1. Watete, W.P. 1,2, Kogi-Makau, W. 1, Njoka, J.T. 1, MacOpiyo, L. 1 1 University of Nairobi, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, Kabete 2 Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Kenya Corresponding author email address; pwatete@gmail.com

2.  Poverty levels in pastoral areas seem to be increasing, an indication that poverty reduction strategies being employed are not working.  Conventional methods of assessing pastoral poverty are contestable (Devereux, 2007; Tache and Sjaastad, 2010).  Why are pastoralists poor?  How can pastoral poverty be reduced?  This study applied the stages of progress method (Krishna 2010) to establish how pastoral households of northern Kenya have moved into and out of poverty and reasons for the same.

3. Pastoral poverty has been on the increase, defying both government and donor poverty reduction strategies. Reasons for increasing pastoral poverty have not been sufficiently understood by all stakeholders. Poverty reduction interventions have therefore failed to achieve their desired outcomes.

4. Broad objective:  To assess transitory poverty among pastoral households of northern Kenya Specific objectives:  To determine how poverty levels among pastoral households of northern Kenya have changed between 1993 and 2013.  To establish reasons for household descend into poverty or ascend out of poverty.

6.  A survey study was conducted in Turkana and Mandera Counties.  The sample households were obtained through multistage sampling: 4 sub Counties in each county (pastoral, agro- pastoral, off-farm); 30 households per village(354 households in Turkana and 310 households in Mandera)  Household interviews were administered to sample households to obtain data on income, expenditure, dominant livelihood strategies and reasons for change in wealth status.  In FGD, community members were guided to develop their ‘stages of progress’ scale.  Focus group participants were asked to identify well known signifying events that occurred around 1993 and 2003 as a basis of recalling households’ wealth status during the two periods.

7.  The participants were then asked to identify the wealth status of sample households in 1993, 2003 and 2013 (Poor, moderate, rich).  Sampled households were placed in four categories (remained poor, escaped poverty, became poor, remained non poor)depending on how their wealth status changed between 1993 and 2013.  Data was cleaned, coded and entered for analysis using SPSS version 20.  Descriptive statistics, Cross tabulations  Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney tests used to separate variances

8. Wealth categoryTurkanaMandera Poor1.Buys food 2.Buys clothes 3.Buys first goat 4.Increases goats up to 20 5.Marries 6.Builds a shelter 7.Buys one donkey 8.Buys camel 9.Buys one cow 1.Afford one meal a day 2.Buy clothes for the family 3.Own few animals (some chicken, 3 goats or 3sheep) 4.Take children to primary school 5.Make your own makeshift house (Herio) 6.Make an improved better house (Harish) 7.Buy a donkey or young cow Moderate1.Increases sheep/goats up to 150 2.Increases number of camels up to 5 -10 3.Increases number of cows up to 6-8 4.Marries the first wife officially according to Turkana custom 5.Marries out the first daughter 1.Take children to secondary school 2.Buy a farming land along the river 3.Buy a plot in Mandera town 4.Take children to paid tertiary colleges Rich1.Increases number of sheep/goats up to 400 2.Increases number of camels up to 15 3.Increases number of cattle up to 15 4.Increases number of donkeys up to 10 5.Marries the second wife 1.Buy a second hand vehicle 2.Buy and transport livestock to other markets for sale 3.Make pilgrimage to Mecca 4.Buy modern high class vehicle 5.Settle the family in urban centre

9. CountyPercentage of households per category Remai ned poor (%) Escape d poverty (%) Becam e poverty (%) Remai ned non poor (%)N Turkana54181910354 Mandera42131727310 Total 96313637664

10. CountyPercentage of households per category Remai ned poor (%) Escape d poverty (%) Becam e poverty (%) Remai ned non poor (%)N Turkana46142514354 Mandera33182524310 Total 79325038664

11. LivelihoodCategories of households Ver y poor (%) Poor (%) Middle (%) Rich (%) N Pastoral4720293202 Agro- pastoral 311453249 Off-farm1949312413 Total 97831137664

15. 1. Different pastoral communities follow different pathways out of poverty 2. Conventional methods of assessing poverty tend to exaggerate pastoral poverty 3. Loss of livestock has been a major cause of pauperization among pastoral households of northern Kenya 4. Income diversification and education were important in helping pastoralists of northern Kenya escape poverty

16. 1. Poverty reduction approaches should be based on community needs; replicating a project from one community to another may not work 2. Use of both quantitative and qualitative poverty assessment methods give a more accurate picture of pastoral poverty 3. Policies that protect and support livestock accumulation should be used to achieve pastoral poverty reduction 4. Both ‘cargo net’ and ‘safety net’ policies should be used to tackle pastoral poverty 5. Livelihood diversification and education are interventions that could help pastoralists escape poverty