenure, animal trade, animal health and policy processes.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
21
project, all regional alliances were in place, even if most of them were still ‘thin’
in their structures and roots.
Finding 7. Support to resolve the WAMIP’s internal difficulties was provided by PKH2
in 2018. Given the centrality of WAMIP in the PKH1 project design, and more broadly,
in the PKH’s overarching premise and justification, it would have been appropriate to
provide this support earlier on.
47. In 2018, WAMIP began the revision of its own governance structure. This was
facilitated by a member organization, the International Centre for Reindeer
Husbandry (ICR), with coordination and financial support from the PKH (following
a year and a half of discussions between the PKH and the WAMIP). A Letter of
Agreement between the PKH and the ICR, focusing on this task, was signed in
February 2018. A period of preparation and interviews with WAMIP members
followed, documented in two reports
30
. The ICR held a meeting with WAMIP
representatives from all regions in Brussels in September 2018, the first formal
meeting of WAMIP since 2014. From the first steps, the process confirmed the
challenges of helping WAMIP recover, but also a general agreement that “there
is a need for WAMIP, because there is no organization like WAMIP at the
international level”.
31
48. Throughout its existence, the PKH pushed forward WAMIP’s 2013 organizational
plans for regional networks. For the best part of the PKH’s life, since 2015–2016,
WAMIP’s capacity for constructive action was at a historical minimum. Given the
centrality of WAMIP to the PKH project and given that the weaknesses in its
governance structure were already evident in 2013, when they had led the
Congress to vote on fundamental changes (see above, 2.2), PKH support to
strengthen WAMIP with respect to its internal problems should have been at the
forefront, rather than implemented in the final phases of the project.
32
A relatively
high turnover of staff within the PKH and a change of director within the ICR
contributed to the delay. The ambiguity in the PKH project design, on the rules
of engagement with the weakness of pastoralist civil society [Q1.2], was only
partially addressed in implementation. Engaging with the weakness in the
WAMIP’s governance structure was seen as beyond the scope of the PKH, but of
course setting up regional networks did exactly that, only not explicitly. Ex-post,
the creation of regional networks is represented in the PKH’s own narrative as
consolidating the WAMIP through a ‘bottom-up’ approach – whereas starting
from consolidating it at the global level would have been ‘top down’. However,
by the same logic, if by starting from the regional networks the PKH was trying
to consolidate the global level ‘bottom-up’, it was simultaneously building the
regional level ‘top-down’. The PKH’s justification for starting at the regional level
therefore seems somehow controversial.
33
The bottom line, seems that WAMIP’s
30
ICR 2018a and 2018b.
31
ICR (2018a: 6).
32
According to the PKH2 Progress Report for July to December 2018, “WAMIP, the global pastoralist network
established in 2004, was facing some governance issues in the past few years.” The PKH2 project design (August 2015)
shows awareness of problems with the WAMIP’s governance in Activity 2.2.2, ‘Develop guidelines around pastoralist
representation’, and planning that “WAMIP institutional strengthening will be supported by the project win an
institutional development expert” (FAO/GCP, 2015).
33
Regional networks were supported and built on work already completed by other partners of pastoralist CSOs, such
as IUCN-WISP and IFAD.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
22
need of support in resolving its own governance issues was eventually recognised
and met by the PKH in 2017-2018, which is good, but it would have been better
to recognise this need and provide support from the start.
49. To date, many stakeholders find the relationship between the PKH and WAMIP
confusing. This confusion is visible in some of the reports of the meetings
supported by the PKH, or even in some of the declarations, in contrast to the
description of the regional meetings as WAMIP-centred in the design of PKH1
[Q1.2].
34
This point also emerged from interviews with stakeholders, carried out
by the ICR as part of the process to find a new governance structure for WAMIP.
35
From the PKH’s perspective, by introducing the regional coordinators, the project
was merely helping WAMIP implement its new governance structure. Unchecked
at design, the credentials of WAMIP’s governance structure (the 2007 Statutes)
came to the attention of the PKH only in 2016, when a division within WAMIP had
eventually emerged, highlighting that the Statutes had never been updated with
the 2013 changes and that these changes had not been recorded in any other
way. Feedback from stakeholders indicates that this was also the first time that
the PKH engaged with the 2007 Statutes, although their existence was known at
least to all participants in the Segovia gathering.
50. The 2007 Statutes had not been used even within WAMIP, and some WAMIP
members were as surprised as the PKH when they emerged again. This can
explain, but not excuse, why in 2014 the PKH did not start its active engagement
with WAMIP’s governance from where it would have been most logical and safe,
i.e. from the Statutes—even if only to assist WAMIP in ratifying the changes
decided the year before in Kisarian. While it is now in everyone’s best interest to
move forward, it is important to take on board that, despite the good will, some
confusion did arise concerning the rules of engagement with WAMIP’s
governance weakness. This resulted in the PKH’s inability to support WAMIP as
effectively and directly as initially planned, and possibly in exacerbating the
problems within WAMIP between 2015 and 2017. The stakeholders’ view in this
regard, shared by this evaluation, is that the process of ‘healing’ WAMIP,
eventually initiated in 2018, does correct this initial faux pas and sets both WAMIP
and the PKH on a good course.
51. The online survey carried out for this evaluation with the 1,200 members of the
PKH e-mail forum, returned 65 responses. According to the breakdown of the
respondents by affiliation, only 12.5 (eight people) were from pastoralist CSOs.
Most responses came from people who identified themselves as members of an
‘NGO’ (36 percent), ‘academia’ (close to 33 percent) or of an ‘international
development organization’ (close to 19 percent). Only four responses (just over
6 percent) were from people who identified themselves as having a ‘government’
34
At the Asian Regional Consultation with Pastoralists and Livestock Breeders’ Organizations in Asia, Mongolia, 24–26
January 2016, the two representatives of the Central Asia pastoral network, the Pastoral Assembly of Central Asia (PACA),
were mentioned respectively as the “FAO Pastoralist Knowledge Hub Focal Point” and the “FAO PKH”. The Hustai
Declaration (Central Asia) concludes: “We support the constitution of the Pastoralist Knowledge Hub and wish to
contribute to it through this Declaration”. The Lukenya Declaration (ESAPN) refers to the “Pastoralist Knowledge Hub
Regional Meeting for Eastern and Southern Africa” and concludes, “We appeal to other partners to join and coordinate
their work within the Pastoralist Knowledge Hub.” Neither declaration makes reference to WAMIP.
35
ICR (2018b: 4): “Some informants have mentioned that the involvement from the Pastoralists Knowledge Hub with
their introduction of regional coordinators or regional focal points […] caused a lot of misunderstanding.”
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
23
affiliation. The core question in the survey was: “Based on your experience with
the Hub, would you say that its goal of strengthening pastoralist civil society
organizations has been achieved?” Around 69 percent agreed or strongly agreed
that it had been achieved (including 6 of the 8 responses from pastoralist CSOs).
Around 26 percent partially agreed (2 from pastoralist CSOs), and 4.7 percent
(three people) disagreed.
Finding 8. The PKH secured a significant participation of women pastoralists in its
activities, and in High Asia, enabled the creation of a new network of women
pastoralists (Yak Association of Ladakh); however, explicit action to follow up on the
Mera Declaration would have further enhanced their participation.
52. In agreement with regional and local pastoralist CSOs, the PKH established and
followed clear inclusion criteria for women and youth, guaranteeing the
participation of at least 50 percent of women and youth in the regional
workshops and the community dialogues. Representation as focal points for
regional pastoralist networks included women. One of the two PKH community
dialogues held in Central Asia in 2016
36
led to the creation of a new network of
women pastoralists, the Yak Association of Ladakh. Only two of the formal
declarations produced by the regional meetings mention women (the Western
and Central Africa network and the Eastern and Southern Africa network) and
only as vulnerable targets for help. An opportunity was missed there to follow up
on the Mera Declaration that had called for the “recognition of the work of
women pastoralists as a valid profession and as a fundamental component of
pastoralism”.
37
EQ2.2. To what extent did the PKH contribute to enlarge the pastoralist CSOs’ network of
supporters and partners at the national, regional and global level?
Finding 9. The PKH portal has 250 records of pastoralist CSOs or organizations
working with pastoralists, almost 4 000 users annually and links to 37 partners. PKH
global mapping and open-access digital database of pastoralist CSOs was the first
exercise of its kind and have substantially increased the global visibility of pastoralist
CSOs and facilitated contact between potential partners.
53. The PKH website provides considerable information on pastoralist CSOs as well
as PKH partners. Pastoralist CSOs networks are shown by region, with contacts
and links to the networks’ websites. In some cases, these websites were created
with support from the PKH. The database of organizations includes around 250
records on pastoralist CSOs and organizations working with pastoralism
nationally and internationally. The database can be searched by country, region,
area of work and type of organization, and by a free-text search. The website
36
Organized jointly by Yurta Association, the South Asian Pastoralist Alliance (SAPA) and the Indian pastoralist CSO
MARAG (which was the WAMIP Secretariat at the time).
37
The role of women in pastoral households was considered in the side project funded by the Spanish Government
(GCP/RAF/464/SPA). Four studies under the title ‘Analyse Diagnostique du Rôle de la Femme en Milieu Pastorale’ were
produced between 2016 and April 2017 in Mali, Mauritania, Senegal and Niger, but none of them make reference to
the Mera Declaration. At least three of them were still in draft at the time of the evaluation. Searching the Knowledge
Repository with the string “rôle de la femme en milieu pastoral’ returns no items. The string ‘role of women’ only returns
a 2016 policy note by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) on gender and pastoralism in
Tajikistan.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
24
analytics have recorded almost 7 500 users to date, nearly half of which during
2018. The ‘Partners’ section (37 at the time of the evaluation), includes United
Nations agencies and high-level policy-making platforms, national and
international NGOs, research institutions, conservation organizations, lobbying
networks, donors and some pastoralist CSOs, including WAMIP. Overall, the PKH
website is visited on average by 750 new users a month. In 2016, the PKH helped
set up a Facebook group on pastoralism; although not an official PKH/FAO
channel, the group is managed by two administrators and seven moderators, all
pastoralist representatives from different regions. Pastoralist CSOs networking
opportunities have also been increased by their participation in international
events, supported by the PKH. The successful preparations for the International
Year of Rangelands and Pastoralist (IYRP),
38
with all pastoral regional networks
and WAMIP represented in the International Support Group, together with
United Nations agencies and other international organizations, has opened up
major opportunities for enlarging the pastoralists’ network of supporters.
Finding 10. The mapping of some regions needs a more thorough approach. The
database of organizations should be updated more frequently.
54. Stakeholders pointed out that mapping pastoralist CSOs based on a rapid
assessment is likely to have resulted in substantial gaps. In particular, in countries
where the pastoralist civil society landscape is unstructured and heterogeneous,
a rapid assessment might ignore the reality closest to the grassroots. The output
of the mapping exercise initially envisaged by some of the primary stakeholders
was to be a dynamic map, hosted on the PKH portal and showing signposts for
pastoral CSOs in each country, and with increasing level of detail as the user
zooms over an area. This was attempted but then interrupted due to United
Nations restrictions on mapping.
55. The PKH database is not up to date. For example, none of the 17 pastoralist CSOs
that signed the Koblenz Declaration are included in it, nor the ICR, which is in
charge of facilitating the restructuring of WAMIP governance
39
. According to the
PKH2 project document, there were plans to “develop mechanisms for pastoralist
organizations to maintain it up-to-date”, but this was not achieved.
40
Searches to
test the functions of the database returned some incoherent results (see annex
3). The category 'Areas of work' lists standard development topics but not the
top priorities in pastoralist CSOs declarations, such as ‘right to mobility’ (including
transboundary), ‘sedentarization and resettlement', and ‘land use conversion’
(conversion of pastoral rangelands to other uses).
38
Global Rangelands, International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists Initiative,
https://globalrangelands.org/international-year-rangelands-and-pastoralists-initiative
39
Apparently the mapping exercise didn’t cover European pastoralists’ organizations, but no reference to this
limitation is provided in the descriptions of the database.
40
According to the PKH2 project document, “The database will be publicly available and be kept up-to-date under
the project; it will allow for fast information dissemination. Part 2 will keep the database updated and will develop
mechanisms for pastoralist organizations to maintain it up-to-date” (PKH2-PD: 18).
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
25
EQ2.3 To what extent did the PKH increase pastoralist CSOs’ capacity for accessing, using
and generating knowledge relevant to their agenda (i.e. especially on the rationale and
value of pastoralism, and on the rights of pastoralists)?
Finding 11. The PKH has increased pastoralist CSOs’ access to relevant knowledge
through several channels: the Knowledge Repository (including the database on legal
documents); exchanges and discussions in dedicated fora; and support for specific
studies; the organization of training and research. It also increased access by acting as
a sounding board for the VGGT. The analysis for the identification, organization and
dissemination of relevant knowledge should be raised.
56. The Knowledge Repository contains around 400 items, which can be searched by
‘free text’ or by predetermined categories of descriptors under five groups:
organization, language, geographical coverage, topic and type of document (if
technical, scientific, maps, videos, newsletters etc.). The website is available in
seven languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish, although
only the descriptors of an item are translated, not the abstract or the title.
57. In 2016, a collaboration with FAOLEX led to the creation of an additional database
of 400 ‘pastoralism-relevant’ legislative and policy documents, which has
increased to 700. The database can be searched by year, country, geo/economic
region (e.g. Africa, European Union), type of text (legislation, regulation,
agreement or policy) and language. By the end of 2018, this service had been
visited by over 500 users. It is a highly effective tool not only for accessing, but
also for identifying pastoralism-relevant legal documents while bypassing the
more cumbersome FAOLEX.
41
Before the collaboration with the PKH,
‘pastoralism’ was not a searchable key in the cataloguing system of FAOLEX. The
FAOLEX unit working on the legislation database is exploring options for adding
an analytical relationship between documents, including ‘principles’ for cross-
relevance. Whenever possible, summaries are provided in different languages,
but FAOLEX is not yet equipped, for example, for optical character recognition to
scan Arabic, which is a precondition for automatic translation.
58. The volume of discussions on the PKH e-mail forum has already been mentioned
[EQ2.1]. The forum is also used to collect information and data from pastoralists
across the world and to disseminate publications, including the PKH Weekly News
Review. The latter focuses predominantly but not exclusively on Anglophone and
Francophone media on Africa and on some Spanish media. The Weekly News
Review was used in an assessment of the perception of pastoralism in the media
in the context of a collaboration of PKH with the World Bank’s project Pastoralism
& Stability in the Sahel and Horn of Africa (PASSHA). Showcasing pastoralism
media coverage is useful when within an analytical framework that is explicit
about its nature and limits, as media are often poorly informed and biased against
pastoralism.
42
In the absence of an appropriate analytical framework, the PKH
41
Despite this fruitful collaboration with the PKH, ‘Pastoralism’ has not yet made it among the search ‘domains’ on
the FAOLEX website.
42
See, for example, IIED (2013). The NGO Acting fo Life, a partner to PKH, has developed a ‘pastoralism training’ for
journalists, with Workshops have already been held, the first in Ouagadougou in April 2018 in partnership with the
World Bank-funded Regional Sahel Pastoralism Support Project (PRAPS), and the second in Lomé, Togo, in February
2019 in partnership with CILSS: www.transverses.org/les-ateliers
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
26
Weekly News Review is exposed to the risk of providing an authoritative platform
for the dissemination of misconceptions. This is exacerbated by the fact that the
Review is signed “Pastoralist Knowledge Hub bringing pastoral voices to the
global stage”. When this problem was raised on the PKH forum over a year ago,
PKH’s solution was to add a disclaimer: “The Pastoralist Knowledge Hub is a
neutral forum and does not endorse all the news shared through this newsletter.
Reader discretion advised.” While there might have been little that the PKH team
could do in this regard with the available resources, in the current troubled
landscape of the knowledge about pastoralism, this ‘hands-off’ approach is
controversial for a knowledge management service.
59. The PKH acted as a sounding board for the dissemination and operationalization
of the VGGT,
43
helping the VGGT team reach out to the pastoralist constituencies
quickly and coherently. Two technical reports were produced in collaboration
with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN): the VGGT
Technical Guide, Improving Governance of Pastoral Lands (FAO, 2016); and
Crossing Boundaries: Legal and policy arrangements for cross-border pastoralism
(Davies et al., 2018). The PKH organized and ran community dialogue meetings
to disseminate information and provide training on the use of the technical guide
for the implementation of the VGGT in the rangelands. In collaboration with the
South-South Cooperation and Partnerships division at FAO, the PKH organized a
training of pastoralist representatives from Eastern and Southern Africa on the
VGGT technical guide on improving the governance of pastoral lands. This activity
targeted pastoral representatives of 14 countries. A case-study on the application
of the VGGT in the context of pastoral land tenure in Kenya and an informational
pamphlet in Kiswahili was developed in partnership with the Eastern and
Southern African Pastoralist Network (ESAPN); stakeholders found this initiative
particularly helpful and hoped that it could be replicated in the other major
languages in the region. When the Technical Guide was translated into
Mongolian and training for its use began, some partners found it too difficult to
absorb. A team in FAO is now working on a simplified ‘learning guide’ focusing
on the CSOs sections of the technical guide and particularly the contextualization
of the concept of ‘tenure’.
60. As an additional activity (one of the parallel projects), the PKH collaborated in the
IFAD-funded Pastoralist-Driven Data Management system project in Argentina,
Chad and Mongolia, implemented by the French Agricultural Research Centre for
International Development (CIRAD). The project is still ongoing, aimed at
improving the capacities of pastoral civil society to generate their own data.
Feedback from stakeholders highlighted the need to adapt the methodology for
the training of enumerators to local conditions. Feedback was also positive
concerning the opportunity to gain direct experience in data collection, which
could be applied beyond the context of the project. At the time of this evaluation,
the regional network Reseau Billital Maroobe (RBM) and their Chadian member
COPAFIB were in conversation with the International Organization for Migration
43
FAO (2012).
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
27
(IOM) on carrying out a new study, this time more directly linked to their own
strategic concerns.
44
61. The repository is limited to items that are freely available online, but mostly
overlooking academic sources although now often available for download from
sites like ResearchGate or Academia.
45
PKH descriptions of the service are not
transparent with regard to limitations or criteria for inclusion
46
. Testing the
database with a range of searches returned results which raise concern (see annex
3). For example, documents that are publicly available on the internet, and key to
the focus of the PKH, do not come up by searching the titles: the Dana
Declaration (2002), the Wilderswil Declaration (2007), the Koblenz Declaration
(2015), the Jhkmhkke Declaration (2017), and the European Shepherds
Network Declaration (2018).
62. Stakeholders’ feedback (including from some pastoralist CSOs) on the PKH’s
management of pastoralism-related knowledge hinted at a need to refine the
scientific understanding of pastoralism and to analyse contexts related to
pastoralism and pastoral development. Some suggested the need for a scientific
advisory board. Specifically on the knowledge repository, stakeholders
highlighted a need for more coordination with relevant knowledge-management
services offered by other organizations
47
, including partners. Some pointed out
that the language barrier remains significant even despite the efforts made by
the PKH to include three non-European languages. There was a proposal to add
regional branches to the PKH forum.
63. The research section of the Knowledge Repository offers pre-defined general
development topics (e.g. gender and youth, livestock, finance, value addition),
but not obvious pastoralism-centred (e.g. mobility, sedentarization,
conservation). The Knowledge Repository does not offer any integrated analysis
of its content functional to the expected use by pastoralist CSOs. Searching the
Knowledge Repository with strings relevant to the pastoralist advocacy agenda –
for example, ‘right to mobility’, ‘mobility as a strategy of production’, ‘market
failure’, ‘land-use conversion’, ‘women pastoralists’, ‘value of pastoralism’,
‘barriers in methodology’ and ‘technical exclusion’,
48
or any variation on the
motive of sedentarization
49
– will only find the items that have the search string
44
The proposed study looks at transboundary issues between Chad and RCA, associated with the movement of pastoralists
and returnees.
45
The two peer-reviewed journals (worldwide) specialising in pastoralism, Nomadic Peoples (since 1979), and
Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (since 2010), also offer open access to some or all of their content (up to
1997 in the case of the former).
46
For example, the description of the knowledge repository on the PKH web portal claims that “Experts and
pastoralists will collate and systematize available literature, studies, research and assessments on pastoralist
livelihoods”. Simlarly, the description in a recent FAO publication: “The objective of the hub is to fill knowledge gaps
on pastoralism and bring attention to the challenges faced by pastoral communities. It serves … as a repository of
technical excellence on pastoralism and pastoral livelihoods…” (FAO, 2018a: 139-140).
47
CELEP, ICIMOD, CIRAD, IIED, the Eldis portal at IDS, the Arctic Portal Library of the ICR, but also valuable national
initiatives like the Plateforme Pastorale du Tchad.
48
IFAD (2018: 10): “Technical exclusion is exclusion in practice, often unintentional and unmonitored, simply resulting
from the inadequacy of classifications, bureaucratic procedures, mechanisms of appraisal, and systems of statistical
representation” (FAO-IFAD, 2016).
49
Even more finetuned search options could include categories aimed at highlighting relationships: ‘linkage between
Sahel and coastal countries’, ‘linkage with crop farming’, or ‘linkage with urban economy’. Categories could be crowd-
sourced, then consolidated and organized by their relevance to the key advocacy arguments as they emerge.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
28
in the title, abstract or descriptors. The level of knowledge management remains,
at best, within the limits of a basic library catalogue. Options for adapting the
identification and organization of knowledge to the advocacy strategies and
agendas of pastoralist CSOs have yet to be explored, for example, ‘smart’
connections and thematic collections of referenced arguments and critical data.
The conclusion in the PKH1 Terminal Report that “the lack of information and
diffusion of pastoral issues was resolved through the creation of information
exchange spaces, such as the Hub Repository” (FAO/GCP 2017: 19) was not
realistic.
EQ2.4 To what extent did the PKH help pastoralist representatives secure a voice in the
relevant policy-making at the national, regional and global levels?
Finding 12. The PKH used its position within FAO to facilitate access for
representatives of pastoralist civil society, including women and youths, to a range of
high-level policy-making processes.
64. Either as direct participation or through the organization of side events, often in
collaboration with partners, the PKH supported the representation of selected
pastoral regional networks in global policy dialogues, such as the 13th Conference
of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD-COP13), the 13th
meeting of the Coalition of Parties of the United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification (UNCCD-COP13), the Second United Nations Environmental
Assembly (UNEA-2), the 43rd and 44th meeting of the FAO Committee on Food
Security (CFS43 and CFS44, respectively),
50
the FAO Committee on Agriculture
(COAG) in 2016 and 2018, as well as the Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock
(GASL) and the related Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance
(LEAP) partnership.
65. Significant outcomes in this regard were: ‘The Cancun Statement’ presented at
CBD-COP13;
51
the UNEA-2 resolution on ‘Combating Desertification, Land
Degradation and Drought, and Promoting Sustainable Pastoralism and
Rangelands’;
52
the 8th GASL Global Multi-Stakeholder Partnership Meeting in
Mongolia in June 2018;
53
and the proposal by the Mongolian Government for an
International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralism, at the COAG meeting in
October 2018 (to be discussed in COAG 2020). At CFS45 (2018), H.E. Mohammad
Hossein Emadi, Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to FAO
and Chair of COAG 2020, advocated for the recognition of pastoralists’ rights.
50
The two side events were: at CFS43 on ‘Pastoralism, conflicts and food security in Africa under climate change
conditions’, organized in collaboration with FAO’s SP5, World Bank, Coalition of Pastoralist Civil Society Organizations
(COPACSO) and RBM; and at CFS44 on ‘Women empowerment for better resilience in pastoral communities’.
51
The Cancun Statement (2016) was globally endorsed by 46 institutions (eight pastoralist CSOs) and 11 individuals
from 28 countries, which called upon all sectors of society “to take action to protect grasslands and rangelands”. The
first two actions in a list of 11 priorities were “Increase investment in pastoralism as a sustainable land use and livestock-
production system”, and “Stop or reverse all efforts to sedentarize mobile pastoralist communities, whether forced or
induced.”
52
The resolution (UNEA, 2016) urges member states to increase investment in the pastoral sector; encourages
continental and regional intergovernmental bodies to support joint and cross-border development programmes for
neighbouring pastoralist and other communities; and calls upon the United Nations Environmental Programme to
contribute to raising global awareness of sustainable pastoralism and rangelands.
53
The chosen topic for the GASL Global MSP Meeting was “livestock on the move”.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
29
66. The PKH supported the creation of spaces for dialogue in West and East Africa.
In collaboration with the Club du Sahel (CSAO/OCDE), the PKH supported
pastoralist CSOs in Western and Central Africa (RBM) through an inter-ministerial
meeting for a peaceful transhumance, part of a broader process of better defining
and operationalizing the concept of biens publics communautaires (common
public goods) in the context of ECOWAS. Stakeholders’ feedback highlighted this
as a major step forward in efforts to securing peaceful transhumance and
livestock mobility between Sahelian and coastal countries in West Africa. The PKH
also supported efforts in the Programme rgional d’investissements et de
dveloppement de l’levage dans les pays ctiers (PRIDEC, Regional Investment
Programme for Livestock Development in Coastal Countries.). In East Africa, the
PKH supported the newly formed ESAPN in their participation in discussions with
IGAD regarding the regional transhumance protocol.
67. Some initiatives focused specifically on women and youths. The PKH supported
two events on women pastoralists, one as a side event to the 44th CFS in 2017
54
and one as a side event at the European Development Day (EDD) in 2018, run by
ESAPN and co-organized with VSF and the Coalition of European Lobbies for
Eastern African Pastoralism (CELEP). The PKH supported the organization of a
meeting of pastoralist youth during the Terra Madre Giovani – We Feed the
Planet' event in Milan, Italy, in October 2015, and the preparation of a study on
youth migration in pastoral areas, which is being carried out by the Animal
Production and Genetic Resources (AGAG) Branch.
Finding 13. Support to pastoralist CSOs’ participation in policy dialogues needs a
clearer mechanism. There should be more investment in consolidating existing global
and regional platforms by building representation from the grassroots.
68. Pastoralist representatives had been involved in the CFS and GASL, and the LEAP
partnership, even before the start of the PKH, as part of the Civil Society
Mechanism of the CFS.
55
Pastoralist CSOs’ active representation in GASL is still
weak, mostly down to only one individual and therefore to one regional
perspective. Participants in GASL meetings have to pay for their travel costs and
representation of pastoralist CSOs still depends mostly on external funding.
Provision of funding by the PKH on a case-by-case basis rather than through a
set mechanism creates a gate-keeping mechanism as a matter of fact, even when
representatives are proposed by the pastoralist CSOs themselves. The same
challenge applies to virtually all other forms of support and invitations to events.
Stakeholders’ feedback highlighted the need for PKH to develop a clearer and
more systematic mechanism for supporting the participation of pastoralist CSOs
in policy dialogues, with a stronger investment for reaching the regional and
national level, and for connecting these processes to the grassroots.
54
The two WAMIP representatives in the main CFS sessions, as part of the Civil Society Mechanism, were also women.
55
In 2014, the LEAP partnership was chaired by WAMIP president Lalji Desai. The contribution by WAMIP representatives
was acknowledged in the LEAP ‘Review of indicators and methods to assess biodiversity’ (Teillard et al., 2016), co-
authored by Pablo Manzano before he became the PKH’s first coordinator.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
30
EQ3. To what extent did the PKH contribute to making the relevant decision-making
environments more receptive to the voices of pastoralists?
EQ3.1 To what extent did the PKH contribute to reducing the knowledge gap on
pastoralism, especially concerning its economic and ecological rationale and value?
Finding 14. The PKH has been directly or indirectly involved in a number of studies
with advocacy value. It also contributed by providing contacts on the ground and
facilitating communication with pastoralist CSOs as well as between teams working
on different projects within FAO.
69. The evaluation examines the PKH’s involvement in knowledge-generation
activities, specifically with regard to their contribution towards making relevant
decision-making environments more receptive to the voice of pastoralists. A
number of studies conducted with the support of the PKH have advocacy value.
Their results are now presented in various fora in order to: advocate for the
importance of collecting data on pastoral systems; show how estimates can vary
greatly depending on the kind of data being used; and explain the challenges of
identifying and generating the right kind of data.
70. The background to the knowledge-generation activities by the PKH is a process
started in 2014, when the World Bank asked FAO to work on drought scenarios
in the drylands of sub-Saharan Africa. During the study that followed (de Haan et
al., 2016), a number of limitations were identified. The PKH was then asked to
contribute with a targeted analysis on strategic areas of missing information:
animal numbers, feed deficit/excess and the qualification of production systems
in relation to their specific breeds. The process integrated data from existing
studies – an information system for monitoring pastoral dynamics in the Sahel
(SIPSA) – in the FAO Global Livestock Environmental Assessment modelling
framework (GLEAM), and explored the potential for integrating GLEAM with
FAO’s Domestic Animal Diversity Information System. The PKH contributed by
providing contacts and facilitating communication with pastoralist CSOs and
between teams working on different projects within FAO, providing feedback,
helping with data collection and the dissemination of results, and in some cases,
directly supporting particular studies.
71. The work on feed balances is a good example of how these synergies unfolded
and evolved over time. In 2017, the combined work on people/animal numbers
in pastoralist systems and on feed rations supported by the PKH was tested to
estimate the potential impact of the drought in the Horn of East Africa, leading
to discussions with the team developing the Predictive Livestock Early Warning
System (PLEW), as well as inputs for the development of an improved
methodology for feed balances in West Africa. Another input to improve the
methodology came from combining maps of possible feed deficit with data on
seasonal transhumance (from SIPSA), to test the modelling of feed balances
against observed livestock movements. Hence, new layers of complexity were
identified. For example, mobility patterns in pastoral systems are not determined
exclusively by feed availability, but also by the existence of other drivers or
barriers (e.g. insecurity). The PKH also contributed by directly supporting a study
on the livestock-feeding value of bushes and trees used in Sahelian pastoralism,
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
31
in collaboration with the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique du Niger
(INRAN) and the FAO Drylands team under Actions Against Desertification (AAD).
As a result of this work, a focus on seasonality and the different nutritional
content of forages was included in the methodology for assessing feed balance,
currently used in three projects of an FAO regional initiative in West Africa.
56
The
studies directly supported by the PKH (feed rations, seasonality and tree forages)
are also seen within FAO Animal Production and Health Division as a contribution
to an upcoming European Union-funded project on improving the accounting
for the carbon footprint of pastoral systems in Comité Permanent Inter-Etats de
Lutte contre la Sécheresse dans le Sahel (CILSS) states.
57
Finding 15. The PKH’s work on improving methodologies is also relevant to
addressing the more fundamental issue concerning the biases in the methodological
legacy of pastoral development.
72. Some of this work on improving methodologies is also relevant with regard to
the more fundamental problem concerning biases in the methodological legacy
of pastoral development. The issue here is not about perfecting a methodology
by adding new elements, but rather, about reconsidering its underlying
assumptions, and perhaps developing parallel methodologies or mechanisms for
acknowledging and negotiating incommensurability across contexts of
observation. For example, the FAO-CIRAD team working on estimating animal
requirements to be used in GLEAM, identified several limitations in existing
methodologies for feed balances when applied to pastoral systems in the Sahel.
58
The need to adapt the methodology was also given consideration by the CIRAD
team in Chad, during the finetuning of the questionnaire used in the Pastoralist-
Driven Data Management project. Developing harmonized metrics as part of the
concerns of GASL and LEAP is indeed working in this regard, developing
frameworks beyond the common, industry-centred life cycle assessment (LCA).
The work with pastoralists through the PKH helped to produce evidence that
reducing livestock mortality in these contexts also helps reducing GHG emissions.
The Latin America pastoralist network Pastoraméricas, in collaboration with the
University of Salta, Argentina, produced a study on sustainable pastoralism in the
Argentinian Chaco Province. This study then informed the work carried out by
LEAP on measuring and modelling soil carbon stocks in livestock production
systems. Complementary to the LEAP assessment, Pastoraméricas’ technical
guidelines for integrated landscape management in the Chaco dryland region
were developed together with University of Salta, Instituto national de tecnologia
agraria (INTA) and Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (IRD).
73. Another example concerns the work with FAO’s Indigenous Peoples Group,
where the PKH facilitated the study of pastoralist food systems in the Arctic and
56
The ‘Global Network against Food Crises Programme’ in the Sahel (Pro-Act Sahel, GCP/RAF/516/EC) in Burkina Faso,
Mali and Niger; the Technical Cooperation Programme on assessing feed resources in Niger (TCP/NER/3603), and the
feed balance project led by AGA in Niger and Chad (GCP/RAF/510/FRA).
57
Carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in (agro)sylvopastoral ecosystems in CILSS states,
2020–2024 (CASSECS). FAO-AGA will work in partnership with several other organizations.
58
Mottet and Assouma (2018). Mohamed Assouma has recently led a paper on the carbon footprint of a pastoral
system in the Sahel. The paper points at shortfalls with mainstream methods for measuring agricultural C balance, in
particular focusing exclusively on human impact and overlooking temporal and spatial variability, therefore failing to
capture the effects of the link between herd production and mobility in pastoral systems (Assouma et al., 2019).
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
32
in Mali, and the participation of pastoralist representatives at the High-Level
Expert Seminar on Indigenous Food Systems in 2018. The PKH also supported
the development of the Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of Climate
Resilience of Farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP). Despite its name, SHARP had
never been used by FAO with pastoralists. Developed to be used in farmers’ field
schools, SHARP had only been used in projects working with farmers and
agropastoralists, yet focused on their crop-farming activities. The PKH helped the
team hone the SHARP questionnaire to be used with pastoral communities,
above all by acknowledging the role of livestock in their economies, and the fact
that they might not live in settlements. Given the limited awareness of
pastoralism at the start, this represented substantial progress.
74. For many partners and pastoralist CSOs, the PKH is identified with the web portal
and, at most, the regional meetings. The PKH work on improving methodologies,
or more broadly in knowledge-generation, was known in FAO headquarters and
among the few partners who were directly involved in these activities.
EQ3.2 How effective was the PKH in forging partnerships and in coordination and
cooperation mechanisms in support of the work of pastoralist CSOs in advocacy and in the
representation of pastoralists’ voice?
Finding 16. The PKH was highly successful within FAO and to a certain extent in its
work with CSOs, especially in West Africa and High Asia. The PKH’s connections with
the international network of pastoralism specialists related to the technical dimension
of specific activities.
75. There are two main dimensions on how the PKH contributed to forging
partnerships, coordination and cooperation mechanisms in support of the work
of pastoralist CSOs, which effectively correspond to the two sides of PKH’s
portfolio of activities: external, with partners and other organizations on specific
initiatives, and internal, within FAO.
76. By the time of the evaluation, the PKH had 37 partners. Liaising with these
external organizations, it has created opportunities for pastoralist CSOs on
several occasions. For example, it was through the PKH that RBM was able to
liaise with the ILC, and through them, with the Rangelands Observatory. For the
‘Pastoralist-Driven Data Management system’ project, the PKH became RBM’s
technical and administrative interface with IFAD. The PKH also helped RBM
mobilize funds from the Spanish Government for working on milk value chain
and the role of women in milk collection for local consumption, particularly
through the Projet d’Appui au renforcement des Capacits des Femmes pasteurs
dans la promotion de la chaine de valeur du lait local au Sahel (PACAFEL, Project
to support women's capacity reimbursement for the development of the local
milk value chain
59
) to support the competitiveness of the dairy sector, covering
Niger, Senegal and Mali. According to the feedback from ESAPN, it was through
the intervention of the PKH that the network was able to liaise with IGAD
regarding a transhumance protocol. In High Asia, the PKH’s support to the World
Yak Herders Association enabled the participation of pastoralists in the 6th
59
See RBM (2017).
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
33
International Yak Conference, normally only attended by scientists and industry.
The PKH built capacity to use the Association as a platform for producing
standards for the international commercialization of yak milk. In addition, PKH’s
support to holding the regional yak festival substantially increased breeders’
opportunities to exchange genoplasm across otherwise closed boundaries. The
annual PKH partners meetings (three to date) also offered pastoralist CSOs
opportunities for forging new partnerships and for coordination. Further, the PKH
contributed to the preparation of the IYRP, which has been one of the PKH best
achievements in building partnerships.
77. The PKH’s connections with the academic world and the network of pastoralism
specialists in university departments, research institutes and consultancy firms
throughout the world have been relatively few, mostly limited to the technical
dimension of specific activities. There seems to be awareness of this shortfall
within the larger team of PKH collaborators, and it is hoped that measures will
soon be taken to address this.
60
Finding 17. Advocacy work would benefit in efficiency and effectiveness by securing
more coordination between partners.
78. Another issue emerged from the interviews with PKH partners is the limited
coordination with regard to the advocacy work, especially securing pastoralists’
voice in international events in a comprehensive and more efficient manner.
There is a tendency for all to converge into the major meetings while overlooking
the interim periods. This was described as a general problem, not attributable to
the PKH, but one that the PKH would be best positioned to address amongst the
partners.
Finding 18. The institutionalization of pastoralism within FAO is being pushed
forward. However, the increased attention is unmatched by a comparable financial
contribution for operational capacity. ‘Pastoralism connectivity’ provided by the PKH
needs to be extended from FAO headquarters to FAO country offices.
79. The work of the PKH within FAO was less visible from the outside but perhaps
most effective. Through the knowledge-generation activities under PKH2, work
on pastoralism became a virtual space for experimenting with a systemic
approach across SPs and disparate teams within FAO. Given that to date FAO is
still lacking a clear position and policy on pastoralism
61
and that the work on
pastoralism is fragmented within several SPs, the PKH is effectively the only
shared point of reference on this matter. Discussions for establishing a
pastoralism working group with regular meetings were under way at the time of
this evaluation, and SP5 had just produced the first paper on pastoralism since
2002.
62
Overall, despite the ‘floating’ role of the PKH across SPs, the new focus to
pastoralism is predominantly from the perspective of resilience and emergencies,
60
At the time of this evaluation, SP5 was developing a Memorandum of Understanding with Tufts University,
including also work on the different aspects of pastoral livelihoods systems.
61
See FAO Management’s response to Recommendation 1 of the 2016 Joint Evaluation Synthesis (FAO-IFAD 2016).
62
FAO (2018; 2002).
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
34
with SP5 having the largest representation in the working group.
63
In 2018, as a
result of a collaboration between SP5, SP2 and the PKH, a new position was
created. A veterinarian was selected, mostly to respond to the growing demand
for technical specifications, thus releasing the PKH from some of this pressure.
64
The role the PKH played as a catalyst of change with regard to pastoralism inside
FAO might be even more important than its achievements outside FAO.
80. Stakeholders’ feedback highlighted that with the significant increase in the
attention given to pastoralism within FAO, there is now a lack of a comparable
financial contribution for operational capacity. The connectivity and consequent
opportunities for synergy being developed in FAO headquarters has yet to reach
out to the country offices where pastoralism-related programmes under different
SPs are without coordination or even adequate specialist backup. To date, the
capacity of the PKH to support FAO offices at the country level has been very
limited by the lack of sufficient resources. For pastoralist CSOs in countries where
pastoralism advocacy is seen with suspicion by the authorities, the mere existence
of the PKH within FAO is helpful in negotiating a political space.
EQ3.3 To what extent did the PKH succeed in increasing the visibility of pastoralism and its
positive value in development at the national, regional and global levels?
Finding 19. The PKH made a substantial difference with regard to the visibility
of the value of pastoralism in development, especially at the global level. The
difference in the consideration for pastoralism and its value in the HPLE 2016
when compared to a similar report in 2012 is impressive.
81. Increasing the visibility of pastoralism has been a direct or indirect effect in
virtually all of PKH activities. Some of the activities that had a direct effect have
already been discussed, such as the creation of the PKH portal within the FAO
website [EQ2.1], supporting pastoralist representation in high-level policy
dialogues [EQ2.4], and supporting the inclusion of a ‘pastoralism component’ in
pre-existing processes of data collection, both within FAO and with FAO partners
[EQ3.1].
82. Pastoralist representatives were participating in the CFS meeting which requested
and produced – through the HPLE – the report on Sustainable Agricultural
Development for Food Security and Nutrition: What roles for livestock? (HLPE,
2016). During the consultation on the V0 Draft of the report, WAMIP and other
PKH partners produced substantial contributions. The feedback from the Civil
Society Mechanism referred to issues such as “overlooking market failures” and
“the misguided narrative of aggregating the impact of industrial production with
pastoral systems” (HPLE, 2015). The final report refers to pastoralism 191 times,
more than twice as often as in its V0 draft. Shortcomings in the methodological
63
‘Pastoralist livelihoods’ was made one of the seven priorities of FAO-SP5. This led to a dramatic increase in the
collaboration between PKH and SP5. The PKH did not, however, play a role in this prioritization process.
64
Around 50 per cent of technical specifications are medical-related (drugs and vaccinations) and 50 percent related
to emergency livestock feed inputs. In 2017, FAO spent around US$70 million on livestock-related products. Around
US$20–25 million are spent annually in purchasing and distributing livestock feed in emergency situations. Since
many regions and countries do not have FAO livestock officers, all the livestock-related requests from the governing
bodies come directly to FAO headquarters. Requests from Eastern and Southern Africa have increased in frequency.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
35
legacy, when measuring production efficiency across vastly different systems, are
highlighted.
65
The final recommendations include a five-point subsection (12)
dedicated to ‘Recognize and support the unique role of pastoral systems’. Point
five calls for “enabling the mobility of pastoralists, including transboundary
passage, through appropriate infrastructures, institutions, agreements and rules”.
By comparison, the 2012 HLPE report Food Security and Climate Change referred
to pastoralism six times and only to emphasize vulnerability
66
(HPLE, 2012).
83. The PKH also contributed to the recent publication World Livestock: Transforming
the livestock sector through the Sustainable Development Goals (FAO, 2018a),
which refers to pastoralism 68 times. In this case, the positive understanding of
pastoralism achieved in HPLE 2016 is at times side-by-side with older frames.
67
Stakeholders acknowledged the substantial improvement compared to the 2006
report, especially regarding the beneficial role of pastoralism in carbon
sequestration and the adaptive value of mobility; however, it also pointed out
that “there is still work to be carried out towards differentiating industrial
intensive livestock management systems and pastoralism regarding carbon
emission calculations”. Nevertheless, the scale of these achievements becomes
evident when contrasted with similar processes within FAO, even if immediately
outside the reach of the PKH’s activity. In the 2018 GASL report Dairy
Development’s Impact on Poverty Reduction, there was one passing reference to
pastoralism and one reference to the gender dimension of dairy production, but
unrelated to pastoralism (GASL 2018). Similarly, the substantial report The Future
of Food and Agriculture Alternative Pathways to 2050 was published in 2018
without a mention of pastoralism.
84. The promotion of the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralism (IYRP) is
another major channel that is increasing the visibility of pastoralism at all levels.
The PKH is member of the IYRP International Support Group (formerly Steering
Committee) together with several close partners,
68
and supports the
representation of WAMIP and its regional networks. The IYRP Steering
Committee supported the presentation of the proposal by the Mongolian CSO
JASIL to the Government of Mongolia, which then presented it to FAO at the 26th
session of the Committee on Agriculture, backed up by the Ethiopian delegation.
The mere existence of an active IYRP International Support Group is a major asset
for pastoralism visibility. If approved, the IYRP might be held in 2026 (the first
available slot), which would entail five years of preparations and thus offer many
opportunities for supporting dialogues with pastoralists.
85. The online survey for this evaluation (section 1.3) found no significant disparity
in the perceived impact of the PKH across its portfolio of activities. ‘Networking’
65
HPLE (2016: 73): “efficiency assessments are often based on narrow metrics, which may not include non-food
outputs (such as manure and draught power), animal welfare, or non-tangible social assets that are often generated
at higher levels in systems with lower economic efficiency.”
66
HPLE (2012).
67
For example, the section ‘Livestock and quality education’ acknowledges that “among traditional livestock-raising
communities, sending children to school conflicts with pastoral lifestyles” (p. 41 and Box 6 on p. 39), but also
considers that “[c]hanging attitudes towards formal education … represents an opportunity for increasing school
enrolment in livestock-dependent communities” (p. 40).
68
These partners are CELEP, IFAD, IUCN, ILC, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), International Centre for
Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), IFAD; they also include several pastoralist CSOs: RBM, MARAG, PFE and
the International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry (ICR).
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
36
was ranked top and ‘Supporting participation in national policy processes’,
ranked last, but with little difference across the spectrum.
3.3 Sustainability
EQ4. How sustainable are the achievements of the PKH?
Finding 20. Sustainability was embedded into the PKH design mainly in the form
of developing capacity within pastoralist CSOs and building a dynamic network
of partners.
86. Capacity development with pastoralist CSOs focused on delivering training:
‘technically, to better manage their resources’; and ‘organizationally, to
contribute to and influence national policies and programmes on land, pastoral
production and emergency preparedness’. Networking with partner, created
opportunities to increase economic sustainability through additional projects
consistent with the PKH’s goal. Partnerships was also fostered between PKH
partners and pastoralist CSOs across regions (e.g. between RBM and
CIRAD/IFAD), aiming at establishing networks for further collaboration and
knowledge sharing beyond the duration of the project. Finally, a degree of
sustainability was also secured by embedding the ‘common denominator’ of PKH
achievements – namely, ‘increased visibility of pastoralism’ – into long-term
processes and permanent results, whether high-level policy dialogues, relevant
United Nations publications, or the development of complex modelling and data
collection systems.
Finding 21. The future of the PKH in FAO is linked to the former’s structure and
position, and the demand within FAO.
87. A key dimension of the PKH programme consisted in expanding its context of
intervention, both by reaching out to new constituencies and by reaching out
into ‘new territories’ of knowledge and knowledge-making. In addition, the PKH
engaged with an area of intervention that was both highly relevant and largely
silent within FAO. A project of this nature can only be expected to outgrow its
horizons. Four years after the start of the project, the needs of a global knowledge
repository on pastoralism, which now include the important ‘legislation
database’, are evidently greater than it had been assumed at the start. The
mapping of pastoralist CSOs has only just begun. The requirement for higher
scientific standards in the identification, analysis, organization and dissemination
of relevant knowledge on pastoralism has become impelling. To date, a growing
demand for knowledge about pastoralism within FAO has been met by the PKH
on an extemporary basis, but at the cost of overstretching all the available
resources. The network of partners is expected to further expand and help
stakeholders capitalize on the opportunities of collaboration that it could
potentially generate. However, already at the time of the evaluation, the network
had outgrown the PKH’s capacity to sustain it.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
37
4 Conclusions and recommendations
4.1 Conclusions
Conclusion 1. The project was clearly consistent with and contributing to the
strategic priorities of FAO. It addressed a gap on pastoralism within FAO that had
lasted for over a decade, and went beyond, producing a multiplier effect for the
VGGT, helping major programmes such as GLEAM, SHARP, LADA, GIEWS, DAD-
IS and ASIS ‘think pastoralism’ and providing a clear institutional space for
connecting and coordinating work on pastoralism otherwise fragmented under
several SPs.
88. The PKH was highly relevant to FAO’s strategy to improve the governance of food
security and was aligned to FAO’s five strategic objectives, particularly SO1, SO2
and SO5. It was the only initiative focusing on pastoralism within FAO
headquarters. The project acted as a sounding board for the dissemination and
operationalization of the VGGT, helping the VGGT team reach out to the
pastoralist constituencies quickly and coherently, through the organization of
training and the production of information in local languages.
89. The knowledge-generation activities under the PKH added value to important
programmes such as GLEAM, SHARP, LADA, GIEWS, DAD-IS, ASIS and Actions
Against Desertification (AAD). increasing the visibility and coverage of
pastoralism, or introducing it where still absent. Some of the work on improving
methodologies is relevant to the more fundamental problem concerning the
biases in the methodological legacy of pastoral development. All this work had
advocacy value and the merit of maximizing pastoralism-related connectivity and
reflection within FAO.
Conclusion 2. The PKH has an added value. Its portal has succeeded in
establishing itself as a source of information on pastoralism and a point of
reference for authoritative advocacy. There is a strong consensus among
stakeholders that the PKH should continue.
90. Communication and understanding across the pastoralists-science-policy
interface should be enhanced. Pastoralists face great challenges to voice their
right for representation in the decisions concerning the future of their livelihoods,
starting from concerns over the undermining of their mobility as a right and as a
strategy of production, and the loss of rangelands to land-use conversion
programmes. Having the PKH backed by FAO is seen by all stakeholders as a clear
advantage in the race to help policy-makers understand the actual value and
functioning of pastoralism before it is too late.
Conclusion 3. Overall, the PKH’s achievements are clear and substantial,
especially when considered with respect to the project resources, the challenging
environment, and the project’s vast and diverse scope. The PKH made giant leaps
in setting up regional pastoralist alliances worldwide, particularly including
women and youth. The network has grown quickly and now needs strengthening.
This should start from giving WAMIP space and support to resume its role as the
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
38
global platform for the representation of pastoralist social movements. National
and local representation of pastoralist social movements also needs to be
consolidated.
91. The PKH has either established or strengthened pastoralist networks in seven
regions, mobilizing some 360 pastoralists representatives from 64 countries and
increasing WAMIP coverage by around 30 percent. Two new sub-regional
networks were created through support from PKH, one by women pastoralists.
92. There are still areas of unclarity with regard to the relationship between PKH and
WAMIP, between the regional networks and WAMIP, between the regional
networks and PKH, and between the regional networks and their representational
base. The central element in the global organization of pastoralist social
movements, WAMIP, only started reviewing and consolidating its governance
structure in late 2018. The new regional networks need to consolidate their
positions in relation to the national and local levels.
Conclusion 4. The PKH has strengthened pastoralists’ voice in the policy-making
arena, both by strengthening the pastoralist CSOs voice to make themselves
heard, and by making the decision-making environment more receptive to hear
them. The PKH achievements did not happen in isolation: team playing with external
partners and other ongoing frameworks had an important role. Stakeholders find
that there is still important untapped potential in this regard.
93. The PKH was not the first player in this game, nor its achievements happened in
isolation. Opportunities for collaboration and team playing with external partners
and other ongoing frameworks were perceived amongst stakeholders as
insufficiently used or pursued.
94. The PKH portal has almost 4,000 users annually, links to 37 partners, around 400
items in the knowledge repository and a database of more than 700 legal
documents, 250 records of pastoralist CSOs or organizations working with
pastoralists, and digital fora. The PKH used its position within FAO to facilitate
access by representatives of pastoralist civil society to a range of high-level
policy-making processes. Some initiatives focused specifically on women and
youth.
95. Outstanding achievements were the process of better defining and
operationalizing the concept of ‘biens publics communautaires’ (common public
goods) in the context of ECOWAS by RBM; the substantial consideration for
pastoralism and its value in key publications such as the HPLE Sustainable
Agricultural Development for Food Security and Nutrition: What roles for livestock?
(2016), and a key role in the promotion of the International Year of Rangelands
and Pastoralism (IYRP). Liaising with its partners, the PKH created opportunities
for pastoralist CSOs, for example, the collaboration in the IFAD-funded
Pastoralist-Driven Data Management System project, aimed at improving the
capacities of pastoral civil society to generate their own data.
96. Given the large number of partners and the minimal size of the PKH team,
building partnerships created more opportunities than could be seized. Despite
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
39
all best efforts, relationships often remained on the surface, limited to what was
functional to the programme of the PKH. In many cases, the only way partners
were engaged by the project was through the invitation to the annual meeting.
Conclusion 5. While recognizing all the achievements, there is strong consensus
among stakeholders that the PKH needs to be reviewed thoroughly with regard
to its structure and implementation, and in particular: (i) strengthening the
analysis when engaging with pastoralist civil society, especially in interpreting
the context, roles and boundaries; and (ii) strengthening the analysis when
managing pastoralism-related knowledge (e.g. identification, organization,
dissemination).
4.2 Recommendations
Recommendation 1. Keep the PKH operating and with a clear link to FAO.
97. FAO should secure from its permanent fund enough resources to guarantee at
least PKH ‘life-support’ activities: maintaining the web portal; facilitating
coordination between partners; and facilitating connectivity between FAO and
pastoralist CSOs, and between FAO programmes under different SPs.
98. FAO should secure funding from external sources to enable the
institutionalization of pastoralism at FAO and, in collaboration with partners, to
enable the development of specific components of the PKH. Options for flexible
funding should also be explored.
99. The work of bringing pastoralism into large FAO programmes and engaging in
knowledge-generation activities with advocacy value should expand as part of
the institutionalization of pastoralism within FAO, including beyond SP5. Specific
support should be given to developing and operating the ‘pastoralism working
group’ at FAO headquarters and in close connections with relevant country
offices. The work of the PKH should be extended to country offices, and the PKH
team strengthened to cope with the additional workload that this will generate.
Recommendation 2. Parallel to the institutionalization of pastoralism within FAO,
options should be explored for enabling particular dimensions of the PKH to grow
also as specialist modules outside FAO, integrated with the PKH mainframe at FAO,
but operated through partners who can secure the necessary expertise more flexibly
and more cost-effectively than FAO can. Dimensions of the PKH to be opened up to
development through partnership include: knowledge management, knowledge
generation, pastoralism visibility, capacity building and representation of pastoralist
CSOs, and a mechanism for scientific advice.
100. The PKH expanded its context of intervention, by reaching out to new
constituencies and into ‘new territories’ of knowledge and knowledge-making.
Expansion, including in the number of partners, has eventually outgrown the
limits of the project. Everything going well with the institionalization of
pastoralism at FAO, FAO internal demand can be expected to grow at pace with
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
40
the PKH, therefore with the potential of using virtually any amount of resources
the PKH can manage to secure. This is likely to happen in competition with those
dimensions of the PKH which are not FAO-centred. In addition, partners have
shown interest in playing a more direct role, including suggestions for involving
pastoral CSOs and partners from the early stages of project formulation.
101. Being created at FAO has given PKH1 and PKH2 unique advantages, which
should be retained. At the same time, specialized modules closely integrated in
the PKH mainframe at FAO, but operated through partnerships could now grow
and evolve much faster, more adaptively, and more cost-effectively. This would
also allow the ‘new model PKH’ to take full advantage of the opportunities
offered by its legacy of partnerships and networking. The following five
recommendations concern the components to be developed through
partnerships.
Recommendation 3. Develop through partnerships the knowledge management
dimension of the PKH.
102. The set of knowledge services provided on the PKH web portal and through
digital dissemination need both correcting and expanding. The need for
correction relates to: (i) the first framework currently reached through clicking the
‘Knowledge repository’ tab, with the document search; (ii) the ‘Database of
organizations’ under the tab ‘Pastoralist networks’; (iii) the mapping of pastoralist
networks, which is currently limited to incomplete information at the regional
level; and (iv) the media review and ‘News’ section.
103. Expanding the knowledge services must entail, inter alia: (i) integrating in all
knowledge services smart functions for strategic analysis and organization (e.g.
highlighting evidence and arguments with advocacy value, but also
contradictions, misconceptions, negative framing and triggers of technical
exclusion); and (ii) supporting innovation for securing timely and effective
dialogue and flow of information within pastoralist networks at all levels, in
conversation with partners and pastoralist CSOs – in particular, sustainable
solutions are needed for enabling the work of the larger governing bodies that
allow for grassroots representation, such as councils and congresses.
Recommendation 4. Develop through partnerships the knowledge-generation
component of the PKH.
104. The knowledge-generation activities under the umbrella of the PKH need
expanding beyond the focus and programmes of FAO. This should cover, inter
alia: (i) pushing further and deeper the mapping of knowledge gaps; (ii) mapping
misconceptions, misunderstanding and negative ‘framing’ in current pastoral-
development narratives including, for example, the current framing around
farming-herding relationships and issues of conflict; (iii) supporting the
meaningful inclusion of pastoralism in relevant knowledge-generation
programmes outside FAO; (iv) engaging in the systematic production of evidence
that is strategically relevant for supporting the agenda of pastoralist CSOs; and
(v) identifying and addressing methodological barriers and ‘technical exclusion’
in knowledge-making processes.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
41
Recommendation 5. Develop through partnerships the work of building capacity and
representation in pastoralist CSOs as an integrated component.
105. There is a general consensus on the need for WAMIP, but also about its
present weakness. Coverage by the new regional networks is still weak. It is crucial
to support WAMIP in resuming its role, as a united front on its core principles
and purpose, and with a functioning governance structure. In parallel, the work
of building organizational and advocacy capacity in pastoralist CSOs, and
supporting measures that allow them to remain connected with the grassroots
should continue and expand. Opportunities for dialogue between pastoralists
and governing bodies at the national and regional level should be fostered and
pursued.
Recommendation 6. Develop through partnerships the work of increasing pastoralism
visibility in policy-making.
106. The work should continue to increase the visibility of pastoralism and its
value, both to strengthen pastoralists’ voice and to make the policy-making
environment more receptive to hear it. This component of the PKH should focus
on the systematic identification and pursuing of opportunities. The current
central role of the PKH in preparing the United Nations International Year for
Rangelands and Pastoralism should be supported. A priority should be the
development and implementation of a mechanism for coordinating strategic
participation and advocacy initiatives, both between partners and with pastoralist
CSOs.
Recommendation 7. Provide the PKH with a permanent mechanism of relevant
scientific advice, namely an advisory board with strong and proved expertise in
pastoralism and in supporting pastoralism civil society.
107. There is a strong consensus among stakeholders that the level of analysis
and scientific standards in the work of the PKH is due for an upgrade with
specialist knowledge on pastoralism and the context of pastoralism-related
development.
108. The new PKH should be supported by an independent scientific advisory
board identified through a process of dialogue amongst all the partners including
the PKH, with strong and proven expertise in pastoralism and in supporting
pastoralist civil society. Integrated within the PKH modular structure and
networked with all relevant constituencies through the PKH fora, the scientific
advisory board should be dedicated to facilitating the identification of shared
core principles and ensuring adequate level of analysis and strategic coherence
within and across the PKH components.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
42
Annex 1. List of stakeholders consulted
Asman
Abdal Monium
FAO – Resilience and Emergencies
Véronique
Ancey
FAO – Livestock and Poverty Reduction in Pastoral Areas
Eduardo
Arce Diaz
FAO – LEAP partnership
Badi
Besbes
FAO – PKH Project Leader
Anne
Brunel
FAO – IPTP and DPS
Edoardo
CalzaBini
FAO – DPSP
Francesca
Carpano
FAO – DPSP
Camillo
De Camillis
FAO – LEAP partnership
Giacomo
DeBesi
FAO – Livestock specialist
Sofia
Espinosa
FAO – Tenure and Governance
Yon
Fernandez-de-Larrinoa
FAO – Indigenous Peoples’ Team leader
Anne
Brunel
FAO – Indigenous food systems expert
Serena
Ferrari
PKH team
Maria
HernandezLagana
FAO – SHARP
Irene
Hoffmann
FAO – Originator and PKH supervisor 2014–2015
Natasha
Maru
PKH team
Anne
Mottet
FAO – GLEAM
Emmanuella
Olesambu
FAO – Resilience and Emergencies
Shukri
Osman
FAO – Resilience and Emergencies
Francesca
Romano
FAO – Tenure and Governance
Moctar
Sacande
FAO – Action Against Desertification
Beate
Scherf
FAO – Sustainable Agriculture Programme
Felix
Teillard
FAO – GLEAM
Andres
VatterRubio
FAO – FAOLEX
Gregorio
Velasco Gil
FAO – PKH Coordinator
Monika
Agarwal
MARAG – WAMIP 2013–2015
Marco
Bassi
WAMIP Board of Trustees 2007
Christian
Berger
World Bank (PRASP)
Santiago
Carralero
YURTA
Dawn
Chatty
Dana Declaration legacy
Jonathan
Davies
IUCN
Bhavana
Desai
MARAG
Lalji
Desai
MARAG
Said
Fagouri
APCN, WAMIP
Fiona
Flintan
ILC Rangeland Observatory, ILRI
Arnaud
François
Acting for Life
Pablo
Frere
Pastoramericas
Fernando
Garcia Dori
ESN, WAMIP
Margerita
Gomarasca
VSF
Blamah
Jalloh
RBM
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
43
Khalid
Khawaldeh
APCN, WAMIP
Ilse
Köhler-Rollefson
LPP
Ruijun
Long
ICIMOD
Pablo
Manzano
PKH1 Coordinator 2014–2015 - Consultant
Benjamin
Mutambukah
COPACSO
Nahid
Naghzadeh
CENESTA
Michael
Odhiambo
Founder of RECONCILE
Anders
Oskal
ICR
Antonio
Rota
IFAD
Michael
Tiampati
WAMIP
Koen
Vantroos
VSF
Abdrahmane
Wane
CIRAD
Ann
Waters-Bayer
CELEP
Engin
Yilmaz
YODA Initiative
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
44
Annex 2. References
African Union (AU). 2010. Policy Framework for Pastoralism in Africa: Securing, protecting and
improving the lives, livelihoods and rights of pastoralist communities. Department of Rural
Economy and Agriculture, African Union, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA). 2017. Pastoralism, Policy and Law in the EAC
and IGAD Regions (East African Community and Intergovernmental Authority on Development
Regions). AFSA, Kampala.
Assouma, M.H., Hiernaux, P., Lecomte, P., Ickowicz, A., Bernoux, M. & Vayssières, J. 2019.
Contrasted seasonal balances in a Sahelian pastoral ecosystem result in a T neutral annual
carbon balance. Journal of Arid Environments, 162: 62–73.
Bassi, M. 2017. Pastoralists are peoples – key issues in Advocacy and the Emergence of
Pastoralists' Rights. Nomadic Peoples 21(1): 4–33.
Behnke, R. 2010. The contribution of livestock to the economies of IGAD Member States. Study
Findings, Application of the Methodology in Ethiopia and Recommendations for Further Work,
IGAD LPI Working Paper No. 02–10, Djibouti.
Behnke, R. & Metaferia, F. 2011. The contribution of livestock to the Ethiopian economy - Part
II, IGAD LPI Working Paper No. 2–11, Djibouti.
Behnke, R. & Muthami, D. 2011. The contribution of livestock to the Kenyan economy, IGAD
LPI Working Paper No. 3–11, Djibouti.
Behnke, R. & Nakirya, M. 2012. The contribution of livestock to the Ugandan economy, IGAD
LPI Working No. 02–12, Djibouti.
Behnke, R. and Osman, H.M. 2011. The contribution of livestock to the Sudanese economy,
IGAD LPI Working Paper No. 01–12, Djibouti.
Chapman, K. 2016. Complexity and Creative Capacity. Rethinking knowledge transfer, adaptive
management and wicked environmental problems. Routledge, London and New York.
Chatty, D. 2012. Dana Declaration +10, 11–13 April 2012, Wadi Dana, Jordan. Workshop report
Dana Declaration 2002. Dana Declaration on Mobile Peoples and Conservation. Wadi Dana
Nature Reserve, Jordan, 3–7 April 2002, The Dana Declaration Committee, Dana.
Davies J., Ogali, C., Slobodian, L., Roba, G. & Ouedraogo, R. 2018. Crossing Boundaries:
Legal and policy arrangements for cross-border pastoralism. FAO and IUCN, Rome.
Dclaration de Bamako 2016. Dclaration des participants à l’atelier rgional sur la construction
d’un environnement propice au dveloppement durable du pastoralisme en Afrique de l’Ouest
et du Centre. Bamako.
Dclaration d’Hammamet. 2016. Dclaration des participants à l’atelier rgional sur la
«Construction d’un environnement propice au dveloppement durable du pastoralisme en
Afrique du Nord et en Asie Occidentale», organizé à Hammamet, Tunisie, du 14 au 16 Janvier
2016, Hammamet, Tunisie.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
45
Déclaration du Réseau Européen des Berger. 2018. Déclaration du Réseau Européen des Berger,
Le Réseau Européen des bergers, met in General Assembly in Oloron-Sainte-Marie on 15
September 2018.
de Haan, C. & Cervigni, R. with Mottet, A., Conchedda, G., Gerber, P., Msangi, S., Lesnoff,
M., Ham, F., Fillol, E. & Nigussie, K. 2016. Vulnerability and resilience in livestock systems in
the drylands of sub-Saharan Africa. In: de Haan C. (ed.) 2016. Prospects for Livestock-Based
Livelihoods in Africa’s Drylands, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World
Bank, Washington.
Desmarais, A.A. & Nicholson, P. 2013. La Via Campesina. An historical and political analysis,
La Via Campesina's Open Book: Celebrating 20 Years of Struggle and Hope.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2002. Pastoralism in the
new millenium, FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 150. Rome.
_______. 2012. Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries
and forests in the context of national food security. Rome.
_______. 2016. Improving governance of pastoral lands. Implementing the Voluntary Guidelines
on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of
National Food Security. Governance of Tenure Technical Guide No. 6. Rome.
_______. 2018a. Pastoralism in Africa’s drylands, 52 pp. Rome.
_______. 2018b. The Future of Food and Agriculture — Alternative pathways to 2050. Rome 224
pp.
_______. 2018c. World Livestock: Transforming the livestock sector through the Sustainable
Development Goals. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014.
Pastoralist Knowledge Hub. PART 1: Support to pastoralists in advocacy and policy matters,
Rome.
_______. 2015. Pastoralist Knowledge Hub. PART 2: Technical support to pastoralists` livelihood
and resilience. Rome.
_______. 2017. Pastoralist Knowledge Hub. Project Findings and Recommendations. Terminal
Report (AG:GCP/GLO/536/GER), FAO/Government Cooperative Programme. Rome.
FAO-IFAD. 2016. FAO’s and IFAD’s Engagement in Pastoral Development (2003-2013). Joint
Evaluation Synthesis. IFAD, Rome.
Global Dairy Platform (GASL). 2018. Dairy Development’s Impact on Poverty Reduction. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Global Dairy Platform and IFCN Dairy
Research Network, Chicago.
High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE). 2012. Food security and
climate change. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee
on World Food Security. Rome.
HLPE. 2015a. HLPE consultation on the V0 draft of the Report: Sustainable agricultural
development for food security and nutrition, including the role of livestock. From 2 to 31
October 2015. Extended to 16 November 2015, Rome.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
46
HLPE. 2015b. Sustainable Agricultural Development for Food Security and Nutrition, including
the Role of Livestock. V0 Draft Report 2nd October 2015. Submitted by the HLPE to open
electronic consultation until 31 October 2015. Rome.
HLPE. 2016. Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition: what roles for
livestock? Rome.
Hustai Declaration 2015. Hustai Declaration on Pastoralism and Nomadic People for Central
Asia.
International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry (ICR). 2018a. World Alliance of Mobile
Indigenous Peoples – Governance challenges. The summary of the governance structure.
International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry, Kautokeino, Norway.
_______. 2018b. World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples – Governance challenges. The
summary of interviews. International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry, Kautokeino, Norway.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2018. How to do note: Engaging
with pastoralists – a holistic development approach. Rome.
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). 2013. Following the Herd:
Why Pastoralism Needs Better Media Coverage, Briefing: Climate resilient drylands
development, by Mike Shanahan. International Institute for Environment and Development,
London.
_______. 2015. Valuing Variability. New perspectives on climate resilient drylands development.
IIED, London.
IIED & SOS Sahel. 2009. Modern and Mobile. The future of livestock production in Africa’s
drylands. Edited by Helen de Jode, International Institute for Environment and Development,
and SOS Sahel International UK, London.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2012. Supporting Sustainable
Pastoral Livelihoods: A Global Perspective on Minimum Standards and Good Practice. Second
Edition March 2012 (published for review and consultation through global learning fora). IUCN
ESARO office, Nairobi.
_______. 2014. Global Pastoralists Gathering report on ‘transitioning to the green economy’.
Nairobi.
Jåhkåmåhkke Declaration 2017. Jåhkåmåhkke Declaration. On the Occasion of the 6th World
Reindeer Herders’ Congress, Jhkmhkke/Johkamohkki, Sweden, 16–20 August, 2017,
Association of World Reindeer Herders(WRH), Johkamohkki, Sweden.
Jerven, M. 2013. Poor Numbers: How we are misled by African development statistics and what
to do about It. Cornell University Press, New York.
Khawaldeh, K. 2016. Building the Arab pastoralist communities Network. Farming Matters 32(4)
– Special Issue: Listening to Pastoralists.
Kiserian Pastoralist Statement 2013. Statement of Pastoralist Leaders Gathered in Kiseria, Kenya,
15 December 2013.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
47
Koblenz-Ehrenbreitstein Declaration 2015. European Pastoralists Assembly organized by ESN in
Koblenz, Germany (26-28 June 2015), European Pastoralists Assembly, Koblenz-Ehrenbreitstein.
Krätli S., Kaufmann, B., Roba H., Hiernaux P., Li W., Easdale M.C. & Hülsebusch C. 2015. A
House Full of Trap Doors; Identifying barriers to resilient drylands in the toolbox of pastoral
development, Discussion Paper, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
London.
LDF. 2007. Wilderswil Declaration on Livestock Diversity, Livestock Diversity Forum: Defending
Food Sovereignty and Livestock Keepers’ Rights. Wilderswil.
Liniger, H.P. & Mekdaschi Studer, R. 2019. Sustainable rangeland management in Sub-
Saharan Africa – Guidelines to good practice. TerrAfrica; World Bank, Washington D.C.; World
Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technol- ogies (WOCAT); World Bank Group (WBG),
Washington DC, USA and Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern,
Switzerland.
Lukenya Pastoralist Declaration 2016. Pastoralist Knowledge Hub Regional Meeting for Eastern
and Southern Africa, in Lukenya (Kenya) on 21-22 January 2016, Lukenya, Kenya.
MARAG. 2011. Summary Report and Global Action Plan: Women pastoralists 2011–2013.
Outcomes and Next Steps from the Global Gathering of Women Pastoralists. Mera, India, 21–
26 November 2010.
Mathez, A. supervised by V. Ancey. 2019. The Institutionalization of Pastoralism at FAO. A
focus on the Sahel Region. Understandings, circulation of ideas, and mobilization of capacities.
Working paper, AGAG, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Ministry of State for Development of Northern Kenya and Other Arid Lands (MDNKOAL).
2012. Sessional Paper No. 8 of 2012, on National Policy for the Sustainable Development of
Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands, ‘Releasing Our Full Potential’. Republic of Kenya, Nairobi.
Mera Declaration 2010. Declaration of the Global Gathering of Women Pastoralists in Mera,
Gujarat, India, 20 December 2010.
Mottet, A. & Assouma, M.H. 2018. Feed balances in the Sahel – Methodological note. AGA –
Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome.
N’Djamena Declaration 2013. N’Djamena Declaration on the Contribution of Pastoral Livestock
to the Security and Development of the Saharo-Sahelian Areas, Colloque Régional et
Conférence Ministérielle, 27–29 May 2013, N’Djamena.
Nouakchott Declaration 2013. Nouakchott Declaration of West Africa artisanal fisheries sector
organizations. 29 October 2013.
Pastoralist Communication Initiative (PCI). 2005. Rain, Prosperity and Peace. Reporting from
the Global Pastoralist Gathering, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (OCHA)-Pastoralist Communication Initiative, Addis Ababa.
Pica-Ciamarra, U., Baker, D., Morgan, N., Zezza, A., Azzarri, C., Ly, C., Nsiima, L., Nouala,
S.,Okello, P. & Sserugga, J. 2014. Investing in the Livestock Sector. Why good numbers matter:
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
48
A sourcebook for decision makers on how to improve livestock data. World Bank Report
Number 85732-GLB, World Bank, Washington.
Pimbert, M. (ed.) 2017. Food Sovereignty, Agroecology and Biocultural Diversity: Constructing
and contesting knowledge. Routledge, London and New York.
République du Niger. 2010. Ordonnance 2010-029 Relative au pastoralisme, Présidence de la
République, Ministère de l"Agriculture et de l'Élevage, Niamey.
Réseau Billital Maroobe (RBM). 2017. Gestion des connaissances, renforcement des espaces
de dialogue et amélioration du plaidoyer et de la sensibilisation dans les régions de l'Afrique
de l'Ouest et du Centre dans le cadre du Système de gestion des données piloté par les éleveurs
pasteurs». Rapport Final, Convention GCP/GLO/611/GER, Réseau Billital Maroobe, Niamey.
Scoones, I. 2019. What is uncertainty and why does it matter? STEPS Working Paper 105, STEPS
Center, Brighton.
Teillard, F., Anton, A., Dumont, B., Finn, J.A., Henry, B., Souza, D.M., Manzano P., Milà i
Canals, L., Phelps, C., Said, M., Vijn, S. & White, S. 2016. A review of indicators and methods
to assess biodiversity – Application to livestock production at global scale. Livestock
Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP) Partnership. FAO, Rome.
The Cancun Statement 2016. Promoting Sustainable Pastoralism and Livestock Production for
the Conservation of Biodiversity in Grasslands and Rangelands. CBD (Convention on Biological
Diversity) COP 13, 14 December 2016, Cancun, Mexico
Toure I., Ickowicz, A., Wane, A., Garba, I. & Gerber, P. (eds). 2012. Système d’information
sur le pastoralisme au Sahel. Atlas des évolutions des systèmes pastoraux au Sahel 1970–2012,
CIRAD, FAO, Rome.
United Nations Development Programme- Global Drylands Imperative (UNDP-GDI). 2003.
Pastoralism and mobility in the drylands. GDI Challenge Paper Series, The Global Drylands
Imperative (GDI). United Nations Development Programme, Drylands Development Centre,
Nairobi, Kenya.
United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA). 2016. Combating desertification, land
degradation and drought and promoting sustainable pastoralism and rangelands. Second
session of the United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment
Programme, Nairobi, 23–27 May 2016. United Nations Environment Assembly of the United
Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.
Upton, C. 2013. The new politics of pastoralism: Identity, justice and global activism. Geoforum
54(0): 207–216.
WAMIP. 2007a. First Congress, La Granja, Segovia, Spain, 15–18 September 2007, WAMIP
Secretariat, Segovia.
WAMIP. 2007b. Statutes, 18 September 2007, World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples
(WAMIP), Segovia, Spain.
WAMIP. 2014. WAMIP in 2013 and 2014, World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples,
Ahmedabad, India.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
49
WISP. 2014. Steering Committee Report. March 2014. IUCN, Nairobi.
Weiler, A.M., Hergesheimer, C., Brisbois, B. Wittman, H., Yassi, A. & Spiegel, J.M. 2015.
Food sovereignty, food security and health equity: A meta-narrative mapping exercise. Health
Policy and Planning 30: 1078–1092.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
50
Annex 3. Tests of ‘knowledge repository’ and ‘database of organizations’
Search results in both cases appeared inconsistent.
The Knowledge Repository
69
(http://www.fao.org/pastoralist-knowledge-hub/knowledge-repository/recent-
releases/en/)
A ‘free-text’ search for <pastoralist civil society> (the core concern of the PKH)
returned only one item. Changing the search to <pastoral civil society> returned three,
the newsletters PKH published monthly from July to September 2017, but curiously
not the item found with the previous search, although the word ‘pastoral’ is included
in ‘pastoralist’.
None of the pastoralist CSOs declarations came up with these searches, nor the reports
on the global pastoralist gatherings in 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2013, nor any document
on WAMIP or by WAMIP (for example the 2013-2014 report), not even the documents
published by the IIED ‘Reinforcement of Pastoralist Civil Society in East Africa’ project.
Repeating the search with <civil society> only, returned amongst other items the 2013
Nouakchott Declaration, but not the N’Djamena Declaration of the same year. This
search returned the Hustai Declaration on pastoralism and nomadic people of Central
Asia, but none of the other pastoralist CSOs declarations produced before or during
PKH.
Searching <WAMIP> returned only two items: the Kiseriann Pastoralists Statement and
the Segovia Declaration, but the record on the latter attributes it to the United Nations
Economic Commission for Africa, and the link is broken.
A free text search for the string <Atlas des volutions des systèmes> in the French
version of the PKH website, returns Touré et al 2012. Systme d’information sur le
pastoralisme au Sahel. Atlas des volutions des systmes pastoraux au Sahel 1970-2012.
However, this item is not found with the string <Atlas Sahel> or the name of any of
the authors.
A search for <International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists> does not return any
item. One has to go to the ‘Press articles’ search, inside the ‘News and Events’ tab. The
PKH website hosts some 18 pages of News, and growing, but the Tab does not include
a search function.
There is also no overall search function for the entire PKH website.
The database of pastoralist organizations
(http://www.fao.org/pastoralist-knowledge-hub/pastoralist-networks/database-of-
organization/en/)
A search using the ‘Research organization’ category in ‘Type of organization’, without
any other specification, returns only 3 hits.
69
This assessment does not include the Legislation Database.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
51
A search using the categories Regions/Global returns records of 11 organizations,
none of which is described in the record to have ‘Geographical Coverage: Global’.
The Alliance for Food Sovreignty in Africa, and the Ugandan Branch of DanChurchAid
are there, but not WAMIP.
Only a free text search for ‘global’ returns a hit on WAMIP, because the word ‘global’
is included in WAMIP’s internet address: http://www.wamipglobal.org. Clicking on the
link takes to a page about Dietary Supplements.
Final Evaluation of the GCP/GLO/536/GER and GLO/611/GER
52
