Livestock
Emergency
Guidelines andStandards
Third edition

Livestock
Emergency
Guidelines andStandards
Third edition

Practical Action Publishing Ltd
25 Albert Street, Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 2SG, UK
www.practicalactionpublishing.com© Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards – LEGS, 2023
First published 2009. Second edition 2014. Third edition 2023
The moral right of the editors to be identified as editors of the work and the contributors to be
identified as contributors of this work have been asserted under sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright
Design and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any formor by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without the written
permission of the publishers.
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN 978-1-78853-246-4 Paperback
ISBN 978-1-78853-248-8 Electronic bookCitation: LEGS (2023) Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards, 3rd edition. Rugby, UK:
Practical Action Publishing. http://doi.org/10.3362/9781788532488
Since 1974, Practical Action Publishing has published and disseminated books and information in
support of international development work throughout the world. Practical Action Publishing is a
trading name of Practical Action Publishing Ltd (Company Reg. No. 1159018), the wholly owned
publishing company of Practical Action. Practical Action Publishing trades only in support of its
parent charity objectives and any profits are covenanted back to Practical Action (Charity Reg. No.
247257, Group VAT Registration No. 880 9924 76).
The views and opinions in this publication are those of the editors and do not represent those of
Practical Action Publishing Ltd or its parent charity Practical Action. Reasonable efforts have been
made to publish reliable data and information, but the editors and publisher cannot assume
responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use.

Edited by Helen de Jode and Cathy Watson
Design by www.truedesign.co.uk
Typesetting by River Valley Technologies
www.livestock-emergency.net
2

Contents
LEGS framework

How to use thishandbook
p.12

Chapter 1:
Introduction
to LEGS
p.18

Chapter 2:
LEGS
Principles
p. 46

Technical standards

3

Chapter 4:
Technical
standards forlivestock feed
p.130

Chapter 5:
Technical
standards forthe provisionof water
p.168

Chapter 6:
Technical
standards
for veterinary
supportp. 204

Chapter 7:
Technical
standards forlivestock shelterand settlement
p. 248Chapter 8:
Technical
standards forlivestock offtakep. 288Chapter 9:Technical
standards forthe provisionof livestock
p. 320Annexesp. 362Index
p. 379Chapter 3:
Emergency
response
planning
p. 76

Contents
How to use this handbook
14

What is the purpose of the LEGS Handbook?

14

Who should use the Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards?

15

What does the LEGS Handbook contain?

16

What difference will using the LEGS Handbook make?

16

What other resources does LEGS provide?

Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS
20

What is the basis of LEGS?

23

Which livestock, livestock keepers and assets does LEGS cover?

26

What are the LEGS livelihoods objectives?

28

How does LEGS define emergencies and what are their impacts?

33

What other key concepts and issues are relevant to LEGS?

37

How does LEGS relate to Sphere and the Humanitarian Standards
Partnership?

39

What sources of information exist for understanding more about
LEGS?

43

What further information is available on topics that LEGS does notcover?

Chapter 2: LEGS Principles
48

Introduction48

Principle 1: Supporting livelihoods-based programming

52

Principle 2: Ensuring community participation

55

Principle 3: Responding to climate change and protecting theenvironment

58

Principle 4: Supporting preparedness and early action

59

Principle 5: Ensuring coordinated responses

62

Principle 6: Supporting gender-sensitive programming

64

Principle 7: Supporting local ownership

66

Principle 8: Committing to monitoring, evaluation, accountability andlearning (MEAL)

4

Contents continued
69

Appendix 2.1: LEGS alignment with the Sphere Protection Principles

70

Appendix 2.2: How LEGS Principles support the Core HumanitarianStandard Commitments

73

References and further reading

Chapter 3: Emergency response planning
78

Introduction

79

Stage 1: Initial assessment

87

Stage 2: Response identification

90

Stage 3: Analysis of technical interventions and options

96

Stage 4: Response plan

99

Monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning (MEAL) guidance
for LEGS interventions

105

Appendix 3.1: Initial assessment – suggested participatory methods

109

Appendix 3.2: Initial assessment – example checklist (partiallycompleted)

111

Appendix 3.3: Initial assessment – data collection template

112

Appendix 3.4: PRIM – templates

114

Appendix 3.5: PRIM – samples

119

Appendix 3.6: Cash and voucher assistance – response modalities,
delivery mechanisms and decision tree

124

Appendix 3.7: Response plan – template

125

Appendix 3.8: Response plan – example of livestock offtake
intervention

126

References and further reading

5

Contents continued
Chapter 4: Technical standards for livestock feed
133

Introduction

136

Options for ensuring feed supplies

141

Timing of interventions

142

Links to other LEGS chapters and other HSP standards

143

LEGS Principles and other issues to consider

148

Decision tree for livestock feed options

151

The standards

161

Appendix 4.1: Assessment checklist for feed provision

163

Appendix 4.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators forlivestock feed interventions

165

References and further reading

Chapter 5: Technical standards for the provision of water
170

Introduction

173

Options for water provision

177

Timing of interventions

178

Links to other LEGS chapters and other HSP standards

179

LEGS Principles and other issues to consider

183

Decision tree for water provision options

186

The standards

199

Appendix 5.1: Assessment checklist for water points

201

Appendix 5.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators forwater provision

202

Appendix 5.3: Considerations for water point management

203

References and further reading

6

Contents continued
Chapter 6: Technical standards for veterinary support
207

Introduction

208

Options for veterinary support

216

Timing of interventions

217

Links to other LEGS chapters and other HSP standards

218

LEGS Principles and other issues to consider

224

Decision tree for veterinary support options

226

The standards

241

Appendix 6.1: Assessment methods and checklist for veterinary
support243

Appendix 6.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators forveterinary support

245

References and further reading

Chapter 7: Technical standards for livestock shelter and settlement
251

Introduction

254

Options for shelter and settlement

259

Timing of interventions

260

Links to other LEGS chapters and other HSP standards

261

LEGS Principles and other issues to consider

265

Decision tree for livestock shelter and settlement options

268

The standards

282

Appendix 7.1: Assessment checklist for livestock shelter andsettlement provision

284

Appendix 7.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators forlivestock shelter and settlement285

Appendix 7.3: Livestock shelter and climate challenges

287

References and further reading

7

Contents continued
Chapter 8: Technical standards for livestock offtake
290

Introduction

292

Options for livestock offtake

296

Timing of interventions

298

Links to other LEGS chapters and other HSP standards

298

LEGS Principles and other issues to consider

301

Decision tree for livestock offtake options

303

The standards

315

Appendix 8.1: Assessment checklist for livestock offtake

317

Appendix 8.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators forlivestock offtake

319

References and further reading

Chapter 9: Technical standards for the provision of livestock
323

Introduction

325

Options for the provision of livestock

330

Timing of interventions

331

Links to the other LEGS chapters and other HSP standards

332

LEGS Principles and other issues to consider

338

Decision tree for provision of livestock options

341

The standards

352

Appendix 9.1: Assessment checklist for provision of livestock

354

Appendix 9.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators forthe provision of livestock

358

Appendix 9.3: Discussion on minimum viable herd size

360

References and further reading

8

Contents continued
Annexes364

Annex A: Glossary374

Annex B: Abbreviations and acronyms

375

Annex C: Combined timing table

376

Annex D: Acknowledgements and contributors

379

Index

9

Praise for this book
‘The revision of LEGS Handbook includes significant changes in content andform. The new structure, improved design, changes to the foundations
chapters and Plain English used allow for easier access and understanding
for both livestock specialists and humanitarians, even for first time users.
The links to other chapters and other Humanitarian Standards Partnership(HSP) handbooks are also welcome.’
Maty Ba Diao, former Regional Coordinator, Projet Régional d’Appui au
Pastoralisme au Sahel (PRAPS), at the Comité permanent inter-État delutte contre la sécheresse au Sahel (CILSS)‘I welcome this third edition of the LEGS handbook, which is even more
reader friendly, easy to use, relevant to changing contexts and supported bymore case studies. It includes innovative tools to identify how to respond to
emergencies, and has assessed past interventions and experiences to guide
future planning. The consultative process and outreach have gone beyond
the previous edition. I am sure the tools in the handbook will be very usefulfor both humanitarian and development actors working in the area of foodsecurity focusing on livestock-based livelihoods.’
Vikrant Mahjan, CEO, Sphere India‘This third edition has enriched content and more simplified language, andhas been revised in line with community of practice comments as part ofgreater local ownership of the LEGS approach. The Handbook clearly
illustrates the interlinked nature of lives and livelihoods, and the new chapter
on emergency response planning integrating key tools will support the savingof lives and protecting the livelihoods of affected communities.’
Dr Kisa Juma Ngeiywa, former Director of Veterinary Services (DVS)
Kenya

10

‘Es importante para mí haber participado en la 3ª edición del Manual de
LEGS, ya que es una fuente esencial de directrices para procedimientos
orientados a preservar los medios de vida de la población más vulnerable eneventos adversos. Me brindó también la oportunidad de formar parte de un
selecto grupo de profesionales del sector a nivel mundial que atienden con
humanidad a los animales.’ [Contributing to the 3rd edition of the LEGS
Handbook was important to me. It is an essential source of guidelines forprocedures aimed at preserving the livelihoods of at-risk people inemergencies, and it also provided a unique opportunity to be among a selectgroup of world professionals with a humane approach to livestock issues.]
Norman Ernesto Mora Cerda, Director de Capacitación y Respuesta,
Codirecciones del SINAPRED, Nicaragua‘LEGS is the reference guide for implementing quality livestock interventions
in emergency settings that strengthen the recovery capacity and overall
resilience of affected populations. This third edition of the LEGS handbook ismore user-friendly, includes new core principles such as ensuring community
participation or supporting gender-sensitive programming, and offers
updated standards, key actions and guidance notes. As one of thecontributors to the LEGS handbook since its inception, VSF is committed tocontinuously training its staff to ensure a thorough understanding of the
LEGS principles and standards and their application. The handbook is thus
an essential complement to the trainings, and this improved third edition will
be an easy-to-use manual for field staff at any stage of a crisis response.’
Margherita Gomarasca, Coordinator, VSF International‘The LEGS handbook provides a common language and framework forlivestock practitioners, enabling joint planning and clear mapping of needs
and gaps. The new edition will be instrumental to enable teams to undertake
pre-emptive actions to reduce the loss of livestock assets and production
with its key feature on preparedness and early action. Furthermore, theinclusion of additional details on cash and voucher assistance will strengthen
cash plus livestock interventions. The guidelines have been, and willcontinue to be, instrumental in quality responses through continuous learningand exchange amongst partners, including policy makers.’
Rein Paulsen, Director of Emergencies and Resilience Ofﬁce, Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations

11

LEGS framework
How to use this handbook

12How to use thishandbook
14

What is the purpose of the LEGS Handbook?

14

Who should use the Livestock Emergency Guidelines andStandards?

15

What does the LEGS Handbook contain?

16

What difference will using the LEGS Handbook make?

16

What other resources does LEGS provide?

Photo © FAO/Michael Tewelde
13

LEGS framework
How to use this handbook

How to use thishandbook
What is the purpose of the LEGS
Handbook?
The Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS) Handbook
provides minimum standards and guidelines for use in humanitarian
emergencies that impact livestock. The handbook helps support the
livelihoods of livestock-keeping communities affected by emergencies. It
prioritises those living in lower- and middle-income countries and aims to
improve the quality of emergency humanitarian response.
The LEGS Handbook includes practical decision-making tools for planning a
livestock emergency response. It provides standards, key actions andguidance notes for undertaking emergency interventions in six technicalareas: livestock feed, water, veterinary support, shelter, livestock offtake, andthe provision of livestock.
The LEGS Handbook highlights the importance of protecting livestock-based
livelihoods during emergencies, and of rebuilding livelihoods after
emergencies. Livelihoods-based programming is the first of eight LEGS
Principles that users of the handbook are asked to follow.
All LEGS guidance is based on technical expertise and evidence-based goodpractice.

Who should use the Livestock
Emergency Guidelines andStandards?
LEGS mainly targets those who provide emergency assistance in areas
where livestock make an important contribution to livelihoods. These may
include people based in affected communities; those working for national orinternational NGOs; those working in local, regional or national government;
people working for bilateral or multilateral agencies; or private sector
operators. Users of the handbook will also be the emergency-affected
140LEGS framework
How to use this handbook

communities themselves. The handbook uses the term agencies to cover all
who respond to emergencies impacting livestock.
LEGS guidance clearly explains how and why emergencies, livestock andlivelihoods overlap. The handbook will therefore be useful to both livestock
specialists and humanitarians involved in emergency preparedness,
response and recovery. The handbook is also relevant for donors, policy
makers and others whose funding, actions and policies influence responseinterventions. It may also be useful for educational institutions.

What does the LEGS Handbook
contain?
The LEGS Handbook contains three framework chapters. It is important toread these first. Chapter 1 introduces LEGS, including its foundations in
Sphere and links with the Humanitarian Standards Partnership (HSP).
Chapter 2 explains the eight principles that underpin LEGS. Chapter 3
provides the practical tools needed for planning a livestock-based
emergency response. These framework chapters are the basis for thetechnical standards chapters that follow.
The six technical standards chapters (Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) all share acommon structure. They should be used for emergency response planningand as an ongoing reference source. They first identify why each specifictechnical intervention is important for supporting livestock and livelihoods.
They then outline the benefits and challenges of the potential response
options, and in which phase of a humanitarian emergency they are mostapplicable. The standards sections then set out:
• Standards – qualitative statements of the minimum to be achieved in any
emergency in any context;• Key actions – practical steps or actions for achieving the LEGSStandards, not all of which may be relevant to all situations;• Guidance notes – to be read in conjunction with the key actions. They
explain particular issues and how to address any practical difficulties
when applying the LEGS Standards.

A glossary is provided at the end of the handbook containing importantterminology. Glossary words are highlighted in colour the first time they
appear.

15

0

LEGS framework
How to use this handbook

What difference will using the LEGS
Handbook make?
The LEGS Handbook explains the critical importance of livestock assets formany at-risk communities. It aims to ensure that livestock-based livelihoods
are not destroyed by well-meaning but inappropriate interventions during
humanitarian emergencies. Use of the tools in the LEGS Handbook helps
ensure livestock emergency responses are selected, designed andimplemented effectively. The most appropriate, feasible and timely livestock
interventions can be identified from the six LEGS technical intervention
areas. The eight LEGS Principles provide a guidance structure that is
applicable in all contexts, helping users to make appropriate decisions andapply the standards effectively.

What other resources does LEGS
provide?
This third edition of the LEGS Handbook is available in hard copy format; on
the Humanitarian Standards Partnership Interactive Handbook site; and as adownloadable pdf on the LEGS website (see www.livestock-emergency.net),
where there is also further information about LEGS: resources include
briefing papers, further tools and case studies. Some case studies cover theprocess: how the interventions were carried out, in other words. Others
describe their impact: the effect on the livelihoods of livestock keepers.
There are also details about the LEGS training programme and how to sign
up to the LEGS e-newsletter.

160

LEGS framework
How to use this handbook

017LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

18

Chapter 1:
Introduction to LEGS
20

What is the basis of LEGS?

23

Which livestock, livestock keepers and assets does LEGS cover?

26

What are the LEGS livelihoods objectives?

28

How does LEGS deﬁne emergencies and what are their impacts?

33

What other key concepts and issues are relevant to LEGS?

37

How does LEGS relate to Sphere and the HumanitarianStandards Partnership?

39

What sources of information exist for understanding more
about LEGS?

43

What further information is available on topics that LEGS does
not cover?

Photo © Michael Benanav
19

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

Chapter 1: Introduction
to LEGS
Chapter overview
This chapter introduces LEGS by answering the following questions:• What is the basis of LEGS?
• Which livestock, livestock keepers and assets does LEGS cover?
• What are the LEGS livelihoods objectives?
• How does LEGS define emergencies, and what are their impacts?
• What other key concepts and issues are relevant to LEGS?
• How does LEGS relate to Sphere and the Humanitarian Standards
Partnership?
• What sources of information exist for understanding more about LEGS?
• What further information is available on topics that LEGS does not cover?

What is the basis of LEGS?
Livelihood support
It is now well recognised that emergency response should not just be aboutsaving human lives, but that humanitarian action must also consider
maintaining the livelihoods of affected communities. Livelihoods are how
people sustain themselves and their families, and are their means of making
a living. Livelihoods are often defined as people’s capabilities, assets,
income and activities required for securing the necessities of life.
Livelihood support is the basis of LEGS, and this is reflected in the handbook
in two ways. Livelihoods-based programming is the first of the LEGS
Principles (see Chapter 2, as well as Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 for its relevanceto each technical intervention). LEGS also follows a livelihoods-based
approach in the design of emergency response plans (see Chapter 3).
Where there is a crisis, LEGS supports the livelihoods of livestock-keeping
communities. LEGS provides this support through planning andimplementing response options from six technical intervention areas: feed,water, veterinary support, shelter, livestock offtake and the provision of20

1

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

livestock. These technical interventions target livestock assets and arealigned with one or more of the three LEGS livelihoods objectives (seebelow).

Evidence
LEGS draws on evidence-based good practice from around the world. Aspart of this evidence base, it tracks and uses evaluations, reviews andimpact assessments of livestock and livestock-related interventions. This
third edition of the LEGS Handbook is based on:• editorial recommendations from five discussion papers on key topics, aswell as feedback from the webinars held on each paper;• a discussion paper on ‘How to make LEGS more user-friendly’;• consultation workshops held in Mali, Kenya, the Philippines, India andNicaragua;• an online consultation on the second edition of the LEGS Handbook;• the review and updating of the LEGS Impact Database (available on the
LEGS website at www.livestock-emergency.net/legs-impact-database);• a public consultation on the draft third edition.

This evidence is presented in the LEGS Handbook as:
1. references and useful further reading provided at the end of each chapter;
2. case studies of practical, worldwide examples – these are highlighted ineach chapter and are available on the LEGS website (www.livestockemergency.net/case-studies).

Human rights
LEGS follows a rights-based approach that aims to respect, protect andfulfil internationally agreed human rights. The principal international humanrights legal framework is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
including Article 1 ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity andrights’.
Article 25 is particularly relevant for LEGS as it encompasses the right tofood. It states, ‘Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for thehealth and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing,
housing and medical care…’. (Note that this wording is from 1948, when
masculine pronouns were commonly used as a default.)

21

1

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

Animal welfare
LEGS response options ensure good animal welfare. Since the two
previous editions of the LEGS Handbook, international organisations have
evolved their understanding of the importance of animal welfare. The World
Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) now actively promotes animal
welfare.
LEGS links its technical interventions to one of the animal welfare
assessment protocols that focus on animal-based indicators, the Five Animal
Welfare Domains, as listed in Box 1.1. The LEGS technical chapters explain
how each intervention connects with these animal welfare domains.
Box 1.1

Animal welfare: Five domains
1. Nutrition – factors that involve the animal’s access to sufficient,balanced, varied, and clean food and water.
2. Environment – factors that enable comfort through temperature,
substrate, space, air, odour, noise, and predictability.
3. Health – factors that enable good health through the absence ofdisease, injury, impairment with a good fitness level.
4. Behaviour – factors that provide varied, novel and engaging
environmental challenges through sensory inputs, exploration,
foraging, bonding, playing, retreating, and others.
5. Mental state – the mental state of the animal should benefit frompredominantly positive states, such as pleasure, comfort, or vitality
while reducing negative states such as fear, frustration, hunger, pain,or boredom.
Source: https://www.worldanimalprotection.us/blogs/ﬁve-domains-vs-ﬁve-freedoms-animalwelfare

LEGS Principles
LEGS is based on eight principles. These cover:
1. supporting livelihoods-based programming;
2. ensuring community participation;
3. responding to climate change and protecting the environment;
4. supporting preparedness and early action;
5. ensuring coordinated responses;
22

1

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

6. supporting gender-sensitive programming;
7. supporting local ownership;
8. committing to monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning (MEAL).
1

Chapter 2 explains the LEGS Principles and their application, while eachtechnical intervention chapter (Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) explains how theinterventions address or align with the eight LEGS Principles.

Which livestock, livestock keepers
and assets does LEGS cover?
How LEGS deﬁnes livestock
Within LEGS, the term ‘livestock’ refers to animal species that support
livelihoods and communities, particularly in lower- and middle-income
countries. This means that LEGS focuses primarily on the animals that are
kept by pastoralists or small-scale producers, and not by large-scalecommercial livestock enterprises. These animals range from poultry, pigs,
sheep and goats, to cattle, camels, water buffalo, llamas, yaks and donkeys,
and any other animals that contribute to people’s livelihoods. Animals that
do not directly support livelihoods, such as companion animals, are not the
primary concern of LEGS. However, it is recognised that the definition of‘companion animals’ varies in different contexts. LEGS does not coverbeekeeping or aquaculture either. These are addressed elsewhere (see Whatfurther information is available on topics that LEGS does not cover?).

Working animals
In countries impacted by humanitarian crises, equines (horses, mules anddonkeys) are often fundamental to livelihoods. These working animals are
sometimes critical for women’s livelihoods, for transporting items to market
or collecting water. Dogs may also be working animals in some contexts.
When using LEGS for planning responses to emergencies, it is necessary toconsider the role and importance that the animals have in the affected
communities’ livelihoods.
Emergencies affect working animals in specific ways. In drought situations,for example, donkeys, camels and llamas may work much more collecting
water and supplies from increasingly distant locations. They therefore
need extra feed to avoid progressively losing body condition in thesecircumstances. And, if a working animal dies, households are left even more
at risk.
23

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGSLEGS also specifically recognises the importance of livestock that work in
response to humanitarian crises. Local working animals may be used forpulling or carrying items such as food aid during a drought. These animals
often have experienced, or are experiencing, the impact of the crisis. As aresult, they may be traumatised, injured or in poor condition.

Types of livestock keepers
Throughout the world, animals play significant roles in people’s livelihoods in
different ways and to varying degrees, as listed in Box 1.2.
Box 1.2

Examples of livestock keepers whose livestock
contribute to their livelihoods• Pastoralists, who are highly dependent on livestock• Agro-pastoralists, who have a combination of herds and crops, butwhose livestock are often the main livelihood asset• Smallholder crop farmers who use cattle or buffaloes for farm power,
where ploughing and manure are critical for crop production• Smallholder livestock farmers who raise cows, goats, pigs or poultry,
for example, and who may depend on working animals for transport;these livelihoods may rely heavily on the animals raised both as asource of nutrition and income• Service providers, for example llama, mule or donkey cart owners,
who may be totally dependent on the animals for their income• Urban and peri-urban livestock owners, as urban animals can often
contribute to livelihoods as a supplementary source of income orfood (some of these livestock keepers, like urban fresh milk suppliers,
are totally dependent on their animals; some urban women also
depend on buying young goats and sheep and finishing them formarket)Many communities depend on both livestock and crops for their livelihoods.
The Standards for Supporting Crop-related Livelihoods in Emergencies(SEADS) follows a similar format to LEGS and should be consulted alongside
LEGS to support smallholder farming communities affected by humanitariancrises.

24

1

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

Other livelihoods, such as livestock traders and shopkeepers, feed suppliers,
as well as animal health workers, depend on livestock and livestock keepers.

Livestock as livelihood assets
For communities who use livestock for their livelihoods, livestock are
livelihood assets. LEGS defines livelihood assets as the resources,
equipment, skills, strengths and relationships that are used by individuals
and households to pursue their livelihoods.
Livelihood specialists categorise livelihood assets as social, human, natural,
financial or physical assets. In livestock-dependent livelihoods, animals arelike a ‘living’ bank account: financial assets that owners can sell for income
when needed or save as financial capital. Additionally, in many communities,
livestock are important social assets. This means they give status to theirowner. They can also be exchanged or else gifted as part of social relations.
Human livelihood assets include people’s health, nutrition and capacity towork (see Box 2.1 in Chapter 2: LEGS Principles). For many rural
households, livestock play a key role in meeting household nutritional needs,
and define their socio-economic role.
For livestock owners, the extent to which they are at risk from the effects ofan emergency is strongly linked to their livestock assets. This is because thegreater the value of their assets, the greater their capacity to cope withshocks. It is therefore essential to understand the role that livestock have inlivelihoods, and the emergency’s impact on these livelihood assets, todetermine how appropriate a livestock-based response is.
Chapter 3: Emergency Response Planning describes how to use the LEGS
tools when making an initial assessment to understand livestock assets andlivelihoods. Non-livestock-focused interventions, such as crop-based
support, food aid, and cash and voucher assistance (CVA) can also
complement livestock-based responses. They help remove some of thepressure on livestock assets in the short term, making recovery morefeasible.
On the other hand, there may be men and women who have survived forgenerations as livestock keepers but who are so affected by an emergency
that their assets are severely depleted. For them, keeping livestock is nolonger an option. Recurrent emergencies erode household capacity andenthusiasm for livestock keeping, as family members are dispersed, injured
or killed, and labour and managerial expertise lost. Such households may
prefer to be given assistance to establish themselves in alternative
livelihoods.
25

1LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

What are the LEGS livelihoods
objectives?
LEGS emergency response is based on three livelihoods objectives.
LEGS technical interventions support crisis-affected communities to:
1. obtain immediate beneﬁts using existing livestock assets; and/or
2. protect key livestock assets; and/or
3. rebuild key livestock assets.
When responding to emergencies affecting livestock-keeping communities,
potential responses are assessed against these three LEGS livelihoods
objectives. The chosen technical intervention (providing water, providing
shelter, or any of the other interventions described in the technical chapters)
should help to achieve at least one of the LEGS livelihoods objectives. The
introduction in each technical chapter explains their links to the objectives.
Table 1.1 provides more explanation on how the objectives link to thetechnical interventions.
Table 1.1: The three LEGS livelihoods objectives and examples ofinterventions
LEGS livelihoods
objective

Example LEGS interventions

1. To obtain immediate
beneﬁts using existing
livestock assets.

Livestock offtake: The sale or slaughter of at-risk or
unmarketable animals provides cash or food support tolivestock keepers. This allows longer-term protection ofremaining livestock assets.
························································································
Feed and Water: Providing feed and water to productive
animals may contribute to immediate improvements inhousehold food security through livestock products.

Providing rapid
assistance based on
existing livestock
assets to generate
income or food as
immediate benefits.

continued over26

1

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGSLEGS livelihoods
objective

Example LEGS interventions

2. To protect key
livestock assets.

Veterinary support: This can have a positive impact onprotecting and rebuilding livestock assets at all stages of an
emergency. It may take place in conjunction with otheractivities (for example, feed, water, provision of livestock) toincrease asset protection.
························································································
Feed: This is important for protecting remaining livestock
assets during and after an emergency. In drought, this may
be complemented by water provision.
························································································
Water: This is important for protecting remaining livestock
assets.
························································································
Shelter: This responds to a range of livestock needs –protection against cold or hot climates; security; provisionof a healthy environment for livestock and humans. It caninvolve preventive measures (for example, earthquakeresistant livestock shelters, or the use of elevated areas forflood protection), as well as measures to protect livestock
assets after an emergency (for example, volcanic eruption).

Keeping livestock alive
so that production canresume when theemergency is over.

3. To rebuild key
livestock assets.
Rebuilding assets when
livestock losses havealready occurred, andasset protection was
not possible.

27

Provision of livestock: This may include helping livestock
keepers to rebuild herds after an emergency. It may also
involve the replacement of smaller numbers of animals, e.g.
poultry, small ruminants and working animals, which
contribute to livelihoods. It is appropriate in the recovery
phase once the immediate aftermath is over and anassessment of asset loss is possible.
························································································
Feed/water/shelter/veterinary support: See Objective 2.
Continued intervention in the recovery phase is necessary
to rebuild and strengthen livestock assets and reduce
vulnerability to future emergencies.

1LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

How does LEGS deﬁne emergencies
and what are their impacts?
LEGS and the disaster risk management cycle
Humanitarian crises and disasters are associated with substantial loss ofhuman life relative to a normal situation, and/or considerable damage tophysical infrastructure and assets. There are also many hazards and threatsthat do not necessarily cause a disaster.
While there is a range of terminology used to describe disasters andhumanitarian crises, LEGS uses the term ‘emergency’ for situations in whicha hazard or threat is beyond the capacity of the affected community to cope.
Poorer communities tend to be less well prepared, less resilient, and havelower coping capacity. Other variables that influence the impact on acommunity are their level of exposure to the hazard and how at risk they are.
Because emergencies tend to recur, it is useful to think of them not as
one-off events, but as part of a cycle. LEGS aligns with the disaster risk
management (DRM) cycle, which considers risk prevention and reduction as
well as reducing the losses from emergencies. LEGS interventions largely
focus on response and recovery, while the DRM cycle (see Figure 1.1) also
highlights the importance of identifying risks and preparing for an emergency
prior to the actual onset. Because LEGS recognises the key role that
preparedness plays in this cycle, this third edition of the LEGS Handbook
includes preparedness standards in many of the technical chapters,
underpinned by the LEGS preparedness principle (see Principle 4:
Preparedness, in Chapter 2).

LEGS emergency types and phases
LEGS categorises emergencies into two main types:
1. slow-onset emergency;
2. rapid-onset emergency.
When an emergency involves a breakdown in national authority, for example
because of conflict or political instability, it is classified as a complex
emergency. In these cases, a slow-onset crisis such as a drought, or a
rapid-onset event such as an earthquake, may compound these otherfactors. This may happen to the extent that large-scale assistance is required
to meet the needs of significant numbers of affected people. When a crisis
continues over time, it may become a protracted emergency, while in someregions cyclical natural hazards may lead to a chronic/recurring emergency.
28

1LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

Figure 1.1: The disaster risk management cycle
Disaster risk reduction
1

Mitigation andprevention

Risk
identification

Preparedness

Humanitarian
actionReconstruction

Disaster

Response andearly recovery
RecoverySustainable development
Source: Based on International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR)

When planning an emergency response, it is important to be clear about
what type of emergency it is. Examples of rapid-onset, slow-onset andcomplex emergencies are shown in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2: Emergency types and examples
Emergency
type

Example emergencies

Slow-onset
emergency

Drought·····································································································
Severe winter (for example, dzud in Mongolia)
continued over29

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

Emergency
type

Example emergencies

Rapid-onset
emergency

Flood·····································································································
Earthquake·····································································································
Volcanic eruption·····································································································
Storm (hurricane, typhoon, cyclone)·····································································································
Wildfires (naturally occurring or otherwise)·····································································································
Some animal or plant pests and diseases

Complexemergency

Short or long-lasting conflict with human displacement·····································································································
Combinations of conflict with another type of emergency, such as
drought·····································································································
Political, economic and social crises·····································································································Outbreak of transboundary animal disease or a pandemic
superimposed on another type of emergency

To reflect how the different emergency types require interventions at different
times, LEGS defines the phases within slow-onset and rapid-onset
emergencies differently:• For slow-onset emergencies, the LEGS phases arealert/alarm/emergency/recovery (based on the drought cycle
management model).
• For rapid-onset emergencies, the phases are immediate aftermath/early recovery/recovery.

Figure 1.2 illustrates how these phases correspond to the impact of the crisis.
The LEGS approach to emergency response planning (see Chapter 3:
Emergency response planning) uses these different phases to help identify
the most appropriate timing for the intervention that is being selected.

30

1LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

Figure 1.2: LEGS phases for slow-onset and rapid-onset emergencies
Slow-onset

Impact1

Normal

Alert

Alarm

Emergency

RecoveryTime

Emergency

ImpactRapid-onset

NormalImmediateaftermathEarly
recoveryRecoveryTime

In a complex or protracted emergency, the phases can be determinedaccording to whether the underlying emergency is slow- or rapid-onset. For
example, in a complex emergency involving drought and civil war, the timingof interventions should align with the slow-onset phases. In a complex
emergency resulting from an earthquake in a country affected by conflict, therapid-onset phases may be the most appropriate for emergency planning.

31

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

How do emergencies impact livestock keepers?
Emergencies impact communities that depend on livestock in many ways, as
shown in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3: How emergencies impact animals and livestock-keeping
communities
Emergency
type

How it can affect livestock and communities

Slow-onset
emergency

Animal body condition deteriorates progressively.
·····································································································
Market prices for animals go down, while prices for human food goup.
·····································································································
The cost of inputs like animal feed increases.
·····································································································
Human food security and nutrition gradually worsen.
·····································································································As the emergency progresses, more animals die.
·····································································································
If core breeding animals die, post-emergency recovery is hindered.

Rapid-onset
emergency

There is rapid livestock (and human) mortality in the initial event.
·····································································································
There is damage to infrastructure (like roads and livestock shelters)
and services (such as veterinary services), as well as potential
disruption to livestock feed and water supplies.
·····································································································
People are displaced and perhaps separated from their animals.
·····································································································
Where there is a lack of response support, further consequences
can occur, such as more livestock deaths or disease.

Complexemergency

Access to grazing is reduced.
·····································································································
Armed groups may steal animals.
·····································································································
Conflict may prevent access to services or markets.
·····································································································
Infrastructure, such as communication networks, is affected.
·····································································································
People and animals are displaced.
·····································································································
There are protracted and high levels of human food insecurity andmalnutrition.

32

1

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

What other key concepts and issues
are relevant to LEGS?
LEGS is consistent with several well-established and emerging concepts andissues, as outlined below.

Resilience analysis
Sustainable livelihoods and frameworks influenced development thinking in
the last decade of the 20th century, and the principles of this approachcontinue to underpin LEGS. The concept of resilience builds on thesustainable livelihoods approach. It aims to integrate the impact of
emergencies and the need to strengthen the ability to recover. Resilience
applies equally at different levels: individual, household, community, local
government, national government, and ecosystem. Different organisations
define resilience in different ways depending on their mandate. A person’s
resilience depends on many factors that affect their ability to cope andadjust, such as their economic well-being, education, gender, health andage.
Strengthening communities’ resilience helps them to protect themselvesfrom the impact of future emergencies, with livestock playing a major role.
For example, mixed farm households with crops and livestock produce theirown fodder, reducing costs for feed/grain; they can also sell some animals
for cash when crops fail. And pastoralists can accumulate animals in goodyears to protect them from shocks in bad ones. Resilient livestock systems
also help improve food and nutrition outcomes.
The thinking behind the concept of resilience aligns with LEGS Principles
and livelihoods objectives. However, there is no clearly documented
evidence yet that emergency responses can have a positive impact onlong-term resilience.

New pandemics and their impacts
A zoonotic disease, or zoonosis, is an infection or disease that istransmissible from animals to humans. Zoonoses that are a threat to humanhealth from livestock are well recognised, including anthrax and rabies. Morecontacts at the human-animal interface, and interaction between wild
species and farmed animals, can lead to increased risk of emerging
infectious diseases. LEGS considers zoonoses within Chapter 6: Veterinary
support, under the established practice of veterinary public health. Where

33

1

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

people and animals are displaced, new cross-infection risks may arise (seeChapter 7: Shelter).
Scientists have long recognised the risk of infectious virus spillover fromlivestock, with its potential for global human disease such as the potentiallypandemic ‘bird flu’. Whilst the pandemic due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
causing Covid-19, was most probably a virus spillover event from a wildlife
species, livestock keepers experienced significant consequences. The
economic impacts and disruption to LEGS activities from Covid-19 areshown in Table 1.4.
Table 1.4: How the Covid-19 pandemic affected livestock livelihoods
and LEGS activities
The pandemic’s impact on livestock and livestock keepers
Feed

In some places lockdown conditions caused feed
shortages, for example, for dairy cows.

Movement of livestock

National and international movement restrictions (borderclosures) prevented pastoralists from moving their herds
for grazing and trade.

Market closures

The lack of markets reduced livestock keepers’ income.
····················································································
Transporting and selling livestock products (eggs, milk)
became difficult.
····················································································
Led to shortages of livestock input supplies.

Veterinary services

In some places the pandemic restrictions disrupted
government vaccination delivery.

The impacts of the pandemic on LEGS activities
LEGS training

Training changed from face to face to online.

LEGS participatory
analysis (initialassessment, response
identification, MEAL)

Access to communities reduced or blocked.
····················································································
Care became necessary when using techniques that
could lead to reduced social distancing.

34

1

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

Livestock and climate change: global debates
A substantial body of research and analysis related to global climate changeshows that livestock are an important source of greenhouse gases. Thisfinding is the basis for high-level policy debates on the future of livestock
production and human food systems. A prominent policy position is that,
globally, human food systems should become plant-based, with far lower, orzero, consumption of foods derived from animals. These debates influenceinternational aid policies, including the extent to which livestock systems
should be supported. The same debates also transfer across into
humanitarian aid.
LEGS recognises the critical importance of global climate change and theurgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, itregards livestock-related support to poor and at-risk livestock keepers
affected by humanitarian crises as entirely appropriate. The policy debates
rely almost exclusively on data from large-scale commercialised livestock
production systems, which are not the focus of LEGS (see Principle 3:
Climate change and the environment in Chapter 2).

AMR
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a key emerging issue. It is often associatedwith overuse and misuse of antibiotics as part of intensification of animal
production, and with unregulated sales. When antibiotics are provided aspart of emergency response packages, LEGS guidance recommends thatevery effort must be made to ensure they are used properly to reduce AMR.

One Health
The One Health approach brings together three topics: human health, animal
health and environmental health. These topics are sometimes consideredseparately but are inextricably linked. Threats to these interconnected
systems include human population growth, natural resource exploitation,
large infrastructure development, and livestock production intensificationand expansion. Risks also come from increased global movement of
humans, animals (including wild animals) and animal products.

35

1

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

Veterinary public health has a long history of considering links between
people, animals and the environment. Many old and current zoonosis
prevention approaches cover multiple aspects of disease transmission andrisks. There is also now increasing acceptance of a One Health approach. In
emergency response contexts, evidence of its positive impact on livelihoods
is limited. However, LEGS guidance is that agencies must consider how to
reduce the risk of public exposure to animal-borne diseases in emergency
contexts.

Humanitarian-development-peace nexus
The trend towards complex emergencies, characterised by widespread andsevere political instability and related conflict, is increasing. A relatively highproportion of humanitarian funding is now spent on complex emergencies.
Adverse and more frequent weather-related hazards, like drought or severe
storms, affect at-risk people more frequently than before and may compoundthese complex emergencies.
The Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus approach seeks to addresscomplex emergencies by coordinating response efforts from thehumanitarian, development and peace sectors. For LEGS, responding tocomplex humanitarian crises requires recognising the links between
immediate and long-term needs, and the necessity of coordination (seePrinciple 5: Coordinated responses, in Chapter 2).

Livestock insurance
Index-based livestock insurance schemes are complementary to LEGS inthat payouts aim to protect livestock assets through the provision of feed,water, shelter and so on. While there is a growing interest in such schemes,
insurance policyholders make up only a very small proportion of total
livestock producers in the countries where these schemes operate. The
crisis-affected communities that LEGS targets fall largely outside insurancecompanies’ priorities. There is not yet enough research on the impact of
livestock insurance on livelihoods to enable LEGS to formulate guidance.

36

1

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

How does LEGS relate to Sphere andthe Humanitarian Standards
Partnership?
Established in 1997, Sphere developed global minimum standards forhumanitarian response, with the aim of improving the quality andaccountability of humanitarian action. The minimum standards are presented
in the Sphere Handbook, with the fourth edition published in 2018. Spherefocuses on the core elements of humanitarian responses. It has a legal
foundation and a strong rights-based framework. Sphere’s foundations are
The Humanitarian Charter, the Protection Principles and the Core
Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability.
The first edition of LEGS was published in 2009. Since then, it has beenclosely aligned with the humanitarian foundations of the Sphere Handbook,including its guidance on human protection. The use of LEGS means
commitment to its foundations in Sphere, with important implications forresponse design and implementation. This commitment also affects themonitoring, impact evaluation and accountability of livestock-related
interventions across all types of emergencies (see Chapter 3: Emergency
response planning).
LEGS is one of the founder members of the Humanitarian Standards
Partnership (HSP), a collaboration among standards initiatives that started in2016. Sphere acts as the foundation for all the standards initiatives thatcomprise the HSP, which currently includes:• The Sphere Handbook;• Minimum Standards for Camp Management;• Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action;• Humanitarian Inclusion Standards for older people and people withdisabilities;• Minimum Standards for Education;• Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards;• Minimum Economic Recovery Standards;• Minimum Standard for Market Analysis;• The Standards for supporting crop-related livelihoods in emergencies;• CHS Alliance (HSP associate member and co-curator of the Core
Humanitarian Standard).
37

1

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

Box 1.3

LEGS commitment to the HSP
The Humanitarian Charter

1

The Humanitarian Charter represents a commitment from agencies tofollow humanitarian principles and be held accountable for their work.
The Charter includes three bodies of international law: human rights law,refugee law and international humanitarian law. It also includes two
fundamental moral principles, the principle of humanity and the principleof humanitarian imperative. The Humanitarian Charter proposes thathumanitarian agencies recognise three rights: the right to life with
dignity; the right to receive humanitarian assistance; and the right toprotection and security.
The LEGS commitment to The Humanitarian Charter is reflected in thehuman rights basis of LEGS, and in its advocating for humanitarianassistance and protection that ensures inclusion. LEGS recognises andresponds to marginalised social groups within crisis-affected areas.
These may include children (in particular, separated, unaccompanied ororphaned children), women, older people, people with disabilities, orgroups marginalised because of religion, ethnic group, caste or gender
identity. (See also Principle 2: Community participation, in Chapter 2).

Protection Principles
Agencies responding to emergencies are responsible for ensuring that
their interventions do not increase risks to affected communities. To
ensure this, they follow the four Protection Principles described in detailin the Sphere Handbook:• enhance people’s safety, dignity and rights, and avoid exposing themto further harm;• ensure people’s access to impartial assistance according to need
and without discrimination;• assist people to recover from the physical and psychological effectsof threatened or actual violence, coercion or deliberate deprivation;• help people to claim their rights.

See Chapter 2 Appendix 2.1 for details of how LEGS supports theProtection Principles.
continued over38

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGSCore Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability
All the HSP initiatives seek to improve quality and accountability for
emergency response. They do this by adhering to the Core
Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS) and its
nine commitments. Each commitment has a quality criterion, key
actions and organisational responsibilities.
Commitment to the CHS is at the organisational level. Therefore, thecommitment applies across all types of humanitarian response,
including the livestock-related responses that an organisation supports.
Assessing the accountability of livestock-related responses therefore
falls under generic CHS commitments and quality criteria. LEGSalignment with the CHS is shown through the implementation of the
LEGS Principles (see Chapter 2).
The specific components of how LEGS Principles support the CHS
commitments are summarised in Appendix 2.2.

What sources of information exist forunderstanding more about LEGS?
Practical advice for carrying out LEGS technical responseinterventions
LEGS aims for better quality and accountability in emergency livestock
responses. It achieves this by providing standards and guidance to support
good, evidence-based practice and decision-making. LEGS does not,however, give detailed information on how to implement livestock
interventions, nor on national emergency response mechanisms, nor on how
to access funding for emergency responses.
In 2016, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
published a practical manual on how to carry out livestock interventions inemergencies. This manual is designed to complement LEGS:FAO (2016) Livestock-related interventions during emergencies – The
how-to-do-it manual. Edited by Philippe Ankers, Suzan Bishop, Simon Mack
and Klaas Dietze. FAO Animal Production and Health Manual No. 18. Rome,https://www.fao.org/3/i5904e/i5904e.pdf

391

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

Each of the LEGS Handbook technical chapters (Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
refers to the relevant practical content in the FAO manual. The further
reading references at the end of each LEGS technical chapter also point toother sources of practical guidance.

Animal welfare
World Organisation for Animal Health (no date) What we do: Animal Welfare.
See https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare/
Recommendations for animal welfare are included in the WOAH Terrestrial
Animal Health Code (see link above). Many national organisations produce
and disseminate animal welfare standards and guidelines. For example:
https://science.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/farmanimals/standards

Sustainable livelihoods
There are a large number of publications on sustainable livelihoods,
including:Chambers R. and Conway, G. (1991) Sustainable rural livelihoods: practicalconcepts for the 21st century, IDS Discussion Paper no. 296,
https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/sustainable-rural-livelihoodspractical-concepts-for-the-21st-century/
DFID (1999) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets, DFID 1999–2001,
https://www.livelihoodscentre.org/documents/114097690/114438878/
Sustainable+livelihoods+guidance+sheets.pdf/594e5ea6-99a9-2a4e-f288cbb4ae4bea8b?t=1569512091877
Serrat O (2008) The sustainable livelihoods approach, ADB Knowledge
Solutions paper, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/27638/
sustainable-livelihoods-approach.pdf
Levine S (2014) How to study livelihoods: bringing a sustainable livelihoods
framework to life, Working Paper 22, Secure Livelihoods Consortium,
https://securelivelihoods.org/wp-content/uploads/How-to-studylivelihoods-Bringing-a-sustainable-livelihoods-framework-to-life.pdf

401

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

Pandemics
The following publications give guidance on livestock programming in the
pandemic context:
FAO (2020) Guidelines to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic onlivestock production and animal health, https://www.fao.org/in-action/kore/
publications/publications-details/en/c/1277631/
FAO (2020) Guidance note: risk communication and community engagement.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, https://www.fao.org/
policy-support/tools-and-publications/resources-details/en/c/1306987/
Global Food Security Cluster (2020) Guidance for emergency livestock
actions in the context of COVID-19: addressing emerging needs related tothe pandemic and reprogramming on-going critical activities,
https://fscluster.org/coronavirus/document/guidance-emergencylivestock-actions
Catley, A (2020) COVID-19, livestock and livelihoods: a discussion paper for
the Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS),
https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/
LEGS-COVID-19-Discussion-Paper-single-pages.pdf
LEGS (2020) COVID-19 response: LEGS guidance note, (LEGS),
https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/
LEGS-COVID-19-Guidance-Note-28-April-2020.pdf

Veterinary medicines and antimicrobial resistance
Drawing on the experiences and conclusions of the LEGS Operational
Research Project, this discussion paper looks at supply chain issues and theglobal problem of AMR:
Hufnagel, H (2020) The quality of veterinary pharmaceuticals: a discussion
paper for the Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS),
https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/
LEGS-Discussion-Paper-The-Quality-of-Veterinary-Pharmaceuticals.pdf
Hufnagel, H (2022) The quality of veterinary pharmaceuticals: LEGS technicalbrief, LEGS, https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/
2022/06/Quality-Veterinary-Pharma-Brief_June-2022.pdf

41

1

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

Humanitarian Standards Partnership
The Humanitarian Standards Partnership currently comprises Sphere andnine other initiatives.
The Sphere Handbook, Sphere Association,
https://spherestandards.org/handbook-2018/
Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action (CPMS), The
Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action,
https://alliancecpha.org/en/CPMS_home
Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS),
https://www.livestock-emergency.net/download-legs/
Minimum Economic Recovery Standards (MERS), SEEP Network,https://seepnetwork.org/MERS
Minimum Standards for Education, Inter-Agency Network for Educationin Emergencies (INEE), https://inee.org/resources/inee-minimumstandards
Minimum Standard for Market Analysis (MISMA), CALP Network,https://www.calpnetwork.org/publication/minimum-standard-for-marketanalysis-misma/
Humanitarian inclusion standards for older people and people withdisabilities, Age and Disability Capacity Programme (ADCAP),
https://www.helpage.org/what-we-do/emergencies/adcap-age-anddisability-capacity-building-programme/
Minimum Standards for Camp Management Global Camp Coordination andCamp Management (CCCM) Cluster, https://cccmcluster.org/resources/
minimum-standards-camp-management
Standards for Supporting Crop-related Livelihoods in Emergencies (SEADS),
https://seads-standards.org/
Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS), CHS Alliance (HSP Associate member
and co-curator of the CHS), https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/

42

1

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

What further information is available
on topics that LEGS does not cover?
Animal disease emergency guides
LEGS does not cover responses to animal disease epidemics, even thoughthese are sometimes very disruptive to livestock-based livelihoods. There isdetailed advice available on this from other sources. LEGS also does notcover transboundary animal disease control. Other internationally accepted
guidelines cover this specifically.
The World Organisation for Animal Health (founded as OIE) (2021) Terrestrial
Animal Health Code, https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/
codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/Guides from the FAO Emergency Prevention System for Animal Health(EMPRES-i), https://empres-i.apps.fao.org/
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) producesdisease-specific guides, such as:
Tuppurainen, E., Alexandrov, T. and Beltrán-Alcrudo, D. (2017) ‘Lumpy Skin
Disease: A Field Manual for Veterinarians’, FAO Animal Production and
Health Manual No. 20, FAO, Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/i7330e/
i7330e.pdf
FAO and OIE/WOAH (2020) Global control of African swine fever: a GF-TADsinitiative, 2020–2025. Paris, https://www.woah.org/app/uploads/2021/06/
global-control-of-african-swine-fever-a-gf-tads-initiative-2020-2025.pdf

Aquaculture and apiculture
LEGS does not cover aquaculture or beekeeping (apiculture), but FAO
provides the following guidance:
Cattermoul, B., Brown, D. and Poulain, F. (eds) (2014) Fisheries andaquaculture emergency response guidance, FAO, Rome,https://www.fao.org/3/i3432e/i3432e.pdf
FAO, IZSLT, Apimondia and CAAS (2021) Good beekeeping practices forsustainable apiculture, FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines No. 25,
Rome, https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb5353en

43

1

LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

Companion animals
Given its humanitarian and livelihoods perspectives, LEGS does not explicitly
cover companion animals. However, many of the LEGS standards andguidance notes apply to companion animals. Links to further resources that
include companion animals in emergencies are available at:https://www.nal.usda.gov/legacy/awic/disaster-planning

Livestock insurance
Aklilu, Y (2020) Livestock insurance: a discussion paper for the Livestock
Emergency Guidelines and Standards, LEGS, https://www.livestockemergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/LEGS-Insurance-DiscussionPaper-single-page.pdf
See also case studies for livelihoods-based emergency interventions at:https://www.livestock-emergency.net/resources/case-studies/

44

1LEGS framework
Introduction to LEGS

1

45

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

46

Chapter 2: LEGS
Principles
48

Introduction48

Principle 1: Supporting livelihoods-based programming

52

Principle 2: Ensuring community participation

55

Principle 3: Responding to climate change and protecting theenvironment

58

Principle 4: Supporting preparedness and early action

59

Principle 5: Ensuring coordinated responses

62

Principle 6: Supporting gender-sensitive programming

64

Principle 7: Supporting local ownership

66

Principle 8: Committing to monitoring, evaluation, accountability
and learning (MEAL)

69

Appendix 2.1: LEGS alignment with the Sphere Protection
Principles

70

Appendix 2.2: How LEGS Principles support the Core
Humanitarian Standard Commitments

73

References and further reading

Photo © Sippakorn Yamkasikorn/Unsplash
47

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Chapter 2: LEGS
Principles
Introduction
This chapter describes the eight LEGS Principles. The LEGS Principles areevidence-based or are derived from many years’ experience of
implementation, and related evaluations. They also take account of reviews
and practitioner experience. The LEGS Principles are complementary to theSphere foundations. They cover fundamental issues and ways of working
that are the basis for effective livestock-related responses in humanitariancrises (see Figure 2.1). Appendix 2.1 and 2.2 show how the LEGS Principles
relate to the Sphere Protection Principles and the Core HumanitarianStandard (CHS).
The LEGS Principles apply across all humanitarian contexts and all LEGS
technical interventions; however, the practical application of each principle
will vary according to context. Humanitarian assistance involves managing
dilemmas, and although an agency might understand and commit to aprinciple, specific political, security or other contextual issues may affect thepractical application of the principle. Implementing agencies should apply allof the LEGS Principles during emergency interventions. They should also
apply them to their ways of working and their internal structures.

Principle 1: Supporting
livelihoods-based programming
The beneﬁts of livelihoods-based livestock programming
The LEGS Principle of supporting livelihoods-based programming aligns withthe general humanitarian aim of ‘saving lives and livelihoods’. It recognisesthat humanitarian response should include efforts to protect people’s
livelihoods and support post-emergency recovery. The livelihoods-based
programming recommended by LEGS is also consistent with therights-based approach in the foundation chapters of Sphere. In communities
where livestock produce food and income, livestock keepers have the rightto emergency support to protect and rebuild their livestock.

48

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Figure 2.1: Sphere foundations, LEGS Principles and the LEGS technicalinterventions

LEGS technical interventions

Livestock feed

Water

Veterinary
supportShelter andsettlement

Livestockofftake

Provision of
livestock

Principles support the LEGS technical interventions

LEGS Principles
1.
Livelihoodsbased
programming

2.
Community
participation

3.
Protecting
theenvironment

4.
Preparedness
and early
action5.
Coordinatedresponses

6.
Gender-sensitive
programming

7.
Local
ownership

8.
MEAL

Foundations underpin the LEGS Principles

Sphere foundations
The
Humanitarian
Charter

49

Protection
Principles

Core
HumanitarianStandard

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

For livestock keepers facing an emergency, the main ways in which livestock
contribute to livelihoods are summarised in Box 2.1. The two primary
determinants of people’s capacity to survive emergencies are their financial
capital and their social networks. Here, livestock provide key types offinancial capital and play important roles in social connectedness in ruralcommunities.
Box 2.1

Livestock and livelihood assets in emergencies
Livestock and ﬁnancial capitalIn many lower- and middle-income countries, livestock are both asource of cash income and a form of financial saving in ruralcommunities. Income from the sale of livestock or livestock products
can be a substantial proportion of total household income. Similarly,
livestock can be the most important type of financial savings. They
provide both savings growth (as livestock reproduce) and a flexible
disposable asset to meet household income needs, including at times ofstress. Working animals also provide major economic benefits, such as
enabling the ploughing of land or transporting goods to markets.

Livestock and social capital
During emergencies people’s survival can depend on their capacity todraw on assistance from relatives and friends. In rural communities,
local social support systems often rely heavily on livestock-basedtransactions, such as loans or gifts of livestock or livestock products.
These systems apply during normal periods, during emergencies and as
part of recovery after emergencies. Pastoralist and agro-pastoralist
communities have elaborate systems for restocking households thathave lost animals due to drought, disease epidemics or other events.

Livestock and human capital
Livelihood frameworks typically refer to human capital as a household’s
health status, level of education and capacity to work. Animal-source
foods such as milk and eggs have very high nutritional value and areparticularly important for young children, and for pregnant andbreastfeeding women. In children, these foods contribute to both
physical and cognitive growth. The direct consumption of animal-source
foods from livestock owned by poorer households may be the only way
for them to access or afford such food.

50

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Participatory approaches should be used to identify options for supporting
livestock during emergencies (see Chapter 3: Emergency response planning).
When they are, livestock keepers typically prioritise those LEGS interventions
that lead to one or more of the livelihood contributions shown in Box 2.1.
They especially focus on the protection of core livestock assets. These
livelihood contributions are also reflected in the LEGS livelihoods objectives.
LEGS technical interventions support crisis-affected communities to:
1. obtain immediate beneﬁts using existing livestock assets; and/or
2. protect key livestock assets; and/or
3. rebuild key livestock assets.

Livelihoods-based programming and local services and markets
The livelihoods-based approach recommended by LEGS protects livestock
as an essential livelihood asset. It also aims to support the services, markets
and systems that livestock keepers need as they recover from emergencies.
This approach takes account of lessons learned from negative experiences
relating to the free distribution of livestock medicines, feed and other inputs
by NGOs and governments during emergencies. Free inputs can undermine
local private sector actors, disrupt local market systems, or introduce
inappropriate products. Rather than working in isolation away from private
veterinary workers and veterinary paraprofessionals, feed suppliers andtraders, LEGS recommends the inclusion of these operators. This way they
are involved in the design and implementation of LEGS technicalinterventions. More detailed guidance is provided in the LEGS technicalchapters.

Livelihoods-based programming and humanitarian versus
development support
It is important, when working with the private sector or governments on
LEGS technical interventions, to distinguish between types of support. These
include support that is essential during an emergency or in the immediate
post-emergency phase to protect or rebuild livestock assets. Other types of
support involve long-term development activities. This distinction is needed
to avoid the diversion of humanitarian resources towards development work.
It is consistent with CHS Commitment 9 on the effective, efficient and ethicaluse of resources (see Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS and Appendix 2.2,
which shows how LEGS Principles link to the CHS).

51

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

From a humanitarian perspective, this distinction often means placing mostemphasis on the basic needs of livestock, such as feed, water and clinicalveterinary care. This includes related input suppliers and service providers.
Support to systems such as disease surveillance, and consideration of
long-term and complex policy and institutional constraints to livestock
development, are lower priorities. These should be addressed during‘normal’, non-emergency periods. The use of participatory needs
assessment and response design with communities and local service
providers is a practical way to identify and prioritise types of livestock-related
humanitarian support as opposed to developmental needs.
Making clear distinctions between humanitarian and development priorities
is not always straightforward. In complex emergencies, humanitarian
programmes can become long-term. Over time, livestock professionals will
typically request support for disease surveillance, veterinary public health orother public sector activities such as policy or regulatory reform. The extent
to which using humanitarian resources for these activities is justified
depends on the context (including whether the basic needs of livestock,such as feed, water and clinical veterinary care, are already being met).

Principle 2: Ensuring community
participation
Community participation in emergency livestock projects
Community participation is a fundamental aspect of effective and ethicalhumanitarian assistance. It relates directly to the first principle of the
Humanitarian Charter, and the commitments and quality criteria of the CHS(see Appendix 2.2). Community participation is a requirement to meet theSphere Protection Principles. It is also needed, for example, to ensure thatinterventions do no harm and do not expose people to risk of violence orabuse (see Box 1.3 in Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS).
In emergency livestock interventions, there is a long history of agencies
working closely with communities to design and implement responses.
There is also a body of evidence showing the links between the quality ofcommunity participation and livelihood impacts. Participation includes
respect for indigenous knowledge on the local environment and grazing
management, livestock husbandry and diseases, and customary social
systems and networks that depend on livestock transactions. Thisknowledge has substantial practical value when identifying appropriate
52

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

emergency interventions. It is particularly relevant in communities where
livestock are central to household economies.
Incorporating indigenous knowledge on livestock production and disease isalso critical where statistics and data on these subjects are not available orare out of date. Limited data on livestock matters is common in more remoteand marginalised rural communities that depend heavily on livestock. Local
customary institutions and leaders can play important roles in mobilising andorganising livestock keepers for dialogue and meetings where needs are
identified and prioritised, and where appropriate interventions designed.

Ensuring active community participation
There is widespread use of participatory approaches by agencies involved inemergency livestock-related responses. Despite this, there can be mixed
understanding of what ‘community participation’ means, and the types ofparticipation that are effective in humanitarian contexts. LEGS recommends
that agencies aim to achieve active participation (see Table 2.1), because
this has been shown to be achievable in emergency livestock-related
contexts. It is also associated with strong livelihood benefits. Livestock
keepers should be included in all stages of the project cycle: assessment,
design, planning, implementation and also monitoring, evaluation,accountability and learning (MEAL).
As part of active community participation, it is important to consider different
social, ethnic and wealth groups within communities. The use and ownershipof livestock will often vary according to wealth, gender, age or other factors.
Effective identification, design and implementation of livestock interventions
therefore requires the specific involvement of marginalised or at-risk groups
who keep livestock. It should also include marginalised or at-risk groups who
benefit from access to livestock or livestock products. Such groups may
include female-headed households, internally displaced people (IDP),
refugees, or stateless communities.
The initial assessment should aim to understand how interventions might betargeted at different groups with different potential impacts. Agencies need
to be sensitive to these differences and aware that men or wealthier people
might dominate local leadership and customary institutions. The initialassessment should also consider how interventions will impact livestock
keepers of different age groups. This is because their roles andresponsibilities may vary as their capacity for management and income
generation changes with age.

53

2LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

It is important to address barriers to the participation of women, older people
and at-risk groups (including men and women with disabilities) at both theassessment and implementation stages – see Humanitarian inclusion
standards for older people and people with disabilities (HIS). Agencies
should also consider potential impacts on children and adolescents,
including both child labour and child protection risks in insecureenvironments – see Child Protection Minimum Standards (CPMS) Principle
3, Children’s participation, and Standard 22, Livelihoods and child protection.
Active participation requires close proximity to communities, and goodcommunication between agency staff and local people. One effect of
Covid-19 restrictions is that, in many countries, direct interaction with
communities has become more challenging. Experiences of operating during
Covid-19 restrictions are still emerging. Yet a general lesson is that localorganisations and networks are better able to adapt to changing Covid-19
contexts than international agencies (see also LEGS Principle 7: Supporting
local ownership).
Table 2.1: Types of community participation in emergency
livestock-related interventions
Type of community participation

Relevance to LEGS

Passive participation: Communities participate by being
told what has been decided or has already happened.
Involves unilateral announcements by an external agent ormanagement without listening to people’s views. The
information belongs only to external professionals.

Not consistent withSphere foundations,and not recommended
by LEGS.

Participation by consultation: Communities participate bybeing consulted or by answering questions. External
agents define the problems and the information-gathering
processes and so control analysis. The consultative
process does not concede any share in decision-making,and professionals have no obligation to take on board
people’s views.

As above.

Participation for material incentives: Communities
participate by contributing resources such as labour inreturn for material incentives (e.g. food, cash).

As above.

continued over54

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Type of community participation

Relevance to LEGS

Functional participation: External agencies viewcommunity participation as a means to achieve intervention
goals. People participate by forming groups to meet
predetermined project objectives. They may be involved indecision-making, but only after external agents havealready made major decisions.

As above.

Active participation: People participate in joint analysis,in the development of action plans and the formation orstrengthening of local institutions. Participation is seen
as a right rather than a means to achieve project goals.
Since groups take control of local decisions anddetermine how available resources are used, they havea stake in maintaining structures or practices.

This aligns withSphere foundations; it
reﬂects good practicein emergency
livestock projects;
LEGS recommends it.

Self-mobilisation: People participate by taking initiatives
independently of external actors. They develop contacts
with external actors for the resources and technical advice
they need, but retain control over how resources are used.
Self-mobilisation can spread if governments and NGOs
provide an enabling framework of support.

There is very limited
documentation on
self-mobilisation in
emergency livestock
initiatives.

Principle 3: Responding to climatechange and protecting theenvironment
Global debates on livestock and climate change
LEGS acknowledges the importance of global debates on the climatechange impacts of livestock production. However, it also takes account of
the substantial livelihood benefits from livestock for the hundreds of millions
of people currently living in areas affected by emergencies. In the medium tolong term, there is a general lack of alternative and feasible livelihood options
for rural communities who depend heavily on livestock. This dependence
includes the direct consumption of livestock products. Livestock provide
vast nutritional benefits for populations with high levels of malnutrition, andwhere foods rich in protein and other essential nutrients are not affordable.
LEGS also recognises that the research currently underpinning debates on
livestock systems and human diets relies almost exclusively on data from55

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

large-scale commercialised livestock production systems. These arefundamentally different from the small scale or extensive systems used bypoorer communities in low-income countries. Policymakers need to consider
diverse livestock and livelihood systems and contexts. They must avoid
broad and simplistic solutions that are mainly relevant to commercial
livestock systems in industrialised countries.

Climate change impacts on livelihoods
Climate change has major direct and indirect impacts on livestock keepers,
their livestock and their livelihoods in a range of interrelated ways. The
gradual changes in climate include temperature and rainfall changes that
affect animal performance. They also involve changes in water availability,
patterns of animal disease, and the species composition of rangelands – forexample, the impact of invasive species such as Prosopis juniﬂora in India
and East Africa. Indirect impacts include changes in the price and market
availability of both animal feed and human food. People might also change
the ways they use land, cultivating biofuels, for example, as a response to
climate change. Many small-scale livestock keepers use mixed farming
systems, combining livestock and crop production on small, and often
declining, areas of land. Crop systems are also affected by climate change,
meaning that these producers have to manage changes to both livestockand crop systems (see SEADS).
In general, poorer livestock producers are less able to adapt to climaterelated pressures. This is especially so if this adaptation requires higher input
costs, or financial investment or credit. Many smaller producers are
becoming increasingly at risk, so when natural hazards occur, the impacts
are more severe. Changes in the frequency and severity of extreme weather
events mean that poorer producers face not only the effects of climatechange but also increasing exposure to slow-onset or rapid-onset climaterelated emergencies. These issues become compounded in complex
emergencies, when superimposed on chronic political instability and conflict.
The increasing impacts of climatic trends on small-scale or at-risk livestock
keepers in lower-income and middle-income countries make effective
disaster early warning systems and early response more and more important– see LEGS Principle 4: Preparedness.

Livestock keeping and local environmental management
Most small-scale producers and livestock keepers use low-input, low-output
livestock production systems. These depend heavily on naturally available
pasture, browse and water, and to a lesser extent on crop residues.
56

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Therefore, environmental management is central to livestock production andthe related financial, social and nutritional benefits. However, the long-term
policy and development issues around environmental management arecomplex and beyond the scope of LEGS. For poorer livestock keepers, a key
constraint is often uncertain land tenure. This comes with the associatedrisks of investment in land that can easily be appropriated for commercial orpolitical interests.
To support local environmental management, LEGS focuses on measuresthat are practical and achievable. It does this during emergencies and in theimmediate post-emergency recovery phase. It is important to understandhow emergencies can increase the risk of negative environmental impacts
from livestock. For example:• Reduced pasture, fodder and water due to drought can result inconcentrations of livestock around declining water resources andlocalised overgrazing.
• Displaced people may move to camps with their livestock, resulting in
unusually high livestock populations in confined areas. Although theprovision of feed and water may sustain livestock in these situations,sanitary issues must be considered. Use of nearby grazing and water
points already in use by local residents can lead to overuse andenvironmental damage.
• Displacement and restrictions on migration, because of conflict or otherfactors, limit the normal movement of animals and concentrate livestock.
This may result in localised overgrazing and deterioration of animal health.

Further environmental considerations in some emergencies include themanagement of waste from livestock (particularly in camp settings). This
could also involve the disposal of livestock waste following slaughter, andthe disposal of livestock carcasses. Some emergencies, particularly thosecaused by flooding, can result in the deaths of tens of thousands of animals.
This presents a considerable challenge if negative environmental and humanhealth impacts are to be avoided.
During emergencies, veterinary interventions require environmental
assessment. This includes assessing the careful use of certain drugs tocontrol ectoparasites, especially in the form of dips and sprays, and the useof specific anthelmintic and anti-inflammatory medicines.

57

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Principle 4: Supporting preparedness
and early action
LEGS evidence reviews and practitioner experience show clear links
between early livestock-related response, livelihood benefits andcost-effectiveness. Most of the evidence on the value of early response
focuses on drought (a slow-onset emergency). Despite this, the principle ofpreparedness and early action applies widely across most types of bothslow-onset and rapid-onset emergencies. Many of the LEGS technicalchapters include a standard on preparedness, which provides more details ofactivities that can support the application of this principle.
Where possible, the key elements of disaster risk reduction (DRR) should be
supported in areas that are prone to emergencies. These elements include
preparedness, contingency planning and early response. In complex
emergencies, DRR will apply to the slow-onset droughts or rapid-onset
events that may occur alongside the other factors causing the crisis. As
described under LEGS Principle 3: Responding to climate change andprotecting the environment, increasing climate variability means LEGS
interventions need to strengthen preparedness and timely response.
In some regions, there is increasing use of flexible funding mechanisms indevelopment projects. These enable rapid diversion of development funds
towards emergency response. Sometimes called crisis modiﬁers, flexible
funding has been shown to be particularly useful for supporting early
livestock response to drought, as part of drought cycle management. Whenthese responses are designed to meet LEGS objectives and involve local
service providers or market actors, they fit well with LEGS Principle 1:
Livelihoods-based programming.
A critical aspect of DRR and flexible funding is the integration of theseapproaches into long-term development programmes. Many effective
emergency livestock responses have been implemented by aid agencies
with long-term development experience in a particular area, based oncontingency planning that is part of a development programme. Such plans
and triggers for action are guided by knowledge of past humanitarian crises
and the types of response that can be implemented within a given
operational and funding context. However, these approaches also mean thatthe programme managers need in-depth experience of both development
and humanitarian concepts – including early warning. They also need toshow leadership and commitment to preparedness and early action,

58

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

including incorporating flexible funding at the design stage, with donor
support.
Active community involvement in developing early warning systems,
contingency planning and flexible budgets is recommended for all types of
emergencies. This is in line with LEGS Principle 2: Ensuring community
participation. Preparedness planning should build capacity in localorganisations and community institutions and enable local knowledge andpriorities to guide early warning planning. In drought-affected areas, specificcapacity strengthening in drought cycle management can help to ensure
appropriate sequencing of interventions. Across all areas affected byclimate-related emergencies, capacity for interpreting climate forecasts andusing the information is important. Similar support is needed for local actors
in non-climatic events such as earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.
Early warning, preparedness and early action are often viewed by
implementing agencies as mainly technical activities. Yet effective early
action depends heavily on the involvement of senior administrative staff.
Such staff can advise on approval, procurement, recruitment or otherprocedures. They can also make recommendations about how to speed up,
waive or otherwise apply these procedures to support rapid action. For
example, pre-positioning of private sector operators such as transportcompanies, feed suppliers, or veterinary workers may be possible, with draft
contracts prepared as part of the planning process.
A further aspect of preparedness is ensuring that implementing agency staff
have adequate knowledge, experience and communications skills to deliver
a quality emergency response. This includes technical competencies suchas livestock management or veterinary training, as well as experience inparticipatory approaches and community engagement (see Principle 2:
Community participation, and Principle 7: Local ownership).

Principle 5: Ensuring coordinatedresponses
In most humanitarian crises, different interventions take place
simultaneously. So coordination is vital to maximise impact, avoid
duplication and ensure efficient use of resources. Coordination is usually led
by government bodies or UN agencies. It can ensure that multiple agencies
are mobilised, that they are committed to meeting common objectives andthat they use humanitarian standards, such as LEGS.
59

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Experience has shown that coordination requires all partners to make acommitment of time and staff. Under the main coordinating effort, thecreation of working groups for particular regions or for particular types of
emergency may help to harmonise approaches. As well as agreeing roles andresponsibilities, the partners can create linkages with livelihoods and ongoingdevelopment initiatives. Donors may also be well placed to encourage oreven demand harmonisation of approaches by implementing agencies.
Two main types of coordination are most relevant to LEGS: coordination
between livestock interventions, and coordination between livestock
interventions and other sectors.

Coordination between livestock interventions
Given the range of emergency livestock interventions and the need to tailor
them to specific subpopulations or at-risk groups, coordinated responses
are critical. If different implementing agencies are providing different types of
support, coordination is needed to avoid duplication and to ensure that an
important type of support is not overlooked. For example, if a combined
feed–water–livestock health response is needed, failure to provide one typeof support risks the effectiveness of the other responses.
When different implementing agencies provide similar support, coordination
should ensure approaches are harmonised and programming is consistent.
For example, if agencies covering adjacent areas set different purchaseprices for livestock offtake, or employ different distribution policies for theprovision of livestock (free, loan, subsidised, and so on), the initiatives may
undermine each other. In veterinary support, differing policies on cost
recovery can weaken interventions and cause confusion among affected
communities. In slow-onset emergencies such as drought, another aspectof the coordination effort should be to promote appropriate sequencing ofinterventions according to the stage of the drought.
Strong coordination can also enable agencies with limited expertise inlivestock to receive technical guidance and support from more specialised
agencies.

60

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Coordination between livestock interventions and other sectors
Coordination between livestock interventions and other sectors requires
attention to two main issues.
The need to time and prioritise livestock support in relation to criticalhumanitarian life-saving activities
In an emergency, the most urgent need may be to provide life-saving
assistance to affected human populations. Such assistance should not becompromised or adversely affected by providing livestock assistance. In
practice, this means that when emergency transportation, communication orother resources are limited, livestock teams and inputs should follow thefood, shelter, water and health inputs required to assist people in need. For
example, water delivery programmes should ensure that people’s waterneeds are catered for before, or at the same time as, those of livestock, ormake use of different quality water for the two groups.
Technical and logistical coordination with other sectors
Where possible, LEGS recommends that livestock interventions should be
integrated with other types of humanitarian assistance to maximise impact
and ensure efficient use of shared resources. Many farming systems incountries impacted by humanitarian crises are mixed systems, involving cropand livestock production. Standards for Supporting Crop-related Livelihoodsin Emergencies are described in SEADS. There are various opportunities for
coordinating livestock and crop activities, including joint assessments,
harmonised timing of inputs and joint monitoring and evaluation.
In some livestock-keeping communities, children are involved in livestockcare. This may impact their access to schooling. The INEE MinimumStandards for Education, which relate to education in emergencies, and the
Minimum Standards for Child Protection (CPMS) provide important
guidance, including ensuring flexible school calendars and a range of
non-formal education options.
Even in situations where technical coordination with other sectors might not
be relevant, there can still be opportunities for implementing agencies toshare resources and coordinate from a logistical perspective. For example,
trucks delivering aid supplies could be backloaded with livestock as part oflivestock offtake; refrigerators might store both human and animal
medicines; discarded or damaged items for human shelter could be used foranimal shelter.

61

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Principle 6: Supporting
gender-sensitive programming
Gender-sensitive programming is important in any emergency. This isbecause women and girls, men and boys, and people with other gender
identities have access to different resources and different coping strategies.
These resources and strategies need to be understood and recognised.
Effective gender-sensitive programming in emergencies requires recognisingthat:• The crisis often disproportionately increases women’s, girls’ and boys’
labour burden, while simultaneously reducing their access to food, key
assets and essential services.
• The risk of gender-based violence, exploitation and abuse is alsoheightened. This can influence women’s, girls’ and boys’ ability to survive
and recover from conflicts and humanitarian crises.

In emergency livestock responses, there are now examples of more inclusive
approaches involving gender-sensitive programming, and related livelihoods
or nutritional benefits. As a minimum, the role of livestock within women’s
livelihoods should be addressed as part of any emergency intervention. This
is not least because children’s health and nutrition are often closely
associated with women’s bargaining power, their control over livestock
resources, and their control over their time and workload.

Gender-sensitive programming and LEGS technical interventions
Gender-sensitive programming not only focuses on women, but on an
equitable focus of support for men, women and children. However, within
LEGS interventions there are some key issues for women specifically. These
include protecting women’s livelihood assets during emergencies, identifying
their priorities in livestock management, and recognising the cultural andeconomic barriers that often impact their livelihoods.
Evidence suggests that for emergency livestock responses, a soundgender-sensitive understanding of roles, rights and responsibilities relating tolivestock is critical. This includes issues of ownership and control of
livestock as key assets. In many livestock-keeping societies, control overlivestock is more than a simple concept of ‘ownership’. For example, womenor children may be responsible for young stock but not for adult stock. Or
women may control livestock products such as milk, butter, hides and skins
as part of their overall control of the food supply. Men, meanwhile, may haverights over the sale, bartering or gifting of the animal itself. Following the62

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

LEGS technical interventions requires consideration of women’s, men’s andchildren’s daily and seasonal roles and responsibilities. This includes theiraccess to and control of the various livestock species and age categories.
For example, interventions may focus on large livestock species, ignoring theimportant role that small species, such as poultry, play in women’s
livelihoods.
It is also important to be aware that women and girls are often marginalised
and face restrictions on their mobility in many livestock-keeping societies.
This reduces their access to livelihood inputs, livestock resources and basic
services. Other barriers include their uneven family and social
responsibilities, unequal access to protective services and legal
mechanisms, and inadequate political power at local or national levels.
In contrast, during some emergency contexts, women take up more powerful
positions within livestock management – for example, if men have migrated
to find work. It is important to ensure LEGS technical interventions do notundermine new roles, but instead strengthen them according to context.
There can be unique opportunities created by an emergency for challenging
conventional gender roles. These are best addressed by working with
relevant (sometimes informal) community-based groups or leaders toaddress women’s subordinate roles.
The initial assessment (Chapter 3: Emergency response planning) covers
participatory dialogue with men and boys, and women and girls, tounderstand their preferences for livestock-related support. It also involves
the collection of gender-disaggregated information, including about the
impact of the emergency on different genders. The potential impact of any
livestock intervention on men’s, women’s and children’s workloads and on
their control of livestock resources needs to be clearly understood. This will
improve the design, implementation and impact of the intervention.
Changing gender roles, responsibilities and status also need to be taken into
account. Implementing agencies should recognise that participatory
dialogue with women is often easier if the agency staff are themselves
women. The time and resources available for planning, implementation andmonitoring of emergency interventions are limited. Yet gender analyses are
relatively easy to apply and can result in significant improvement to theapproach and impact.

63

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Principle 7: Supporting local
ownership
Supporting local ownership: experiences from livestock interventions
in emergencies
The LEGS Principle of supporting local ownership draws on decades ofexperience of emergency livestock interventions. These interventions have
involved joint technical decision-making between external agencies and local
actors, and the development of equal technical working relationships withlocal government and others. There are also many examples of supporting
local ownership. These include supporting governments to coordinate,
monitor and evaluate activities; working with communities to design,
implement and evaluate interventions; and supporting governments todevelop minimum standards, design and run training courses, and revise
policies. These activities have recognised and respected the roles ofgovernment and local NGOs, while aiming to strengthen capacities toprepare for and respond to future emergencies.
These livestock interventions align closely with the international humanitariancommunity’s adoption of the ‘localisation’ concept. For example, theOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)describes the process of localising humanitarian response as ‘recognising,respecting and strengthening the leadership by local authorities and thecapacity of local civil society in humanitarian action, in order to better
address the needs of affected populations and to prepare national actors for
future humanitarian responses’. LEGS recognises that communities, localorganisations and authorities are often the first to act in a crisis. They also
have in-depth knowledge of the situation and specific needs.
Some emergency livestock initiatives have developed relationships with local
partners so that technical decision-making has been transferred to them. An
important challenge for the concept of supporting local ownership is thelimited extent to which local organisations have taken control of budgets. Nor
have they designed and implemented interventions independently or with full‘ownership’ and control of resources. This situation relates to the policies ofaid donors and international NGOs and cuts across the humanitarian sector.
The sector-wide nature of the challenge indicates that livestock interventions
alone cannot change how the wider humanitarian sector operates.

64

2LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

LEGS approach for supporting local ownership
Taking account of the issues and experiences outlined above, the LEGS
Principle for supporting local ownership has the following main elements:• Emergency livestock interventions should continue to build on pastexperience of developing equal technical partnerships with local actors.
They should shift analysis and decision-making towards communities,
and to local government and civil society.
• Supporting local ownership is aligned with Principle 2: Ensuringcommunity participation, and LEGS tools encourage a locally designed(and ideally locally controlled) response. LEGS also recognises that
options for supporting more local ownership are context-specific. In
some contexts, a more traditional approach, dominated by international
actors, is the only option for providing livestock-related support at scale.
• For all its technical interventions, LEGS promotes the delivery of
responses under the leadership of national and local authorities. It also
encourages responses led by community-based organisations (seeReferences and further reading). Additionally, LEGS supports enabling
local authorities to coordinate livestock interventions across agencies;and developing minimum standards and guidelines that are adapted to
local contexts.
• Emergency livestock interventions provide an opportunity to demonstrate
how local NGOs and local government can take more ownership andcontrol (for example by defining local financial needs, and receiving, andaccounting for, external funding). Documenting these cases will provide
further examples of local ownership in practice, and of its impacts andefficiencies. This will enable emergency livestock practitioners andorganisations to lobby for wider changes to the humanitarian system froma position of practical experience and strengthened by examples of
positive cases.

65

2LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Principle 8: Committing to monitoring,evaluation, accountability andlearning (MEAL)
The beneﬁts of implementing MEAL as part of emergency livestock
response
The final LEGS Principle is the need to establish a monitoring, evaluation,accountability and learning (MEAL) system and commit to its implementation.
A well-planned and executed MEAL system ensures emergency livestock
responses are effective. It also helps to achieve the LEGS livelihoods
objectives, and supports learning and continuous improvement. Effective
MEAL promotes greater accountability for affected communities and is also a
commitment under the Humanitarian Standards Partnership (HSP).
Monitoring provides the key information needed to assess progress when
implementing an emergency livestock response. It is useful for checking
whether the initial assessment is still valid or if changes in the operating
context need to be considered. Critically, effective monitoring enables
real-time adjustments to implementation. Evaluations usually assess
whether project objectives have been achieved, and if not, why not. Impact
evaluations or impact assessments look specifically at the impacts of
responses. In the case of livestock responses, they measure key livelihood
indicators such as livestock mortality, or income and food derived fromlivestock. When objectives include a clear reference to expected livelihood
impacts, evaluations inherently include measures of impacts. Impact
evaluations are especially useful for understanding livelihood impacts, and to
identify positive and negative lessons. This contributes to improvements inthe design and impact of future responses.
Being accountable and establishing a system for sharing learning require a
commitment of time and effort. Gathering relevant information and feedback,analysing it and sharing lessons learned with people affected by a crisis
promote accountability. Sharing learning helps improve future programming
across the livestock and humanitarian sectors as a whole. LEGS adheres to
Commitment 7 of the CHS, which requires humanitarian actors tocontinuously learn and improve. Whether an implementing agency is a
specialised livestock organisation or multi-sectoral, it should commit to the
CHS and have a system in place to ensure accountability against the CHS
Commitments.

66

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Important considerations for implementing MEAL in technicalinterventions
Many organisations may already have a MEAL system in place. Importantconsiderations for establishing a MEAL system for livestock emergency
response are:• Investment: For effective MEAL, investment in staff skills and time isneeded. Staff require sufficient competence in participatory techniques tofacilitate high-quality information collection as well as appropriate
understanding of livestock-based livelihoods. Given the urgency of mostemergency response contexts, any required capacity strengthening or
exchange is best made ahead of time, as part of preparedness planning.
• Monitoring: While recognising the challenges in operating in emergency
contexts, monitoring systems should be in place as soon as LEGS
interventions begin. Monitoring needs to be frequent enough to enable
rapid detection of required changes and modifications that need to bemade to implementation.
• Prioritising impact evaluation: Implementing agencies should allocate
time and funding for impact evaluation towards the end of, or soon after,a response. Research shows that participatory impact evaluation
produces good evidence of the livelihood impacts of emergency livestock
responses. Such evaluation involves communities directly in assessment,
learning and accountability.
• Learning mechanisms: For learning to take place, data collection alone
is not sufficient. Mechanisms need to be established to help analysis andsharing of the monitoring and evaluation information.

Alignment with the other LEGS Principles
LEGS commitment to effective MEAL aligns with and supports the other
LEGS Principles, in particular:• Supporting livelihoods-based programming: Effective MEAL systems are
essential for determining if the response is meeting the LEGS livelihoods
objectives and achieving the planned impact on livestock-based
livelihoods.
• Ensuring community participation: It is vital that MEAL systems include
community participation. This will ensure the views and concerns ofaffected communities are heard and addressed during implementation,
while promoting accountability. Participation also helps to ensure thatmonitoring data is reliable. It is the livestock keepers themselves who are
best placed to observe the impacts of interventions over time.
67

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles• Supporting gender-sensitive programming: Disaggregating MEAL data
helps to identify the potentially different needs of men and women. It also
shows whether a planned response is reaching or impacting themdifferently.
• Supporting local ownership: Involving affected communities in monitoringand evaluating the emergency response has the potential to increase their
engagement in its implementation. Communities should be involved rightfrom the identification of initial indicators to the data collection processitself.

68

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Appendices
Appendix 2.1: LEGS alignment with the Sphere Protection Principles
In many parts of the world, livestock are valuable financial assets and a readysource of high-quality food. Livestock are also mobile. Therefore, in insecureenvironments, looters and armed groups may target livestock. To ensure theprotection of people involved in livestock-related emergency responses andto minimise risk, proper analysis of protection issues prior to intervention isneeded. For example:• The protection or distribution of livestock may increase individual
household vulnerability to theft or looting as a deliberate tactic of war.
The extent to which livestock are an asset rather than a liability depends
on the particular security context.
• Livestock management may require women and children to travel toremote areas to find feed or water for animals. This can place them at riskof violence, sexual abuse or abduction.
• Displaced people may be particularly at risk. Concentration of livestock
may attract theft, or travelling through unfamiliar areas for water or
grazing may increase vulnerability to attack.
• In times of natural resource scarcity, the movement of livestock to newareas can increase the potential for conflict between host and visiting
communities.
• As a result of crisis, children may become the main owners of livestock.
This may put them at risk of theft and violence. It is important to ensurethat livestock interventions are safe for vulnerable children and ensure
their access to age-specific, dignified support.

This type of analysis should form part of the initial assessment (see Chapter
3: Emergency response planning), especially in conflict-related emergencies.

69

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Appendix 2.2: How LEGS Principles support the Core HumanitarianStandard CommitmentsCore Humanitarian Standard
Commitments and quality criteria

How LEGS Principles support the CHS
Commitments

1. Communities and people affected bycrisis receive assistance appropriate andrelevant to their needs.
Quality criterion: Humanitarian response
is appropriate and relevant.

If participatory approaches are usedproperly during initial assessment andresponse identification, assistance ismore likely to be appropriate andrelevant. See LEGS Principle 2: Ensuringcommunity participation; LEGS Chapter
3: Emergency response planning.

2. Communities and people affected bycrisis have access to the humanitarianassistance they need at the right time.
Quality criterion: Humanitarian response
is effective and timely.

LEGS Principle 4: Preparedness and early
action, supports early and timely
response.
······························································
Use of the LEGS Participatory Response
Identification Matrix supports appropriate
responses against different stages of an
emergency.
······························································LEGS impact indicators include thetimeliness of response.

3. Communities and people affected bycrisis are not negatively affected and are
more prepared, resilient and less at risk
as a result of humanitarian action.
Quality criterion: Humanitarian responsestrengthens local capacities and avoids
negative effects.

LEGS Principle 1: Livelihoods-based
programming and Principle 7: Supporting
local ownership recommend working withlocal actors, systems and services where
possible.

4. Communities and people affected bycrisis know their rights and entitlements,
have access to information andparticipate in decisions that affect them.
Quality criterion: Humanitarian response
is based on communication, participationand feedback.

LEGS Principle 2: Ensuring community
participation emphasises community
involvement in design, implementationand evaluation of interventions.
······························································LEGS Chapter 3 emphasises community
participation throughout the planning of
the response.
continued over70

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Core Humanitarian Standard
Commitments and quality criteria

How LEGS Principles support the CHS
Commitments

5. Communities and people affected bycrisis have access to safe and responsive
mechanisms to handle complaints.
Quality criterion: Complaints arewelcomed and addressed.

Complaint mechanisms should be
generic across an organisation and are
not livestock-specific.
······························································LEGS Principle 8: MEAL, emphasises
participatory monitoring as well as
upward accountability.

6. Communities and people affected bycrisis receive coordinated,complementary assistance.
Quality criterion: Humanitarian response
is coordinated and complementary.

LEGS Principle 5: Coordinatedresponses, builds on a strong evidencebase showing links between good
coordination and impacts.

7. Communities and people affected bycrisis can expect delivery of improved
assistance as organisations learn fromexperience and reflection.
Quality criterion: Humanitarian actors
continuously learn and improve.

LEGS Principle 8: MEAL, stresses theimportance of learning from monitoringand evaluation to inform future planning.
······························································
Producing new editions of LEGS includes
systematic evidence reviews, includingreference to participatory impact
evaluations.

8. Communities and people affected bycrisis receive the assistance they requirefrom competent and well-managed staff
and volunteers.
Quality criterion: Staff are supported to
do their job effectively, and are treatedfairly and equitably.

LEGS Principle 4: Preparedness and early
action, highlights the importance ofensuring that staff have the necessary
technical experience and skills in
livelihoods-based and participatory
approaches.
······························································LEGS Principle 6: Gender-sensitive
programming, recognises that the genderof staff will be important in certain
contexts.
continued over71

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Core Humanitarian Standard
Commitments and quality criteria

How LEGS Principles support the CHS
Commitments

9. Communities and people affected bycrisis can expect that the organisations
assisting them are managing resources
effectively, efficiently and ethically.
Quality criterion: Resources are managed
and used responsibly for their intended
purpose.

LEGS supports appropriate resource
management and channelling resources
to the right type of livestock response at
the right time.
······························································
Coordinated responses lead to efficientuse of resources; see LEGS Principle 5:
Ensuring coordinated responses.

72

2

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

References and further reading
LEGS livelihood principle
Aklilu, Y., Admassu, B., Abebe, D. and Catley, A. (2006) Pastoralist livelihood initiative: guidelines forlivelihoods-based livestock relief interventions in pastoralist areas, Feinstein International Famine
Center, Tufts University, Addis Ababa, https://www.livestock-emergency.net/userﬁles/ﬁle/general/
Feinstein-International-Center-2006.pdf
Braam D.H., Chandio R., Jephcott F.L., Tasker A., Wood J.L.N. (2021) Disaster displacement andzoonotic disease dynamics: The impact of structural and chronic drivers in Sindh, Pakistan. PLOS
Glob Public Health 1(12): e0000068, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000068
Schreuder, B. (2015) Afghanistan, a 25-years’ Struggle for a Better Life for its People and Livestock,
DCA-VET/Erasmus Publishing, Lelystad/Rotterdam, https://dca-livestock.org/books/
Scoones, I. (1998) Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis, IDS working paper 72,
Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/
opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/3390/Wp72.pdf?sequence=1

LEGS community participation principle
Catley, A. and Leyland, T. (2001) ‘Community participation and the delivery of veterinary services inAfrica’, Preventive Veterinary Medicine 49: 95–113, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(01)00171-4
Catley, A. (2020) Participatory epidemiology: reviewing experiences with contexts and actions,
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 180, 105026, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105026
Catley, A., Leyland, T. and Bishop, S. (2008) ‘Policies, Practice and Participation in Protracted Crises:
The Case of Livestock Interventions in South Sudan’, in L. Alinovi, G. Hemrich and L. Russo (eds),
Beyond Relief: Food Security in Protracted Crises, Practical Action Publishing, Rugby,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257825324_Alinovi_L_Hemrich_G_Russo_L_editors_
Beyond_Relief_Food_Security_in_Protracted_Crises_Evidence_from_Sudan_Somalia_and_the_
Democratic_Republic_of_Congo_Practical_Action_London_2008
CBM Global Disability Inclusion (no date) Step-by-step practical guidance on inclusive disaster risk
reduction, Inclusive DRR Hands-on Tool, CBM Global, https://idrr.cbm.org/en/card/livestock
Cornwall, A. (1996) ‘Towards participatory practice: participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and theparticipatory process’, in K. de Koning, M. Martin (eds), Participatory Research and Health: Issues andExperiences, Zed Books Ltd., London, pp.94–107, https://www.eldis.org/document/A15874
Sadler, K., Mitchard, E., Abduallahi A., Shiferaw Y. and Catley, A. (2012) Milk Matters: The Impact of
Dry Season Livestock Support on Milk Supply and Child Nutrition in Somali Region, Ethiopia, FeinsteinInternational Center, Tufts University, Addis Ababa, https://ﬁc.tufts.edu/wp-content/uploads/MilkMatters-2.pdf

LEGS climate and environment principle
Houzer, E. and Scoones, I. (2021) Are livestock always bad for the planet? Rethinking the proteintransition and climate change debate, Brighton: PASTRES, Brighton, https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/
opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/16839/Climate-livestock_full_report_%28EN%29_
web.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y
VSF International (2014) Livestock and climate change – going beyond preconceived ideas andrecognizing the contribution of small-scale livestock farming facing climate change, Position Paper
n.2. Executive Summary, October 2014, http://vsf-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/
2_LivestockClimChange_english-new-logo.pdf

732

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

LEGS preparedness and early action principle
Benson, C. and Twigg, J. with Rossetto, T. (2007) Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction:
Guidance Notes for Development Organisations, ProVention Consortium, Geneva,
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/1066_toolsformainstreamingDRR.pdf
Cabot Venton, C., Fitzgibbon, C., Shitarek, T., Coulter, L. and Dooley, O. (2012) The economics ofearly response and disaster resilience: lessons from Kenya and Ethiopia, DFID, London,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67330/Econ-EarRec-Res-Full-Report_20.pdf
Catley, A. and Charters, R. (2015) Early response to drought in pastoralist areas: lessons from the
USAID crisis modiﬁer in East Africa, USAID/East Resilience Learning Project, USAID/East Africa,
Nairobi, https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00M1PX.pdf
Catley, A. and Cullis, A. (2012) ‘Money to Burn? Comparing the costs and benefits of drought
responses in pastoralist areas of Ethiopia’, Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 24 April, 2012,https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Catley-and-Cullis-2012.pdf
LEGS (2018) Revisiting the economic impacts of early drought response: How does early response
affect households in pastoralist areas? LEGS Briefing Paper, Livestock Emergency Guidelines andStandards, https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LEGS-BriefingPaper-Economic-Impacts-of-Early-Drought-Response.pdf
Rohwerder, B. (2017) Flexibility in funding mechanisms to respond to shocks, GSDRC Helpdesk
Research Report 1412, Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham,
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b7ec37ed915d19636fef39/1412-Flexibility-infunding-mechanisms-to-respond-to-shocks.pdf
USAID/Ethiopia (2014) Resilience in Africa’s drylands: revisiting the drought cycle management
model, USAID/Ethiopia Agriculture Knowledge, Learning, Documentation and Policy Project,
Technical Brief, May 2014, http://www.agri-learning-ethiopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/
AKLDP-Technical-Brief-DCM-May-2014-HQ.pdf

LEGS coordination principle
Watson, D.J. and van Binsbergen, J. (2008) Review of VSF-Belgium’s Turkana emergency livestock
off-take intervention 2005, Research Report 4, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI),
Nairobi, https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/234/RR4_
LivestockOfftakeIntervention.pdf

LEGS gender-sensitive programming principle
de Jonge, K. and Maarse, L. (2020) Gender and livestock in emergencies: a discussion paper for theLivestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS), LEGS, https://www.livestock-emergency.
net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/LEGS-Discussion-Paper-Gender-and-Livestock.pdf (See forexample Box 1: ‘Five Steps in a Rapid Gender Analysis’.)
IFAD (2020) How to do gender and pastoralism, International Fund for Agricultural Development,
Rome, https://www.ifad.org/en/web/knowledge/-/publication/how-to-do-note-gender-andpastoralism
LEGS (2018) LEGS gender module, On-line training module on LEGS and gender,
https://www.livestock-emergency.net/new-line-training-module-legs-gender/
Mazurana, D. and Maxwell, D. (2016) Sweden’s feminist foreign policy: implications for humanitarian
response, FIC/Tufts, HPG, Kings College London, World Peace Foundation, https://ﬁc.tufts.edu/
assets/Feminist-Foreign-Policy-Humanitarian-Response.pdf

742

LEGS framework
LEGS Principles

Mercy Corps (2014) Rethinking resilience: prioritizing gender integration to enhance household andcommunity resilience to food insecurity in the Sahel, https://www.mercycorps.org/sites/default/
ﬁles/2019-12/Rethinking_Resilience_Gender_Integration.pdf
Pasteur, K. (2002) Gender analysis for sustainable livelihoods frameworks: tools and links to othersources, draft, https://www.livestock-emergency.net/userﬁles/ﬁle/assessment-review/
Pasteur-2002.pdf
UNFPA (2015) Minimum Standards for Prevention and Response to Gender-based Violence in
Emergencies, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), https://www.unfpa.org/publications/minimum-standards-prevention-and-response-gender-based-violence-emergencies-0

LEGS supporting local ownership principle
Featherstone A. (2020) Putting the best foot forward: localisation, contextualisation andinstitutionalisation, a discussion paper for the Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS),
LEGS, https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/LEGSInstitutionalisation-and-Localisation-Summary-Discussion-Paper.pdf
Humanitarian Leadership Academy (2019) Unpacking localization,
https://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/resource/unpacking-localisation
Humanitarian Practice Network (2021) Survivor- and community-led crisis response: practicalexperience and learning, Briefing Paper no. 84, https://odihpn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/
HPN_SCLR-Network-Paper_WEB.pdf
OECD (2017) Localising the response: World Humanitarian Summit – putting policy into practice, The
Commitments into Action Series, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/development/humanitariandonors/docs/Localisingtheresponse.pdf
See also: Local to Global Protection, https://www.local2global.info/

LEGS MEAL principle
FAO (2016) Livestock-related interventions during emergencies – The how-to-do-it manual. Edited byPhilippe Ankers, Suzan Bishop, Simon Mack and Klaas Dietze. FAO Animal Production and Health
Manual No. 18. Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/i5904e/i5904e.pdf (See Chapter 10, Monitoring,
Evaluation and Impact Assessment)
Sphere Association (2018) The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in
Humanitarian Response, The Sphere Project, Geneva, https://spherestandards.org/handbook-2018/

See also case studies on LEGS Principles at: https://www.livestock-emergency.net/resources/
case-studies/75

2LEGS framework
Emergency response planning76

Chapter 3:
Emergency response
planning
78

Introduction

79

Stage 1: Initial assessment

87

Stage 2: Response identiﬁcation

90

Stage 3: Analysis of technical interventions and options

96

Stage 4: Response plan

99

MEAL guidance for LEGS interventions

105

Appendix 3.1: Initial assessment – suggested participatory
methods

109

Appendix 3.2: Initial assessment – example checklist

111

Appendix 3.3: Initial assessment – data collection template

112

Appendix 3.4: PRIM – templates

114

Appendix 3.5: PRIM – samples

119

Appendix 3.6: Cash and voucher assistance – response
modalities, delivery mechanisms and decision tree

124

Appendix 3.7: Response plan – template

125

Appendix 3.8: Response plan – example of livestock offtake
intervention

126

References and further reading

Photo © David Hadrill
77

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Chapter 3: Emergency
response planning
Stages1

Initialassessment2

Response
identification

3

Analysis ofinterventions
and options

4

Response
plan
3

Tools
Assessment
checklists

Participatory
Response
Identiﬁcation
Matrix (PRIM)

Options

Response plan
template

Beneﬁts andchallenges
Timing tables
Decision trees
Standards andguidelines

Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL)

Introduction
This chapter provides LEGS guidance on emergency response planning.
There are four stages in this process, each with tools to facilitate theplanning process and guide the development of a response plan:
Stage 1: Initial assessment – to decide if livestock support is appropriate
for a given emergency; the initial assessment generates information on
livestock roles, the impact of the emergency, and an analysis of the current
situation. This information is used to inform Stage 2 and Stage 3.
• Tools for Stage 1: Assessment checklists (see also Appendix 3.2 andAppendix 3.3).
78

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Stage 2: Response identiﬁcation – to identify and prioritise technicalinterventions for livestock-based responses that are relevant and timely:• Tools for Stage 2: Participatory Response Identification Matrix (see also
Appendix 3.4 and Appendix 3.5).

Stage 3: Analysis of technical interventions and options – to select theappropriate, feasible and timely options within the prioritised intervention
areas:• Tools for Stage 3: Options, benefits and challenges tables, timing tables,
decision trees, standards and guidelines (see technical standards
chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and Appendix 3.6).

Stage 4: Response plan – to use the information and decisions from Stages
1 to 3 to design a response plan:• Tools for Stage 4: Response plan template (see Appendix 3.7 andAppendix 3.8).

The four stages are all supported by Monitoring, Evaluation,
Accountability and Learning (MEAL), as defined in Principle 8 (see Chapter2). MEAL systems should be established as soon as possible during
planning to ensure that effective MEAL is carried out throughout theimplementation of the response.

Stage 1: Initial assessment
1
Initialassessment

Overview
An initial assessment is needed before any emergency response, todetermine whether livestock-based support is appropriate in the specificcontext. The type, phase and severity of the emergency will determine thecontext. This initial assessment is not an end in itself, but the first step toenable decisions to be made about which technical interventions to explore,
or whether a livestock response is necessary at all.

79

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Preparing for the assessment
Review of existing information
Some of the assessment information may already have been collected before
the onset of the emergency as part of preparedness planning (see Principle 4
in Chapter 2). Chapters 4–8 of the handbook each include a standard on
preparedness to support this process. Agencies already working in an area
are often well placed to develop preparedness capacity together with local
communities. This preparedness information can provide an understandingof livelihood strategies; production systems; social, cultural and gendernorms; and key stakeholders and institutions. This will significantly increase
the accuracy of the initial assessment.
Secondary data can be compiled from government reports, health andveterinary statistics, NGO reports, and other sources. Spatial data fromsatellite photographs and geographic information systems (GIS) may also be
useful. For example, it can show the extent of flooding or locations of water
points and other natural resources essential for livestock.
The review of existing information is important both to avoid unnecessary
demands being made on crisis-affected communities and in settings where
access to conduct initial assessments is difficult.
Assessment team and methodologies
The LEGS initial assessment should be undertaken as part of a participatory
planning process involving key stakeholders, including representatives of keygroups within affected communities and local government. This allows anassessment of the capacities and knowledge of affected communities to
respond to the emergency. It also ensures that local actors are equal
partners and that they are given autonomy in designing and implementing
the response plan. (See Principle 2: Participation and Principle 7: Local
ownership in Chapter 2.)
The assessment team should therefore include community representatives
and involve local government and non-governmental institutions as partners.
It is important that the team is gender-balanced, that marginalised groups
are represented and that it includes both generalists and livestock specialists
with local knowledge.
The quality of the assessment information depends on the skills of theassessment team in participatory methods and approaches, as well as on
their technical knowledge. LEGS recommends qualitative, participatory
information collection for the initial assessment wherever possible. The
80

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

section on MEAL at the end of this chapter provides more information on
participatory approaches. Appendix 3.1 then suggests which methods may
be most appropriate for the initial assessment. Assessment teams may
therefore need to be trained in appropriate participatory methodologies.
The assessment should ensure proper coverage of different groups, inparticular those at risk. It should also disaggregate the findings accordingly(for example, according to age, wealth and gender) so that the needs andpriorities of the different groups are addressed in the response plan.

Tools for Stage 1
The LEGS initial assessment comprises three checklists of questions (seeFigure 3.1 and Boxes 3.1–3.3). These can be answered quite rapidly using
participatory methods supplemented by any existing information. The three
checklists can be applied at the same time, and the questions are not fixed
but can be adapted to suit the context.
Each checklist ends with a ‘decision point’, which helps to determine if alivestock-based response is appropriate in this context. Appendix 3.2
presents an example of a partially completed checklist.
Figure 3.1: Summary of LEGS initial assessment checklists

1. The role of livestock in livelihoods
How do livestock contribute to livelihoodsin ‘normal’ times?

2. Nature and impact of the emergency
How has the emergency affected communities,
their livestock, and livestock management?

3. Situation analysis
What is the context (communications,infrastructure, security, other stakeholders)?

81

3LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Box 3.1

Checklist 1: The role of livestock in livelihoods
Livestock support is most likely to be needed if livestock are important in
the livelihoods of the people affected by the emergency. The following
questions help the assessment team to determine the significance of
livestock in livelihoods and the role they play. They therefore help decide
whether a livestock-related response is appropriate. Much of thisinformation may already be available from existing sources. For mobile
or less accessible communities in emergency contexts, responses tothese questions are likely to depend largely on such pre-existing
information. Whatever the source of the information, it is important tounderstand how livestock are managed. It is also important for the team
to know how the benefits, ownership and care of livestock are affectedby factors such as gender, wealth or at-risk group.
1.1 What are the main livelihood strategies in the affected area in‘normal’, non-emergency, times?
1.2 What are the key uses of livestock (for example, food, income,social, draught power, transport)?
1.3 What percentage of food is derived from livestock in ‘normal’ times
and by season?
1.4 What percentage of income is derived from livestock in ‘normal’times (including livestock products, transport and draught power),and how is it managed?
1.5 What roles do different household members play in livestock careand management (including use and disposal rights)? Pay
particular attention to their gender and age. Take note too ofdifferent livestock species and ages as well as seasonal variations.
1.6 What customary or other institutions and leaders are involved inlivestock production and natural resource management, and what
are their roles?
1.7 What are the main coping strategies and indicators for difficult
times? For example, use of famine foods; high livestock slaughteror sales; abnormal migration; dispersal of household members;
sale of other assets. Do these strategies have negative implications
for future livelihood security?

continued over82

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Decision point: Do livestock play a signiﬁcant role in the livelihoodsof the affected people, and is a livestock-related response therefore
appropriate?

Box 3.2

Checklist 2: The nature and impact of the emergency
This checklist focuses on understanding the impact of the emergency on
the affected populations. It determines whether an emergency response
is necessary. Some of this information may already be available fromother agencies’ assessments or, in the case of protracted emergencies,
from earlier assessments.
2.1 What type of emergency is it: rapid-onset, slow-onset or complex?
2.2 What is the cause of the emergency (drought, flood, earthquake,conflict, etc.), and what area does it cover?
2.3 What is the history of this type of emergency in this area?
2.4 Which stage has the emergency reached (alert/alarm/emergency/
recovery for slow-onset emergencies; or immediate aftermath/early recovery/recovery for rapid-onset emergencies)?
2.5 What human and livestock populations are affected?
2.6 What has been the impact of the emergency on the affected
population? Specifically:
2.6.1 What is the nutritional status of the affected humanpopulation?
2.6.2 What is the prevalence of disease?
2.6.3 What is the mortality rate?
2.6.4 What has been the impact on different groups – men,
women, children, older people, people with disabilities,
particular ethnic or other social groups?
2.6.5 What is the capacity of the affected community to respondto the emergency?
2.6.6 Are there signs that the coping strategies and indicators fordifficult times from question 1.7 above are being used?
continued over83

3LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

2.6.7 Has there been significant migration or displacement ofparts of the affected population? If so, who is affected, andhave they taken their livestock with them?
2.6.8 If the affected community has been displaced, what is theimpact of this on the host community?
2.7 What has been the impact of the emergency on livestock?
Differentiate by species if appropriate. Specifically:
2.7.1 How has livestock condition deteriorated?
2.7.2 What is the impact on livestock welfare (for example, lack offeed and water; injuries; disease; extreme cold; or heatstress)?
2.7.3 Has livestock productivity been affected (for example,
offtake of milk, blood, eggs, draught power, etc.)?
2.7.4 Has livestock morbidity increased?
2.7.5 Has livestock slaughter for home consumption increased?
2.7.6 What is the scale of livestock losses relative to ‘normal’times?
2.7.7 Has there been any impact on livestock shelter/enclosures?
2.8 What has been the impact of the emergency on livestock
management strategies? Specifically:
2.8.1 What is the impact on access to grazing and/or feed?
2.8.2 What is the impact on access to water for livestock?
2.8.3 What is the impact on daily and seasonal movements?
2.8.4 What is the impact on livestock traders and key livestock
input and output markets (sales; prices; terms of trade
between livestock and cereals; feed and drug suppliers)?
2.8.5 What is the impact on livestock services such as veterinary
services, extension services and veterinary pharmacies?
2.8.6 What has been the impact on the gender division of labour?
2.9 How has the environment been impacted by the emergency, andwhat are the implications for livestock management?
continued over84

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

2.10 What weather is forecast and what are the weather trends for theforthcoming season (anticipated snow, rains, heat, dry season,increasing insecurity, access to food, etc.)?
Decision point: Is an emergency intervention necessary?

Box 3.3

Checklist 3: Situation analysis
This checklist helps to ensure an understanding of the operating
environment, potential logistical constraints, and overlap or potential
complementarity with other stakeholders.
3.1 What is the history of emergency response in the affected area
(both positive and negative), and what are the lessons learned fromit?
3.2 Who are the key stakeholders in the affected area, including local
responders, and what are they doing?
3.3 Are any stakeholders playing a coordination role, and how effectiveis the coordination?
3.4 What resources are available, especially customary coping
strategies and locally led response?
3.5 What is the current context?
3.5.1 How are communications functioning?
3.5.2 What is the security situation, and what are the implications
for programming and staff safety?
3.5.3 What are the implications for livestock movement andmigration (rights of access, potential conflict)?
3.5.4 What are the key protection issues facing livestock keepers?
3.5.5 What is the current infrastructure, such as roads andtransport?
continued over85

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

3.5.6 What is the context for potential cash and voucher
assistance (CVA)? For example, are markets accessible andfunctioning? Is CVA accepted by recipients and thegovernment? Are there secure and regulated delivery
options such as mobile phones, remittance companies,etc.?
3.5.7 Are there any cross-border issues?
3.5.8 What are the policy and/or legal challenges affecting
livestock-related interventions? For example, livestock
movement or export bans; slaughter laws; licensing
regulations (relating to community-based animal healthworkers, for instance); coordination between aid
organisations; and organisational policies of key
stakeholders.
3.5.9 Are particular interests (cultural, political, etc.) likely to havean impact on potential interventions?
These questions become especially significant in conflict situations.

Decision point: Do answers to any of the above constitute criticalissues that prevent any form of intervention in the area? For
example, does the security situation hinder any kind of movement atpresent? Are other actors already providing sufﬁcient support toaffected populations?

Recording and analysing the information
The assessment team should record the results of the initial assessment
using simple templates, showing the findings, methods used, sources anddates (see Appendix 3.3 for an example recording template). These can thenbe compiled into a report, structured around the questions in the checklists.
The team should then meet to review and analyse the results, reflecting oneach checklist’s key findings and decision points in order to decide if alivestock-based response is appropriate.

86

3LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Stage 2: Response identiﬁcation2

Response
identification

Overview
If the initial assessment concludes that livestock support may be appropriate,
the next stage is to identify which livestock-based emergency responses
would be relevant and timely. The assessment team should also design
livestock responses in emergencies to meet at least one of the LEGS
livelihoods objectives. That is, support crisis-affected communities to:
1. obtain immediate beneﬁts using existing livestock assets; and/or
2. protect key livestock assets; and/or
3. rebuild key livestock assets.
LEGS presents six technical interventions that can provide livestock-based
livelihood support to affected communities in an emergency. They may be
used at the same time and may complement each other. Examples include
providing both feed and water to drought-affected livestock; or veterinary
support alongside provision of livestock to replace animals lost in an
earthquake. The six interventions are:• feed: animal feed or fodder to crisis-affected animals;• water: water for livestock through support to existing supplies or creationof new sources;• veterinary support: animal health services and support;• shelter: protection of livestock affected by extreme weather conditions,
insecurity or displacement;• livestock offtake: removal (through sale or slaughter programmes) ofcrisis-affected animals before they lose their market or food value –livestock offtake is generally only applicable in drought emergencies; thisdiffers from disease outbreaks, when carcass disposal is necessary;• provision of livestock: replacement of livestock lost in the emergency, or
provision of animals to support new livelihood activities after an
emergency.

87

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Tool for Stage 2
The LEGS tool for Stage 2 is the Participatory Response Identiﬁcation
Matrix (PRIM). The aim of the PRIM is to facilitate a participatory planning
process that:• provides rapid and highly visual results;• demonstrates which interventions have the potential to have most impact;• focuses on the purpose (livelihoods objective) of any response; and• confirms the appropriate timing.

The PRIM is best implemented in a workshop setting. Where a face-to-facemeeting is not possible or appropriate, the team may use alternative
methods such as online meetings. The participants for the PRIM process
should involve all key stakeholders. These include local leadership,
representatives of the affected populations (both women and men) andrepresentatives of key at-risk groups. This will facilitate broad participation in(and local ownership of) the response planning process. In turn, this will help
to identify local knowledge and skills, and recognise local capacities toaddress and respond to the emergency.
In the left side of the PRIM, the six technical intervention areas (feed; water;
veterinary support; shelter; livestock offtake; and provision of livestock)should be considered against the three LEGS livelihoods objectives. This
allows workshop participants to review how much each intervention could
impact on each objective (see Figure 3.2).
The right side of the matrix should show the phases of the current
emergency and note the best timing of each intervention.
LEGS provides two PRIM templates, one for rapid-onset emergencies andthe other for slow-onset emergencies. These reflect the two sets ofdefinitions of the emergency phases outlined in Chapter 1 (see the blank
PRIM templates in Appendix 3.4). For complex emergencies, workshop
participants can use the PRIM that relates most closely to the current
context. Otherwise, they can agree on their own definitions and insert theminto the right-hand side of the matrix.

88

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Figure 3.2: How to complete the Participatory Response Identiﬁcation
Matrix2 Consider the technical1 Select the appropriate

interventions against
the 3 LEGS objectives

PRIM template for rapidor slow-onset emergency

Scoring against LEGS
livelihoods objectives
Technical
interventions

Immediate
benefits

Feed

2

Water

0

Veterinary
support3

Shelter
Livestockofftake

Protect
assetsAppropriate timing
for intervention
Rebuild
assetsImmediateaftermathEarly
recoveryRecovery

3

3

3

2
0

0

Provisionof livestock0
3

3 Provide scores toshow how mucheach intervention
could contributeto each objective

4 Add ticks to show
the optimum timingof each intervention

5 Review the results andagree which interventions
have the most potential

1. Select the appropriate PRIM format according to the type of emergency(rapid-onset or slow-onset) and confirm that the emergency phases areappropriate to the current context (see Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGSon How does LEGS deﬁne emergencies and what are their impacts?).
Note that the headings on the right side of the PRIM vary according to thetype of emergency (rapid-onset or slow-onset). The example in Figure 3.2
is for a rapid-onset emergency.
2. Consider each of the potential technical interventions against the three
LEGS livelihoods objectives. See Table 1.1 in Chapter 1 and theintroduction to each of the technical chapters (4–9). Here there isinformation on how each technical intervention may contribute to the
LEGS livelihoods objectives.
89

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

3. Provide scores against each objective to show how much the technicalintervention has the potential to impact on that objective. Score eachfrom 0 to 3, where 3 = very positive impact on the objective; 2 = some
impact; 1 = very little impact; 0 = not applicable.
4. Add ticks (check marks) to show the optimum timing of each intervention.
5. Review the matrix, and note which interventions have the most potential
for positive impact given the timing of the emergency. Note that the LEGS
technical interventions are not exclusive and that more than one may beprioritised. Different interventions may also be implemented together or
one after the other over the course of the emergency.
There is no universally ‘correct’ PRIM; each PRIM is developed byparticipants based on their specific location and needs. Participants should
also be aware of potential biases based on individuals’ personal interests orexpertise when completing the matrix.
Blank PRIM templates for both rapid-onset and slow-onset emergencies arepresented in Appendix 3.4, while examples of completed PRIMs arepresented in Appendix 3.5.
The output of a PRIM is agreed identification of the most relevant and timely
interventions to support and protect livestock-based livelihoods in thespecific context and for the current phase of the emergency. This provides
the basis for moving to Stage 3.

Stage 3: Analysis of technicalinterventions and options
3

Analysis ofinterventions
and options

Overview
In Stage 2, workshop participants prioritise one or more technicalinterventions using the PRIM. In Stage 3, these selected interventions areanalysed in more detail to determine which of their specific options will beappropriate, feasible and timely. To do this, a range of tools are provided ineach of the technical chapters (4–9).
90

3LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

For each of the six LEGS technical interventions that were introduced inStage 2 (for example water or livestock offtake), there is a choice of options
for delivering the intervention. Examples include water trucking versus
rehabilitation of water pumps; or commercial offtake versus slaughter
offtake, as shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Summary of technical interventions and options
Technical
intervention

Technical options

Feed

Home-based emergency feeding·····································································································
Feed camp emergency feeding

Water

Water points·····································································································
Water trucking

Veterinary
supportClinical veterinary services·····································································································
Public sector veterinary functions

Shelter

Livestock shelter·····································································································
Livestock and settlement

Livestockofftake

Commercial offtake·····································································································
Slaughter offtake for consumption

Provision of
livestock

Replacing lost livestock assets·····································································································
Building livelihood assets

91

3LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Tools for Stage 3
Each technical chapter of LEGS contains ﬁve key tools for analysing thesuitability and feasibility of the selected intervention(s) and option(s). These
tools are designed to be used as needed. They do not necessarily have to befollowed in order, and not all have to be used. A suggested process to follow
is:
1. Review the section on options at the start of the relevant technicalchapter to prioritise the most appropriate option(s).
2. Review the beneﬁts and challenges table to confirm the choice ofoption(s).
3. Review the timing of interventions table to confirm that the intervention
is appropriate for the emergency phase for which it is planned.
4. Work through the decision tree to check the context and requirements
for the selected intervention/option.
5. Review the standards, key actions and guidance notes to plan in moredetail.
Tool 1: Outline of options
Each of the six technical chapters provides an explanation of the different
options possible within that technical intervention. For example, the feedchapter presents two options for emergency feeding: (a) home-based; and(b) feed camp. Feed option (b) is then divided into two sub-options: in-out(daily) feed camp, and residential feed camp.
Begin by reviewing this explanation to identify which option(s) are mostappropriate for the context.
Tool 2: Beneﬁts and challenges table for the different options
Each technical chapter has a table that summarises the benefits andchallenges of the options (see, for example, Table 4.2 in Chapter 4: Livestockfeed). Review this table to confirm the appropriate selection of the option(s).
Tool 3: Timing table
Each technical chapter has a table showing the most appropriate timing forthe various options according to the phases of the emergency for both
rapid-onset and slow-onset emergencies (see, for example, Table 4.3 in
Chapter 4: Livestock feed). These timings are suggestions only, as thesituation may vary according to local conditions.

92

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Review the table for guidance on the optimum timing for the selected
option(s) according to the context. Annex C (at the end of the handbook)presents a combined table for all the timing tables in the technical chapters.
Tool 4: Decision tree
The decision tree in each technical chapter brings together some of the key
questions and issues to consider before a particular technical option can bedecided upon (see, for example, Figure 4.1 in Chapter 4: Livestock feed).
Work through the decision tree questions following the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ arrows toarrive at one or more of the technical options – or at a ‘no action’ box. The
information from the initial assessment and PRIM process will help to provide
answers to these questions. The result ‘no action’ may mean additional
preparation is necessary to be able to answer ‘yes’ to the key questions,rather than that no intervention should take place.
Tool 5: Standards and guidelines
Each technical chapter contains standards, key actions and guidance notes
as the main content of the chapter. They provide more information andissues to consider in designing a response, and are defined as follows:• Standards are statements describing the minimum to be achieved inany emergency in any context and are generally qualitative.
• The key actions attached to each standard are key steps or actions
that contribute to achieving the standard.
• Guidance notes, which should be read in conjunction with the key
actions, outline particular issues to consider when applying thestandards.

The technical chapters also provide a summary of how the eight LEGS
Principles relate to each intervention, as well as specific issues to consider
when undertaking the intervention.
All the technical chapters include a standard on assessment and planning(as well as an assessment checklist in the chapter appendices). This
standard provides key information and questions that implementing agencies
need to address in order to develop the response plan. Most of the technicalchapters also include a standard on preparedness, which outlines key
actions and preparations implementing agencies can undertake prior to theonset of an emergency. These activities should inform the planning process
and, if appropriate, be incorporated into the response plan.

93

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planningThe other standards, key actions and guidance notes in the technicalchapters present information on particular aspects of the intervention or
option. They also provide detailed technical guidance to support the design
and implementation of the response plan.

Delivery modalities and mechanisms
As part of the preparation for the response plan, the implementing agency
should review the appropriate modality and delivery mechanism for the
response.
Modalities refers to the way assistance is delivered. This can be either
in-kind assistance, where goods or services are provided directly torecipients; or cash and voucher assistance (CVA), where recipients areprovided with either cash or vouchers to purchase goods or services of theirchoice. CVA is increasingly used in humanitarian response as it allows
recipients of assistance to set their own priorities and make choices. There is
growing evidence showing CVA’s positive impact in protecting or restarting
livelihoods.
The implementing agency’s choice of modality depends on several factors.
These include the market availability (or potential market availability) of thegoods and services required, recipients’ preferences for cash, vouchers
and/or in kind, and their ability to access the assistance. The agency also
needs to consider the security and protection situation, and donor andagency requirements and capacities. The initial assessment can help
determine whether CVA is feasible (see Assessment checklist 3, question
3.5.6).
A delivery mechanism in humanitarian CVA is a means of delivering ortransferring cash or vouchers to recipients (for example, smart card, mobile
money transfer, over the counter, a cheque, automated teller machine/ATM
card, etc.). Some delivery mechanisms may also facilitate receipt, storage
and payments (for example, mobile wallet, bank account, smart card, etc.).
Appendix 3.6 presents some of the potential CVA response modalities anddelivery mechanisms that may be used in LEGS technical interventions (seeFigure 3.8 and Table 3.5). These are followed by a decision tree that can help
agencies identify if CVA is feasible and appropriate (see Figure 3.9).

94

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

The choice of using cash (physical or electronic) or vouchers (paper orelectronic) will also depend on the objectives of the intervention:• Cash may be suitable where there is an immediate need (for example, topurchase feed or veterinary services). It may also be applicable when key
goods and services are available in the local market.
• Vouchers may be more appropriate if there is a need to ensure quality orprovision of specific goods and services (for example, if certain types offeed or veterinary services are needed, or to obtain and construct specifictypes of shelter).

There are also forms of indirect cash assistance, where agencies give
subsidies to service providers or governments to facilitate the intervention.
Examples include a waiver of slaughterhouse fees, movement permit fees,
market fees, or veterinary fees; subsidised trucking costs; provision of fuel towater users’ associations; or government subsidies or price caps on feed
supplements.
A key consideration for CVA is the accessibility of the delivery mechanism forlivestock keepers (that is, the way the assistance is conveyed to recipients).
For example, delivering cash in hand or cash over the counter may not besuitable for nomadic/pastoralist livestock keepers. Here, mobile money, if
available, may be more appropriate and accessible. Similarly, where an
identity document (ID) is required to access CVA, there may be difficulties forlivestock keepers who do not have an ID, or for displaced people whose ID islost or not recognised.
More information on CVA, including detailed guides on market assessment
and cash response mechanisms, can be found in the References and further
reading section.

95

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Stage 4: Response plan4

Response
plan

Overview
In Stage 4 of the LEGS approach to emergency response planning, theimplementing agency develops a response plan. This is based on theinformation and decisions made in the previous three stages.
LEGS provides a template for a response plan (see Appendix 3.7). However,some organisations will use their own formats and may have slightly different
terminology. Whichever format (or term) is used, the response plan should bebased on a well-reasoned theory of change from Activity → Output →Outcome → Objective (see Table 3.2).
Table 3.2: Theory of change for a livestock response plan
Level

Description

Example – Livestock offtake

ImpactLivelihood impacts are clearlyspecifiedAt least 20% of income fromlivestock offtake activities is used toprotect remaining livestock before
the end of the response

OutcomeShort-term and medium-term
positive effects of response – ithas causal links with output

Average income derived fromlivestock offtake activities is US$100
per household

OutputWhat the response delivers toachieve the outcome

Up to 3 cattle per household arepurchased by implementing agency

Activities

The actions to achieve each
outputAgree maximum number of cattle tobe purchased per household·······················································
Agree target households·······················································
Agree livestock prices·······················································
Identify transportation, and so on…

96

3LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

The causal links from bottom to top of the theory of change (ToC) should be
reviewed to ensure that there is a logical flow:• If we do these activities, then this output will be delivered.
• If we deliver this output, then this outcome will be achieved.
• If the outcome is achieved, then this will contribute to the objective andimpacts.

To ensure the technical plausibility of the flow of activities to impact, eachstage of the ToC should be quantified. Along with identifying the causal links,
the assumptions made in defining the theory of change and the potential
risks need to be defined. These should also be monitored through the MEAL
system (see section on MEAL below).
Whereas the LEGS livelihoods objectives are general, the response plan
objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timebound (SMART objectives). They can then quantify the intended livelihood
impacts within a specific time frame. Without SMART objectives, it is difficult
to determine whether an objective (and impact) has been achieved. Goodquality initial assessment and response identification in Stages 1 to 3 should
facilitate this process of determining appropriate objectives.
Table 3.3: Linking LEGS livelihoods objectives to SMART objectives
LEGS livelihoods objective

Example of SMART objective in
response plan

To support crisis-affected communities toobtain immediate benefits using existing
livestock assets

Slaughter offtake: Provision of 2.2kg ofdried meat covers total protein
requirements of an average household offour people for at least seven days

To support crisis-affected communities toprotect key livestock assets

Supplementary feed: Cattle mortality is
reduced to less than 15% during the
response in target households during
project period

To support crisis-affected communities torebuild key livestock assets

Provision of livestock plus veterinarycare: At least 75% of restockedhouseholds build a herd of at least 40
sheep and goats by month 20 of the
project

97

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Tool for Stage 4
The tool for Stage 4 is the response plan (see Appendix 3.7 for a response
plan template). The plan brings together the information and analysis fromthe previous three stages.
The response plan should show the selected technical intervention(s) andoption(s), the related LEGS livelihoods objective(s), the response’s SMART
objectives, and the theory of change for the response. An example of apartially completed response plan for a livestock offtake intervention ispresented in Appendix 3.8.
It is important for the implementing agency to identify process and impact
indicators (see next section for definitions) as part of the response plan.
Then monitoring can start as soon as implementation begins. Monitoringdata is vital to ensure that activities can be adjusted during implementation.
It also provides key information for later evaluation and impact assessment
as part of a wider MEAL system (see below).
The response plan should ensure that interventions are implemented fairly,
based on transparent and participatory targeting, and by drawing on
information from the initial assessment (Stage 1) and community
consultations. The implementing agency should agree targeting methods
and selection of recipients with the affected communities, including
representatives of at-risk groups.
The agency also needs to clearly define and disseminate selected targeting
criteria. Where appropriate, public meetings can be held to increasetransparency and accountability. As far as possible, the targeting process
should remain in the control of recipient communities (with some oversight toensure at-risk groups are not overlooked). This will avoid concerns about
inequitable distribution of benefits and will help ensure accountability andtransparency.
The completion of all four stages should result in a response plan that
identifies appropriate, timely and feasible interventions and activities, basedon identified need and local context, and linked to livelihoods objectives.
Chapters 4–9 of the LEGS Handbook provide the technical details to support
this process.

98

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Monitoring, evaluation, accountability
and learning (MEAL) guidance for
LEGS interventions
Monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning (MEAL) should support all
four stages of the LEGS approach to emergency response planning.
Principle 8 (see Chapter 2) outlines the importance of MEAL in livestock
emergency response. This section provides further guidance on key aspectsof MEAL that should be considered alongside the Chapter 10 ‘Monitoring,evaluation and impact assessment of livestock-related interventions during
emergencies’ in FAO (2016). There are also many general sources of
information on MEAL (see References and further reading).
Most organisations have their own MEAL systems, often led by MEAL
specialists. Where these exist, the process and monitoring indicators
identified in the response plan can be fed into the system so that monitoring
can begin as soon as possible.
If not already set up, MEAL systems should be established as soon as
possible during planning. This will ensure that monitoring can begin at thestart of the initiative and that effective MEAL can be carried out throughout
the implementation of the response. The MEAL system should aim tosupport shared learning about livelihood impacts. At a minimum, MEAL
systems should:
1. use theories of change and SMART objectives;
2. define process and impact indicators;
3. combine participatory methods with other data;
4. use monitoring to revise implementation as needed;
5. include impact evaluation;
6. be accountable;
7. share and apply learning.

1. Use SMART objectives
As discussed under Stage 4, the objectives of the response should bespecific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). This
helps to ensure that the response is well planned, and makes it possible tomeasure the impact on livelihoods.

99

3LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

An example of a SMART objective for a livestock feed intervention is: ‘In two
districts, reduce mortality by at least 25 per cent in the core small ruminant
herds owned by 50 per cent of the poorest households by the end of the
project’; see FAO (2016) Box 11, p. 164.

2. Deﬁne process and impact indicators
Indicators are items that are measured by monitoring and evaluation. LEGS
uses two types of monitoring indicators: process indicators and impact
indicators.
Process indicators measure the progress of the activity: for example, thenumber of livestock vaccinated; the number of training courses held. They
are usually quantitative. For example, in an intervention to provide veterinary
services, a process indicator could be the number of drugs dispensed or ofveterinary visits made. Process indicators often relate to project expenditure.
They can therefore be used for financial accountability, as well as to flag up
the need for adjustments in implementation. Process monitoring is typicallydone on a regular basis (for example, monthly) throughout an intervention.
Impact indicators focus on the impact of the activity on the recipients’ lives
and livelihoods. Examples include improved nutrition through milk
production, or increased income through livestock sales. In the veterinary
services example above, an impact indicator connected to the number oftreatments of animals could be livestock mortality by species and disease.
Measurement of impact indicators is generally carried out as part of impact
evaluation (see below).
Impact indicators usually require either an understanding of a pre-existing
situation or a reference point against which impacts can be understood. For
example:• If a livestock feed or veterinary response aims to reduce mortality by 50
per cent, the mortality at the start of the intervention should be known.
This baseline mortality can be discussed and agreed with communities
during Stage 3.
• If a slaughter offtake response aims to provide cash to target households,
information on household income or expenditure immediately before theintervention is useful. This will allow understanding of the relative
importance of the cash derived from the intervention.
• If a combined livestock feed–veterinary response aims to increasechildren’s consumption of livestock milk during a drought, information on
milk consumption immediately before the intervention is useful.
100

3LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Where baseline information is not already available, it may be gathered
during the initial assessment or later as a ‘retrospective’ baseline;
see pp. 165–166 (including Table 21) of FAO (2016).
Each of the LEGS technical chapters includes an appendix with suggested
process and impact indicators. See also pp. 161 (Table 19) and 165 of FAO(2016) for guidance on when to measure process and when to measure
impact.

3. Combine participatory methods with other data
In line with LEGS Principles, LEGS recommends participatory approaches tomonitoring and evaluation. A range of well-tested participatory methods are
suitable for the LEGS initial assessment and for monitoring and evaluation.
They are drawn from Participatory Learning and Action (PLA), Participatory
Rural Appraisal (PRA) and participatory epidemiology techniques.
Participatory methods can produce different types of information dependingon the method used and other factors. For example:• Participatory maps produce visual information that can be annotated with
notes.
• Informal interviews can produce qualitative information, such as people’s
preferences for different livestock species or their views on theimplementation of a response. These interviews can also produce
quantities such as averages for daily milk production or livestockmortality, or livestock prices.
• Ranking and scoring methods show the relative importance or value of
selected items, expressed as ranks or scores. See Appendix 3.1 for more
information on participatory methods.

Information from participatory methods can be cross-checked against otherinformation. In emergency livestock responses, two important types of crosschecking are:• During Stages 1 to 3, information such as government statistics on
livestock or market activity and prices, and research reports on livestock
production or other issues (if available) can support participatory
assessment. Previous evaluation reports of emergency livestock
responses can also provide useful information.
• During impact evaluation, process-monitoring data on response
implementation should be compiled and compared with an assessmentof livelihood impacts. The theory of change enables analysis of the101

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planningplausibility of inputs leading to impacts, and this analysis is supported by
the compiled monitoring data.
Other issues to consider:• Sampling: Given the time constraints when planning emergency
response, ‘purposive samples’ of representative informants/stakeholders
considered critical should be identified. This can ensure, for example,
that all at-risk groups are involved (for example, poor livestock keepers
affected by drought, women livestock keepers, inhabitants of aflood-affected village, or working-age children – see CPMS Pillar 4,
Standards 21 and 22).
• Disaggregating: Information gathered should always be disaggregatedaccording to gender, age and relevant at-risk groups (see Principle 2:
Community participation, Principle 6: Gender-sensitive programming andChapter 1, Box 1.3: LEGS commitment to the HSP).
• Numerical data: Scoring and ranking methods produce numerical data.
Repetition of these methods can produce quantitative data sets that canbe summarised using conventional statistical tests.
• Access: In some situations, standard participatory methodologies may
not be suitable or feasible. This may happen, for example, in pandemic or
conflict contexts where face-to-face gatherings are inappropriate or notallowed. In such cases, alternative approaches can be used, drawing on
digital tools such as mobile phones (for interviews) and, whereappropriate, online meetings (for focus group discussions). When
consulting children or young people, appropriate methodologies should
be used with due attention to child protection standards. (See CPMS
Principle 3, Children’s Participation, and Standard 22, Livelihoods andchild protection.)• Quantitative surveys typically use questionnaire surveys and may use
statistical sampling methods. In humanitarian contexts, quantitative
approaches tend to be inflexible and non-participatory, and also require
substantial levels of funding and technical expertise. While tools such as
mobile apps can speed up data collection in quantitative surveys, thenon-participatory aspect of these surveys contrasts with LEGS Principle
2: Community participation. Some quantitative data may be important tosupport monitoring against SMART objectives: for example, livestock
marketing data and the cost of goods and services. However, this data
can be collected using key informant interviews. (See LEGS Participatory
Techniques Toolkit; and FAO (2016) pp. 173, 175 and 176.)

102

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

4. Use monitoring to revise implementation as needed
Monitoring should include regular dialogue with affected communities toassess the progress and performance of response implementation. Thisshould be supported by tracking of process indicators. The theory of change
developed during response plan preparation in Stage 4 above includes ananalysis of risks and assumptions that may affect the flow of inputs to
impacts. Community dialogue can help to track these assumptions andrisks. Overall, monitoring should be used to identify issues promptly andsupport real-time adjustment to implementation.

5. Include impact evaluation
The LEGS Principle on MEAL emphasises the importance of evaluating
emergency response to learn lessons and to prepare for future interventions.
A typical evaluation assesses the achievement of project objectives, whereas
impact evaluation focuses more on the livelihood, food security or nutritionalchanges that a response produces. LEGS recommends the use of SMART
objectives that specify impacts, so ‘evaluation’ and ‘impact evaluation’
become very similar activities.
In addition to focusing on whether SMART objectives have been met, anevaluation may also include a beneﬁt-cost analysis. This will assess thefinancial costs of the response against the benefits (usually financial) to theaffected community, to review value for money. For example, the costs of alivestock offtake intervention can be analysed against the cash received bylivestock-selling households and the monetary value of any meat received.
LEGS recommends participatory approaches to evaluation, to ensure theengagement of affected communities in the description and analysis of
response impacts. The participatory methods listed in Appendix 3.1 can beadapted for impact evaluations as well as initial assessment and ongoing
monitoring. See also FAO (2016): evaluation, pp. 170–174; impact
evaluation, pp. 174–192; benefit-cost analysis, pp. 192–196.

6. Be accountable
MEAL systems should include mechanisms to enable feedback on the
response from affected people. They should also ensure that the feedback is
acted on and decisions communicated to those affected. The Core
Humanitarian Standard (CHS) provides a framework for establishing andmonitoring accountability based on nine commitments and associatedquality criteria (see Chapter 2: LEGS Principles, Table 2.1). Indicators tomonitor performance against the nine commitments are also available. (SeeCHS and References and further reading.)
103

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

7. Share and apply learning‘Learning’ in MEAL means that the information generated through monitoringand evaluation leads to analysis, reflection and changes in ongoing andfuture implementation. Learning ensures mistakes are not repeated, while
lessons are used to adapt interventions to changing needs and contexts, aswell as to influence future work.
Effective learning requires systems to be established to facilitate regularreviews of both formal monitoring data and informal experience. In addition
to management, donor and government reporting, there should be regularcommunity meetings. Otherwise, agencies should use other appropriate
means to promote communication, participation and accountability withaffected communities.
Key approaches include:• creating a learning culture within the organisation and among staff – thisincludes committing time and resources to learning activities;• establishing good communication processes that use appropriate
languages and accessible formats;• encouraging learning from previous emergency responses (for example,
during the initial assessment);• recording changes in implementation in response to feedback oroperational context;• sharing information with other implementers and coordination networks
to increase learning.

(See CHS Commitment 7.)

104

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Appendices
Appendix 3.1: Initial assessment – suggested participatory methods
Qualitative interview methods
Most participatory information collection techniques are based on qualitativeinterviews using a semi-structured checklist of open-ended questions, whichfacilitate discussion and follow-up. These interviews underpin the othertechniques and generally take three forms:• Key informant interviews: These target specific individuals representing
particular groups or with particular knowledge, such as community
leaders, local NGO and government staff, religious leaders, women’sgroups, and other civil society organisations.
• Focus group discussions: Groups of similar people (by gender, age,
wealth, rank, interest group, livelihood strategy, etc.) are interviewed
together, and then the same questions are repeated with similar and/or
different groups to compare the findings.
• Support for other participatory methods: The discussion during
participatory exercises such as mapping can provide useful additional
insights; follow-up interviews may also be required to clarify the results ofscoring or other exercises.

Visualisation methods
Carried out in focus groups, visualisation methods involve the use of local
materials (either directly on the ground or on paper) to describe the local
context and identify key issues:• Mapping identifies key features of the area (for example, local resources,
services, markets, grazing areas, water points, veterinary services), as
well as other information such as insecure areas and livestock
movements.
• Seasonal calendars show the timing of grazing migrations, linkages withcropping cycles, etc.
• Historical timelines identify significant events and crises (such as
droughts or storms) that impact livelihoods.
• Venn diagrams illustrate the relationships between institutions orservices.

105

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Ranking and scoring methods
Ranking and scoring methods provide numerical results that can be
combined and analysed:• Proportional piling shows relative values, for example of the impact ofdifferent livestock diseases.
• Ranking establishes an order of priority, for example of livestock
problems.
• Matrix scoring is a way of marking against a range of criteria, forexample scoring potential livestock interventions against speed of
response, impact on livestock mortality, cost, etc.

Table 3.4 links some of the participatory methods outlined above withselected questions from the three initial assessment checklists.
Table 3.4: Suggested participatory methods for initial assessment
Assessment
checklist*

Topic

Method1.5

Gender/age roles and seasonality

Daily/seasonal calendar

2.5
2.6
2.8
2.9
2.10

Extent of affected area·······························································
At-risk groups affected·······························································
Services and facilities in both ‘normal’times and in the emergency·······························································Natural-resource mapping (before andafter): grazing; water; movements·······························································
Impact on environment·······························································
Seasonal changes

Mapping

2.3
2.4
2.7
2.8

Stages of the emergency·······························································
Livestock disease trends·······························································
Livestock sales trends·······························································
Livestock price trends·······························································
Livestock productivity trends

Timeline/time trend

continued over

106

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Assessment
checklist*

Topic

Method

1.3
1.4
2.6
2.7
2.8

Sources of income/food·······························································
Changes in nutritional status·······························································
Changes in human disease·······························································
Livestock sales, price, productivity
changes

Proportional piling

1.3
1.4
2.7
3.1

Sources of income/food·······························································
Livestock condition, morbidity, diseases·······························································
History and effectiveness of previous
response

Ranking/scoring

2.6

Affected population (to inform targeting)

Wealth ranking

1.6
3.2
3.3

Customary institutions’ roles andrelationships·······························································
Key actors and coordination

Venn diagrams3* Numbers refer to the questions from the three checklists

Additional methodologies to support the initial assessment:• For question 1.5 on gender roles and power dynamics: ‘Women’s
empowerment in livestock index’ (Galiè et al., 2018); see also Box 1: Five
Steps in a Rapid Gender Analysis in the LEGS Gender Discussion Paper(de Jonge, K. and Maarse, L., 2020)• For question 2.6 on nutritional status: Standardized Monitoring andAssessment of Relief and Transitions Protocol – an inter-agency initiativethat provides reliable and consistent data on mortality, nutritional status,and food security. Consists of a survey manual and an analytical software
program, supported by a database on complex emergencies – CE-DAT(SMART 2017)• For question 2.7 on livestock mortality: see Catley et al. (2014) for an
example of using participatory epidemiology methods to assess causesof livestock mortality during drought

107

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning• For question 2.9 on assessing the environmental impact of theemergency and any planned interventions: See the Rapid
Environmental Assessment Tool (Hauer, M. and Kelly, C 2018) and the
FRAME assessment tool (UNHCR, 2009)• There are a number of resources for exploring coping strategies(questions 1.7, 2.6.5 and 2.6.6): see, for example, the Coping Strategies
Index (Maxwell and Caldwell 2008).

Further guidance on participatory methodologies is listed in References andfurther reading.
3108

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Appendix 3.2: Initial assessment – example checklist (partiallycompleted)
Sample answers and data collection methods for selected questions fromthe initial assessment checklists are presented here for a rapid-onset
emergency – a volcano in south-east Asia.
1.1 What are the main livelihood strategies in the affected area in‘normal’ times?
The majority of households depend on livestock for their livelihoods,
supplemented by crop production. The main livestock type is beef cattle (60per cent of households in District A; 90 per cent of households in District B),
while some also keep dairy cattle and pigs.
District

District A

District B

Human population

1,100,000

1,250,000

Total head of livestock

18,300275,000

Methods: provincial government reports (human and livestock populations);
focus group discussion on livelihood strategies
1.2 What are the key uses of livestock (for example, food, income,social, draught power, transport)?
• Meat is the most common use of livestock product, followed by milk inDistrict B in particular.
• In both districts livestock are also a key source of draught power for crop
production and manure for fuel and fertiliser.

Methods: focus group discussion
1.5 What roles do different household members play in livestock careand management (including use and disposal rights)? Pay particularattention to their gender and age. Take note too of different livestock
species and ages as well as seasonal variations.
Men: responsible for management of draught animals for cultivation, care of
the cattle.
Women: responsible for weeding and replanting the rice crop, care of poultry
and small stock.

109

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Disposal rights are generally linked with these responsibilities. Women cansell small stock and their products, but disposal of large stock and the rice
harvest is in the hands of the men.
In addition, previous eruptions from the volcano have caused sediment toflow into the nearby rivers, providing a natural resource for local
communities. As a result, many of the men in the villages close to the rivers
work as sand miners, while the women and other family members manage
the livestock and crop production.
Methods: daily and seasonal calendars; focus group discussion……….

3

2.7 What has been the impact of the emergency on livestock?
Differentiate by species if appropriate. Speciﬁcally:
2.7.1 How has livestock condition deteriorated?
Both districts were affected by ash and pyroclastic flows
following the eruption, which affected the health and well-beingof many livestock. All respondents reported the loss of someanimals.
2.7.2 What is the impact on livestock welfare (for example, lack offeed and water; injuries; disease; extreme cold; or heatstress)?
In District A, the volcanic ash has significant health impacts on
the livestock that survived, in particular diarrhoea (50 per cent ofrespondents) and respiratory problems (45 per cent). The
shortage of available (or clean) livestock feed led to malnutritionin many livestock (30 per cent of respondents).
2.7.4 Has livestock morbidity increased?
The key causes of livestock death were:– malnutrition due to limited access to feed and fodder(53 per cent);– injury during evacuation (20 per cent);– illness as a result of the ash and pyroclastic flows(15 per cent);– dehydration (12 per cent).
Methods: focus group discussion; proportional piling

110

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Appendix 3.3: Initial assessment – recording template
The initial assessment findings can be recorded using a simple template,
as in this example:
Date:
Location:
Participants – male:
Participants – female:
Name of interviewer:
3
Assessment method

Assessment question(s)Key ﬁndings

Focus group discussion

1.1, 1.2…..

Proportional piling

1.3

…..

…..
…..
…..

111

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Appendix 3.4: PRIM – templates
Figure 3.3: Rapid-onset emergency PRIM template
Scoring against LEGS
livelihoods objectives
Technical
interventions

Immediate
benefits

Protect
assetsAppropriate timing
for intervention
Rebuild
assetsImmediateaftermathEarly
recoveryRecovery

Feed
Water
Veterinary
support3

Shelter
Livestockofftake
Provisionof livestock
3 – Very positive impact on objective
2 – Some impact on objective
1 – Very little impact on objective
0 – Not appropriate

112

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Figure 3.4: Slow-onset emergency PRIM template
Scoring against LEGS
livelihoods objectives
Technical
interventions

Immediate Protect Rebuild
assets assets
benefits

Appropriate timing
for intervention
Alert

Alarm Emergency Recovery

Feed
Water
Veterinary
supportShelter3

Livestockofftake
Provisionof livestock
3 – Very positive impact on objective
2 – Some impact on objective
1 – Very little impact on objective
0 – Not appropriate

For complex crises that include either a slow-onset or a rapid-onset
emergency, the relevant PRIM may be used (see PRIM Sample C in
Appendix 3.5). For protracted or complex emergencies that do not include aslow-onset or rapid-onset crisis, only the left side of the PRIM (i.e., thelivelihoods objectives) may be appropriate.

113

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Appendix 3.5: PRIM – samples
The following samples show how the PRIM can be used for different
emergency types – rapid-onset, slow-onset and complex. In each sample,
the PRIM matrix is followed by an explanation of the results.
Figure 3.5: PRIM sample A. Rapid-onset emergency – an earthquake in
Asia
Scoring against LEGS
livelihoods objectives
Technical
interventions

Appropriate timing
for intervention

Immediate
benefits

Protect
assetsRebuild
assets

Feed

1

3

3

Water

1

1

1

Veterinary
support1

3

3

Shelter222Livestockofftake000Provisionof livestock

0

0

3

ImmediateaftermathEarly
recoveryRecovery

3 – Very positive impact on objective
2 – Some impact on objective
1 – Very little impact on objective
0 – Not appropriate

Notes on PRIM Sample A:• Providing feed immediately after the earthquake may contribute tohousehold food security through milk or other livestock products from thesurviving animals. Later, feed support may contribute to protecting andrebuilding livestock assets. If there is advance warning of the earthquake,some measures may be taken to stockpile feed and water.
• Providing water may offer some small benefit, depending on the effect of
the earthquake on existing supplies.
• Veterinary support could provide immediate benefit, by helping to keep
surviving animals alive in the immediate aftermath. It could also make asignificant contribution to protecting and rebuilding livestock assets in theearly recovery and recovery phases. It may help to maintain household/114

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planningmaternal/child dietary quality where households rely on consumption ofanimal-source foods.
• Shelter-related interventions may contribute both to immediate benefits
and to protecting and rebuilding assets, depending on the types of
livestock kept and their shelter needs. If sufficient warning is given,
moving them out of and away from buildings that may collapse may save
livestock lives. In the immediate aftermath and early recovery phases,
providing warm and/or dry shelter for affected animals is a significant
contribution to the protection and rebuilding of assets.
• As the normal market system is not operating, commercial offtake cannot
provide immediate benefits to crisis-affected households in this case.
Slaughter offtake is most appropriate where livestock might otherwise diefrom lack of water or feed. It is therefore less likely to bring significant
benefits to affected households in this instance. If animals are too
emaciated for slaughter offtake to provide meat, they should beslaughtered on animal welfare grounds (see Chapter 8: Livestock offtake).
• In terms of rebuilding assets, provision of livestock may contributesignificantly by helping those who have lost their stock to begin to recoversome livestock assets. However, this can only take place in the recovery
phase.

115

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Figure 3.6: PRIM sample B. Slow-onset emergency – a drought in Africa
Scoring against LEGS
livelihoods objectives
Technical
interventions

Appropriate timing
for intervention

Immediate Protect Rebuild
assets assets
benefits

Feed

1

2

3

Water

1

2

1

Veterinary
support1

3

3

Shelter000Livestockofftake3

2

1

Provisionof livestock

0

0

3

Alert

Alarm Emergency Recovery

3 – Very positive impact on objective
2 – Some impact on objective
1 – Very little impact on objective
0 – Not appropriate

Notes on PRIM Sample B:
The slow-onset drought in Africa shows a very different pattern ofinterventions and timing compared with the Asian earthquake in PRIM
Sample A.
• Providing feed and water during the alarm and emergency phases of adrought can help to protect remaining livestock assets and rebuild herds
for the future.
• Animal health interventions, which may be carried out during all phases ofa drought, can have a significant impact on protecting and rebuilding
livestock assets. They do this by preventing death and disease andstrengthening livestock resistance to drought.
• In this example, the provision of shelter is not appropriate.
• In the alert and alarm phases, commercial livestock offtake can contributesignificantly to providing immediate benefits to affected families throughthe injection of cash. It can also contribute to a certain extent toprotecting assets. This is because the remaining livestock have lesscompetition for scarce resources, and some of the cash may be used to116

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planningsupport these remaining animals. If the timing of the intervention isdelayed until the emergency phase, then commercial offtake may nolonger be possible because the animals’ condition will be too poor. In thiscase, slaughter offtake (shown by the tick/check mark in brackets) can
provide some immediate benefits to affected households.
• In this example, because the drought is in the early stages (alert/alarm),
the preference would be for commercial livestock offtake rather thanslaughter offtake. This is because commercial offtake places cash in thehands of the livestock keepers, which encourages market processes andcan help to protect other livelihood outcomes such as nutrition.
• In the recovery phase, providing livestock can make a significant
contribution to rebuilding livestock assets.

The final sample PRIM shows how the combination of conflict and aslow-onset emergency can affect the appropriateness and feasibility of someof the potential interventions.
Figure 3.7: PRIM sample C. Complex emergency – drought withprotracted conﬂict in Africa
Scoring against LEGS
livelihoods objectives
Technical
interventions

Appropriate timing
for intervention

Immediate Protect Rebuild
assets assets
benefits

Feed

1

3

3

Water

1

1

1

Veterinary
support1

3

3

Shelter222Livestockofftake2

1

1

Provisionof livestock

0

0

3

Alert

3 – Very positive impact on objective
2 – Some impact on objective
1 – Very little impact on objective
0 – Not appropriate

117

Alarm Emergency Recovery

3LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Notes on PRIM Sample C:• Comparing this PRIM with Sample B, most of the possible interventions(such as feed, water, veterinary support, and provision of livestock)remain appropriate. Here they will also have the potential to deliversignificant benefits to the affected communities.
• Providing feed has the potential to help protect and rebuild livestock
assets. This is particularly true for communities confined to camps andunable to take their stock to pasture. Similarly, providing water for
livestock that cannot be taken to the usual water sources because of
insecurity may help to protect and rebuild livestock assets. This could
also help protect household health and nutrition where water supply forhuman consumption is shielded from contamination by livestock.
• Shelter or enclosures for livestock, though irrelevant in PRIM Sample B,
may become an important issue here because of displacement andinsecurity (for example, the risk of looting).
• Commercial livestock offtake is not appropriate in this conflict situation
since market systems and infrastructure are severely disrupted. Slaughter
offtake (shown by the tick/check mark in brackets) could be possible,
depending on the operational constraints under which agencies areworking.
• All these interventions depend on the ability of responders to operate
within the conflict situation.

118

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Appendix 3.6: Cash and voucher assistance – response modalities,
delivery mechanisms and decision tree
Figure 3.8: Response modalities for LEGS technical interventions andoptions
Types of cash transfer
Technical interventions
and options

Cash grants*

Vouchers*

In-kind**Feed
Home-based emergency feeding
Feed camp emergency feeding
Water
Water points
Water trucking
Veterinary support
Clinical veterinary services
Public sector veterinary functions
Shelter
Livestock shelter
Livestock and settlement
Livestock offtake
Commercial livestock offtake
Slaughter livestock offtakefor consumption
Provision of livestock
Replacing lost livestock assets
Building livestock assets*If implementing organisations are using cash grants or vouchers, they needto decide on whether to impose conditions (such as vaccinating livestock,attending training) or restrictions (such as specification of a type of feed or
medicine) on the transfer so as to meet the objective of the programme. Ifcash transfers are large, such as in the provision of livestock, then acondition may be placed. For example, the total amount may be issued intranches, with the release of each tranche dependent on evidence that
119

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planninglivestock have been purchased with the previous one. Alternatively, if an
objective has a specific element (such as livestock nutrition to maintain body
condition), then agencies may impose a restriction to ensure livestock
keepers buy appropriate feed of sufficient quality from specified vendors.
Cash grants may also be direct or indirect. A direct transfer may be made to
livestock keepers, or an indirect transfer to, for example, a livestock trader.
Commercial offtake may be considered as an indirect transfer, to support
market processes, if agencies give loans to livestock traders. A directtransfer might be agencies providing vouchers to livestock keepers topurchase livestock.
** In-kind in this context may also include facilitation (for example, oflivestock fairs), advocacy (on policy or licensing constraints), training, etc.
Table 3.5: Potential CVA delivery mechanisms for LEGS interventions
Description

Possible provider

Direct cash
payment

Cash handed out directly to recipients by
the implementing organisation

Implementing
organisation/
partner

Delivery through anagent/
over-the-counter(OTC)

Cash delivered to recipients through aformal or informal institution that acts as
an intermediary; does not require
recipients to hold an accountMoney transfer
agents, post
offices, traders,microfinanceinstitutions, banks

Pre-paid card

Plastic card usable at cash machines(automated teller machines or ATMs),
used for cash grants and vouchers; it canbe swiped at point-of-sale devices, but it
always requires network connection fortransaction authentication

Banks, non-bankfinancial service
providers,microfinanceinstitutions, post
officeSmart card

Plastic card with a chip, valid withpoint-of-sale devices and ATMs, used for
cash grants and store purchases; canprovide offline transaction authentication
when network connectivity is off

Banks, non-bankfinancial service
providers, post
officeCategory
Cash grants

continued over120

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Category

Description

Possible provider

Mobile money

Encrypted code that can be cashed atvarious retail or other outlets, used for
cash grants and vouchers; requires
mobile network connection fortransaction completion

Mobile network
operator (MNO),
banks

Bank account

Personal bank accounts or sub-bankaccounts that are used to deposit cash
grants; requires recipients to have formal
identification (ID) documents and often
formal residence status

Banks

3
Vouchers
VoucherPaper, electronic or some other form thatcan be exchanged for services or goodsof a pre-determined value withpre-selected vendors

Implementing
organisation/
partner/vendor

Adapted from/based on Cash Delivery Mechanism Assessment Tool – UNHCR
https://www.unhcr.org/5899ebec4.pdf
See CALP Network glossary in References and further reading for more information.

121

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Figure 3.9 Decision tree for CVA in livestock-based interventions
Is there community andpolitical support for CVA?

Is CVA appropriate to
the identiﬁed needs?

Key:

Yes

No

Actions

Consider in-kind orprovision of services

Are markets functioning
and accessible?
3

Are the goods/services readily
available through local markets?
Consider in-kindor market support
Can vendors respond to
an increase in demand?

Is acceptable pricestability forecasted?

Is there a viable cash
delivery mechanism?

Consider in-kind or vouchers

Do the agency and partners havethe capacity and access?

Build capacity then continue,or consider alternatives

Can security, protection andother risks be mitigated?

Consider alternatives

Continue to next page

122

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Continued from ‘yes’ pathon previous page

Do speciﬁc needs have to be met(e.g. for shelter, drugs)?
Conditional
cash transfers
Are relevant items and services(e.g. construction materials,
transport, labour, drugs) available?
3

Does the programme aim to achieve a
speciﬁc goal (e.g. improving nutrition
or encouraging livestock trade)?

Is there a scarce supply ofparticular goods/services?
Vouchers
Are there inﬂation risks
or security concerns?

Are traders willing to participate?

Consider alternatives
including in-kind
Decision tree adapted from The Remote Cash Project Core Tool 2 (NRC, 2019)
and the ICRC Decision Tree for Cash Transfer Options (found in Vetwork, 2011).

123

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Appendix 3.7: Response plan – template
Intervention:
OptionLEGS
livelihoods
objective
SMART
objective

Impact indicators••

Outcomes

Process indicators•

Outputs

Process indicators•

Activities

Process indicators
•
•

124

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

Appendix 3.8: Response plan – example of livestock offtake
intervention
Intervention: Livestock offtake
OptionCommercial livestock offtake

LEGS
livelihoods
objective

Protect livelihood assets

SMART
objective

At least 20% of income fromlivestock offtake is used to protect
remaining livestock before the end of
the intervention.

Impact indicators

Target households receive cash
income from livestock offtake.

Process indicator

Livestock purchases

Process indicators

Outcomes

Outputs

Activities*

Identify targetareas·····························
Identify livestock
traders·····························
Facilitatecommunity–trader
dialogue·····························
Liaise with local
authority on waiverof tax on livestock
purchases

Targeting….
Timing…
Locations…
Procurement…

••

Proportion of livestock
offtake income used forwater, feed, veterinary
care or livestocktransportation

Average householdincome from offtake•

Average number andtype of livestock
purchased•

Timing of purchases

Process indicators•

Number of meetings
with community or with
community
representatives andother stakeholders•

Number ofcommunity–trade
meetings•

Tax waiver in place* The activities section of the response plan should contain as much detail as possible, including target
groups, timings, locations, procurement processes and delivery modalities

125

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

References and further reading
References and suggested resources for further reading are presented here, according to thefollowing topics:
1. Assessment
2. Market analysis
3. Cash and voucher assistance
4. MEAL
5. Participatory methodologies

1. Assessment
ACAPS (2014) Humanitarian Needs Assessment: The Good Enough Guide, The Assessment
Capacities Project (ACAPS), Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECB) and Practical Action
Publishing. Rugby, https://www.acaps.org/humanitarian-needs-assessment-good-enough-guidede Jonge, K. and Maarse, L. (2020) Gender and livestock in emergencies: a discussion paper for theLivestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards LEGS, https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wpcontent/uploads/2020/11/LEGS-Discussion-Paper-Gender-and-Livestock.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and International Labour Organization(ILO) (2009) The Livelihood Assessment Toolkit: Analysing and Responding to the Impact of Disasters
on the Livelihoods of People, 1st edn, FAO and ILO, Rome and Geneva, https://www.fao.org/
ﬁleadmin/templates/tc/tce/pdf/LAT_Brochure_LoRes.pdf
Galiè, A., Teufel, N., Korir, L. et al. (2018) ‘The women’s empowerment in livestock index’, Social
Indicators Research 142: 799–825, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1934-z
Hauer, M. and Kelly, C. (2018) Guidelines for Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Disasters –Version 5, 2018 [Rapid Environmental Assessment Tool], Coordination of Assessments forEnvironment in Humanitarian Action Initiative, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/ﬁles/resources/REA_2018_ﬁnal.pdf
Maxwell, D. and Caldwell, R. (2008) The Coping Strategies Index: Field Methods Manual, 2nd edn,
Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc. (CARE), https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/259999318_The_Coping_Strategies_Index_Field_Methods_Manual_-_Second_Edition
SMART (2017) SMART – Standardised Monitoring and Assessment for Relief and Transitions Manual
2.0, SMART, Action Against Hunger Canada, and the Technical Advisory Group,https://smartmethodology.org/survey-planning-tools/smart-methodology/
Sphere (2014) Sphere for assessments, The Sphere Project and ACAPS, Geneva,
https://spherestandards.org/resources/sphere-for-assessments/

2. Market analysis
Albu, M. (2010) Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis Toolkit (EMMA), Practical Action Publishing,
Rugby, https://www.emma-toolkit.org/toolkit
CALP (2018) Minimum Standard for Market Analysis (MISMA), CALP Network,https://www.calpnetwork.org/publication/minimum-standard-for-market-analysis-misma/International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (2014) Rapid Assessment for Markets:
Guidelines, https://preparecenter.org/resource/rapid-assessment-for-markets-ifrc-guidelines/

126

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

SEEP (2017) Minimum Economic Recovery Standards, 3rd edn, the SEEP Network, Washington D.C.,
and Practical Action Publishing, Rugby, https://seepnetwork.org/Resource-Post/MinimumEconomic-Recovery-Standards-Third-Edition-exist-190

3. Cash and voucher assistance
The CALP Network website contains many tools and resources on cash and voucher assistance,
including the Glossary of Terms and the Programme Quality Toolbox. See https://www.calpnetwork.
org/resources/
Elluard, C. (2015) Guidance notes: cash transfer in livelihood programming, The CaLP Network andthe Livelihoods Centre, https://www.calpnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/calp-wafguidance-notes-en-web-1.pdf
FAO (2011) The use of cash transfers in livestock emergencies and their incorporation into Livestock
Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS), Animal Production and Health Working Paper No. 1,
FAO, Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/i2256e/i2256e00.pdf
Hermon-Duc, S. (2012) MPESA project analysis: exploring the use of cash transfers using cell phones
in pastoral areas, Télécoms Sans Frontières and Vétérinaires Sans Frontières, Germany and Nairobi,
https://www.calpnetwork.org/publication/mpesa-project-analysis-exploring-the-use-of-cashtransfers-using-cell-phones-in-pastoral-areas/
Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) (2019) Remote Cash Project Guidelines and Toolkit,
https://www.nrc.no/what-we-do/themes-in-the-field/cash-and-vouchers/remote-cash-projectguidelines-and-toolkit/

4. MEAL
Catley, A., Burns, J., Abebe, D. and Suji, O. (2014) Participatory Impact Assessment: A Design Guide,
Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, Somerville, https://ﬁc.tufts.edu/publication-item/
participatory-impact-assessment-a-design-guide/
Cosgrave J., Buchanan-Smith M. and Warner, A. (2016) Evaluation of Humanitarian Action (EHA)
Guide, ALNAP, https://www.alnap.org/help-library/evaluation-of-humanitarian-action-eha-guide
CHS Alliance, Group URD and the Sphere Project (2014) Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality andAccountability, 1st edn, https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/Core%20Humanitarian%
20Standard%20-%20English.pdf
CHS Alliance, Group URD and the Sphere Project (2015) CHS Guidance Notes and Indicators,
https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/CHS-Guidance-Notes-and-Indicators.pdf
Emergency Capacity Building Project (2007) Impact Measurement and Accountability in Emergencies:
The Good Enough Guide, Oxfam, https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/impactmeasurement-and-accountability-in-emergencies-the-good-enough-guide-115510/
FAO (2016) Livestock-related interventions during emergencies – The how-to-do-it manual. Edited byPhilippe Ankers, Suzan Bishop, Simon Mack and Klaas Dietze. FAO Animal Production and Health
Manual No. 18. Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/i5904e/i5904e.pdf (See Chapter 10: Monitoring,evaluation and impact assessment)
LEGS (2016) LEGS Evaluation Tool, Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards, UK,
https://www.livestock-emergency.net/legs-evaluation-tool/127

3

LEGS framework
Emergency response planning

5. Participatory methodologies
Alders, R.G., Ali, S.N., Ameri, A.A., Bagnol, B., Cooper, T.L, Gozali, A., Hidayat, M.M., Rukambile, E.,
Wong, J.T. and Catley A. (2020) ‘Participatory epidemiology: principles, practice, utility, and lessons
learnt’, Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7:532763, https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.532763
Holland, J. (ed.) (2013) Who Counts? The Power of Participatory Statistics, Practical Action
Publishing, Rugby, https://practicalactionpublishing.com/book/2385/who-counts
LEGS (2021) LEGS Participatory Techniques Toolkit, Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards(LEGS), https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/LEGS-ParticipatoryTechniques-Toolkit_May-2021.pdf
Pretty, J.N., Guijt, I., Thompson, J. and Scoones, I. (1995) Participatory Learning and Action:
A Trainer’s Guide, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London,
https://www.iied.org/6021iied
UNHCR and CARE (2009) Framework for Assessing, Monitoring and Evaluating the Environment in
Refugee-Related Operations (FRAME Toolkit), joint UNHCR and CARE project, https://www.unhcr.
org/uk/protection/environment/4a97d1039/frame-toolkit-framework-assessing-monitoringevaluating-environment-refugee.html

See also case studies for planning livestock-based interventions in emergencies at:https://www.livestock-emergency.net/resources/case-studies/128

3

Technical standards
Livestock feed
standards

Water
standards

1. Preparedness
2. Assessment and planning
3. Feeding levels
4. Feed safety

1. Preparedness
2. Assessment and planning
3. Location of water points
4. Rehabilitation andestablishment of water points
5. Sources and quality forwater trucking
6. Logistics and distribution
for water trucking

Veterinary support
standards

Shelter andsettlement standards

1. Preparedness
2. Assessment and planning
3. Clinical veterinary service design
4. Examination and treatment
5. Zoonotic diseases
6. Sanitation and food hygiene
7. Disposal of dead animals
8. Livestock disease surveillanceLivestock offtake
standards
1. Preparedness
2. Assessment and planning
3. Commercial livestock offtake
4. Slaughter livestock offtake for
consumption

129

1. Preparedness
2. Assessment and planning
3. Livestock shelter
4. Livestock and settlement
5. Transition to durable
livestock shelter solutions

Provision of livestock
standards
1. Assessment and planning
2. Deﬁning the intervention
package
3. Delivery systems
4. Additional support to recipients

Technical standards
Livestock feed

130

Chapter 4: Technicalstandards forlivestock feed
133

Introduction

136

Options for ensuring feed supplies

141

Timing of interventions

142

Links to other LEGS chapters and other HSP standards

143

LEGS Principles and other issues to consider

148

Decision tree for livestock feed options

151

The standards

161

Appendix 4.1: Assessment checklist for feed provision

163

Appendix 4.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicatorsfor livestock feed interventions

165

References and further reading

Photo © Michael Benanav
131

Technical standards
Livestock feed

Chapter 4: Technicalstandards for livestock
feedStandard 1
Preparedness

Standard 2
Assessment andplanning

Option 1
Home-based
emergency feeding

4

Option 2
Feed camp
emergency feeding

Option 2.1
In-out feed
camp system

Standard 3
Feeding
levelsStandard 4
Feed safety

132

Option 2.2
Residential feed
camp system

Technical standards
Livestock feed

Introduction
Different types of emergencies, and their severity, affect access to feed
resources for livestock. For example, drought emergencies reduce soil
moisture levels, suppress plant growth, and reduce the amount of pastureand forage available for livestock. In contrast, volcanic ash and flood orstorm water can cover and kill pasture and forage resources. Even whenabundant, access to pasture and forage resources may be lost during timesof conflict. Some emergencies that affect access to livestock feed may last
just a few weeks, but others may extend over years.
When an emergency reduces the availability of feed, the livestock that are
affected need to be provided with adequate, timely and quality
supplementary feed. They are then protected from weight loss and cancontinue to contribute to household food production. In pastoral settings,
continued access to milk can have very positive outcomes on child nutritionand health.
This chapter presents information on the importance of livestock feed as an
emergency livestock response. It also provides technical options for feedinterventions, along with the associated benefits and challenges of each.
LEGS does not specifically address fodder production but acknowledges theimportance of feed systems, including fodder production during
non-emergency times. Information is also available in Chapter 6, ‘Provisionof Feed’, in FAO (2016). For each technical option LEGS provides
information through standards, key actions and guidance notes. Checklists
for assessment, as well as monitoring and evaluation indicators, arepresented as appendices at the end of this chapter. A list of further reading is
also provided. Case studies are presented on the LEGS website (seehttps://www.livestock-emergency.net/resources/case-studies/).

Links to the LEGS livelihoods objectives
Ensuring livestock have access to adequate feed during emergencies
supports each of the three LEGS livelihoods objectives:• Feeding productive animals may contribute to immediate improvements
in household food supply, thus supporting crisis-affected communities
to obtain immediate beneﬁts using existing livestock assets.
• Feeding livestock, including draught and other working animals, may
result in the protection of key livestock assets.
• Feeding core breeding animals supports the rebuilding of herds andflocks, thus rebuilding key livestock assets.
133

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

The importance of ensuring feed supplies in emergency response
As with human populations, livestock depend on feed and water. Productive
animals are particularly vulnerable to disruptions in feed and water supplies(see Chapter 5: Water). Any intervention that aims to protect livestock
affected by an emergency must, therefore, consider access to key feed
resources, at least to limit livestock losses. The provision of livestock feed isparticularly important where emergencies result in reduced access to forage
resources. In such situations, excess livestock deaths are the result of
starvation, as opposed to livestock disease. This is important indrought-affected areas, but also in the case of volcanic eruption, extensive
flooding and conflict.
Access to supplementary livestock feed may also be lost during
emergencies, when supply lines are disrupted or feed stores destroyed. This
may result from a cyclone, earthquake or flood, or through conflict. Following
such emergencies, it may be necessary, as part of the provision of livestock
feed, to re-establish supply lines and rebuild feed stores and markets tomaintain livestock productivity in the longer term. (See Process case study:
Animal feed banks in Niger for drought preparedness. This case study
includes investment in establishing livestock feed services that can continue
after the emergency.)
In times of emergency, some humanitarians regard the delivery of feed toanimals as having a negative effect on saving human lives. This is because
the delivery of food aid and other essential non-food items to humanpopulations may be disrupted, especially if transport resources are limited.
The importance of livestock feed is, however, recognised by livestock
keepers. It is not uncommon for livestock keepers around the world to sharefood aid with their productive animals. Others may sell a portion of their foodaid in the local markets to purchase feed to protect key livestock assets.
There are cost implications associated with providing emergency livestock
feed over an extended period, such as through a multi-year drought. Costs
therefore need to be assessed carefully before a feed intervention is started.
Cost concerns should be set against alternatives, however, perhaps using asimple benefit-cost analysis tool. This will help confirm the appropriatenessof a feed intervention compared to alternatives, such as the long-term
provision of food aid or restocking. Costs of nutritional interventions to
support pastoral children who no longer have access to milk, or otherhumanitarian assistance, can be compared against the cost of providing
replacement animals.

134

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

For example, a benefit-cost study was carried out in the pastoral areas ofsouth-eastern Ethiopia and north-east Kenya following drought after two
failed rains. The study found it was between three and six times more
expensive to restock a household with a core herd of small ruminants than toprotect the same number of animals by providing livestock feed.
The timely provision of livestock feed during emergencies also contributes tothe first of the animal welfare five domains, namely ‘nutrition’ – factors thatinvolve the animal’s access to sufficient, balanced, varied and clean food andwater. This is described in Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS. (See also the
Impact case study: Measuring the impacts of cattle supplementary feeding in
Ethiopia. This case study confirms significantly reduced mortality rates
among cattle that received supplementary feed.)
The well-timed provision of emergency livestock feed to protect core
breeding animals, when forage and other feed resources are lost or
inadequate, can strengthen measures already initiated by livestock keepers
themselves. In times of drought, for example, livestock may be grazed onroadside verges. (Verges benefit from rainfall run-off from the road; this thenincreases moisture availability and supports better pasture production.)
Similarly, during times of flood, livestock may be grazed on roadsideembankments (that are raised and therefore remain flood free). In times of
emergency, livestock may also be moved to mountains and riverine areas
where better pasture is available. To supplement these resources, livestock
keepers may also purchase agricultural by-products from local foodprocessing plants to feed to their livestock.
Despite such measures, it may not be possible for livestock keepers
themselves to compensate fully for feed lost in an emergency. In such cases,
they may need additional livestock feed. This can include conserved forage
such as hay, crop residues, concentrate feeds, multi-nutrient blocks (MNB),
or home-produced mixed feeds such as cactus. In some areas,home-produced feeds have the added benefit that they can use invasiveplants that reduce pasture availability. (See Process case study: Using
invasive plants for animal feed in Sudan.) In addition, assistance may berequired for the rebuilding of damaged or destroyed livestock feed stores.
This is particularly important for areas affected by volcanic activity, where
livestock feed may be contaminated by falling ash. It will also be importantfor markets, especially in those areas where markets play a central role in theprovision of livestock feed.

135

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

Options for ensuring feed supplies
When planning an emergency livestock feed intervention, it is important toconsider transport costs. For loosely bundled crop residues, such assorghum, millet or sugar cane tops, or if straw or hay bales are used, thetransport costs are high. This is particularly so when these feeds aretransported over long distances, and used to feed large animals such as
cattle, camels and equines (which consume a relatively large amount of feedeach day). When the quality of forage is poor, with low nutritional value, theimpact of the intervention will also be low.
Costs may be inflated when feed suppliers learn that feed resources are to
be delivered under an emergency response intervention. To help ensure
better value for money, it may be helpful to use higher nutrient value
concentrate feeds, home-produced mixed feeds, or multi-nutrient blocks.
MNBs – and pelleted concentrate feeds – also have an advantage overconcentrates in powder form. This is because they are less likely to be blown
away or lost to livestock if fed on dusty ground.
The type and level of assistance provided will typically vary depending on therole that livestock play in local livelihoods of those affected by an emergency.
For example, an agency may be able to provide a modest number ofsmallholder farmers, or households living in peri-urban areas, with adequate
feed resources to meet all their livestock feed needs. This is because they
may own one or two milk cows, or a pair of plough oxen, a working animal,
or fewer than 10 sheep and goats. In this way, smallholder farmers andperi-urban milk producers/transporters using working animals may be able tocontinue in their previous livelihoods.
In contrast, it is less likely that an agency or group of agencies will able toprovide adequate feed resources to meet the needs of a large pastoral
community affected by a multi-year drought. This is because the
combination of the number of livestock and duration of the feeding interval issimply beyond agencies’ financial and logistical capacities. In such cases,
pastoralists may target the survival of a smaller number of core breeding
animals and therefore ensure that some animals are safeguarded for the
future.
Where it is necessary to target only a small number of core breeding animals,
it may be helpful to link a feed response with a livestock offtake intervention.
This removes surplus animals (for which there are no emergency feed
resources available). At the same time, commercial offtake animals may help

136

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

generate cash and will reduce operational costs. Similarly, slaughter offtakefor consumption may provide an important source of meat for households
dependent on food aid. In this way, the costs of providing a nutritionallybalanced diet are reduced, and the costs of the slaughter offtake for
consumption can be spread (see Chapter 8: Livestock offtake). The removalof livestock (through either form of livestock offtake) will help ensure that feed
resources are not diluted across a higher number of livestock than planned.
Irrespective of careful planning, sound logistics, and linking to livestock
offtake, emergency livestock feed interventions are costly. They are also
logistically and managerially challenging. It is therefore important to agree
and plan intervention objectives with emergency-affected livestock keepers.
The intervention objectives may be to reduce livestock body weight loss,
maintain body weight, recover lost body weight, maintain production levels
or increase production levels.
It is also important to plan exit strategies from the outset. By doing so it may
be possible to control potentially spiralling costs and avoid the associatedearly and untimely closure of emergency livestock feed interventions.
Most documented feed interventions are for ruminants; a summary of theassociated benefits and challenges is presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: General beneﬁts and challenges of feed interventions
Beneﬁts

Challenges

Key livestock assets are protected······························································The need for long-distance migration that
may trigger conflict is reduced······························································
Protected livestock may supply milk/eggs
or create income throughploughing/transport during an emergency······························································
Protecting livestock assets may support
flock/herd rebuilding and protect
livelihoods······························································
Access to family livestock following an
emergency may help keep families
together, benefit well-being and reduce
traumaSourcing feed during an emergency may
prove challenging······························································
Purchase and transport costs of feed may
be inflated in times of emergency······························································The supply of livestock feed through anemergency may be expensive andunsustainable······························································The routine supply of emergency feed
may artificially increase local livestock
populations······························································
Increased livestock populations can place
greater demands on scarce water
resourcescontinued over137

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

Beneﬁts

Challenges
Access to safe storage and reliabletransport systems may be limited as aresult of the emergency······························································The transport of different feed resources
may result in the spread of different plantpests and diseases.
······························································The importation of feed from outside thearea may disrupt local feed markets; forexample, causing shortages and higher
prices in areas where procurement takes
place

There are two main technical options associated with the emergency
provision of livestock feed: ‘home-based’ and ‘feed camp’. For both options,agreement needs to be reached first on which animal types and the numberof participating animals. The livestock keepers (both men and women) willthen want to decide for themselves which individual animals to protect astheir core breeding animals for the future. (See Process case study: Women
help manage a nucleus herd feeding programme in Ethiopia. This case study
illustrates women being paid a small salary to work in the residential feed
camps. In this way, they are encouraged to participate in the emergency
response.)

Option 1: Home-based emergency feeding
Under this technical option, feed resources are purchased, transported,
stored and distributed to participating households. The feed comes from acentral distribution point such as the local agricultural office, agricultural
cooperative, or market centre. Alternatively, feed can be distributed toindividual homes through assisted and subsidised secondary forms oftransport, such as small trucks, tractors/trailers, or working animals.
In addition, agencies can support home-based emergency feeding
interventions through cash and voucher assistance (CVA). Livestock
keepers (both men and women) are provided with either cash or vouchers topurchase feed for their animals. Such schemes are feasible only whenmarkets are functioning or can be supported to function. The safe movementof community members and transport of purchased feed should also beensured. Cash grants may be provided unconditionally, although theintended use for the cash is communicated to livestock keepers. This allows
138

4

Technical standards
Livestock feedfor different types of feed to be bought depending on the type of livestock.
Alternatively, the provision of a commodity voucher would place restrictions
on where the feed can be bought and the type of feed to be purchased.
A summary of the benefits and challenges associated with home-based
emergency livestock feed interventions is presented in Table 4.2.

Option 2: Feed camp emergency feeding
Under this technical option, emergency feed is provided to selected livestockin one of two feed camp sub-options:Sub-option 2.1: The ‘in-out’ feed camp system to which livestock keepers
bring an agreed type and number of livestock (for example, two lactating
cows, five sheep/goats or one camel). Animals may be brought to the feed
camp daily or every other day, according to the planned level of feeding andintervention outcomes (see Standard 3: Feeding levels).
Typically, selected animals are marked (often with coloured and numbered
ear tags) to ensure that the same animals routinely participate. Livestock
keepers are discouraged from rotating different animals into the intervention.
This is because rotating animals dilutes the effectiveness of emergency
feeding and may reduce survival rates.
Sub-option 2.2: The ‘residential’ feed camp system to which an agreed typeand number of livestock are brought and remain within a camp setting. Whenthe emergency is over, animals are returned to their keepers and again
become their primary responsibility.
Again, animals entering the camp are typically marked so that they are notconfused with other animals when taken to water (if water is not available onsite).
Table 4.2 presents a summary of the general benefits and challenges
associated with feed camp livestock feeding, and the specific benefits andchallenges associated with the different sub-options.

139

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

Table 4.2: Beneﬁts and challenges of feed supply options
Beneﬁts

Challenges

Home-based emergency feeding
Livestock keepers retain management of
their livestock······························································
Livestock can forage locally in thedaytime and receive daily rations in theevenings······························································
Home-produced milk/eggs orploughing/transport benefits the family······························································
Complex camp management andassociated logistical challenges are
avoidedFeed losses can occur at eachtransport/handling stage······························································
There are additional costs and logisticalchallenges associated with home delivery(albeit borne by the affected
communities)······························································
Affected communities may dilute feed
resources – giving it to additional animals
and neighbours······························································The provision of veterinary care is morechallenging······························································
Monitoring the use of feed andassociated improvements in animal body
condition is more difficult

Feed camp emergency feeding
Livestock keepers are required to selectcore animals for protection······························································
Measured rations ensure proper use ofavailable feed······························································
Security is in place for livestock andcommunity members······························································
Improved veterinary care can be provided······························································
There are income-generating
opportunities for caretakers, guards······························································
Easier for monitoring use of feed andimprovements in animal body condition

There are increased requirements(compared with ‘home-based’ option) –animal health specialists and services,troughs/feeders, access to adequate
water, fences, protected feed stores······························································
Security provision is required······························································
Increased costs of key support staff –
feed camp manager, other technical andliaison staff, and security personnel······························································
Management challenges occur –including managing expectations of local
elite······························································
Compensation payments are typicallypaid for livestock deaths in camps
continued over140

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

Beneﬁts

Challenges

Sub-option 2.1: The in-out feed camp system
There are reduced night-time security
costs······························································
Keepers are responsible for watering
livestock······························································
Feeding can be staggered to avoid
congestion and minimise diseasetransmission

Livestock need to be healthy to be able totrek to the feed camp daily······························································
There are additional herding demands forselected animals to be brought to andfrom the camp

Sub-option 2.2: The residential feed camp system
There is limited/no dilution of feed
resources by livestock keepers······························································
Animals are isolated and therefore
disease risks are reduced

Requires organised labour to fence, feed,water and secure livestock······························································
Daily organised labour is required for theduration of the emergency

Timing of interventions
Taking into account the costs involved, emergency livestock feedinterventions result in higher benefit-cost ratios when they are short-term innature. They can, for example, provide important ‘bridging’ interventions
after floods that can be expected to subside within a short period. Similarly,
feed interventions can support drought-affected livestock until the next rains,when soil moisture levels are replenished, and natural forage again becomes
available.
It may become necessary to provide feed resources for an extended period,
perhaps even a year or more. This will happen in more severe droughts
when, for example, even the next seasonal rains are forecast to be poor, or
during protracted and complex emergencies. Typically, the costs of suchinterventions are prohibitive for all but a small number of core breeding
animals. While such interventions may help protect local breeds, they will dolittle to help protect pastoral livelihoods.

141

4Technical standards
Livestock feed

The possible timings of emergency feed interventions for different
emergencies are presented in Table 4.3. In non-emergency phases, agencies
and livestock keepers may invest in forage and feed production systems andthe utilisation of feed. This process should build on locally proven goodpractice, including rangeland management. The Process case study:
Regenerating pasture as a preparedness activity to protect core breeding
animals, Ethiopia describes progress made through enclosure of degradedrangeland areas, the construction of water-harvesting structures, andseeding with local forage species. Harvested and dried grass was
subsequently shared among community members.
Table 4.3: Possible timing of livestock feed interventions

Rapid-onset emergency
Options

Immediately after

Early recovery

Recovery

1. Home-based

4

2. Feed camp

Slow-onset emergency
Options

Alert

Alarm

Emergency

Recovery

1. Home-based
2. Feed camp

Links to other LEGS chapters andother HSP standards
Reference has been made to the important links between providing
emergency livestock feed and livestock offtake (see Chapter 8: Livestock
offtake; see also Process case study: Complementary feed provision andlivestock offtake in Niger). Through support for livestock offtake, surplus
animals are removed from the production system. Providing livestock feed
can then ensure the survival of a small number of core breeding animals.

142

Technical standards
Livestock feed

Retaining people’s livestock assets is fundamental to restoring livelihoods,
contributing to longer-term food security and to improved nutrition. This isbecause it increases their ability to manage other potential causes ofundernutrition. Protected core breeding animals also require animal
healthcare (see Chapter 6: Veterinary support) and water supplies (seeChapter 5: Water). To ensure different interventions complement each other,
it is important that all initiatives are coordinated.

LEGS Principles and other issues toconsiderTable 4.4: Relevance of the LEGS Principles to livestock feedinterventions
LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in livestock
feed interventions

1. Supporting
livelihoods-based
programming

The provision of feed protects livestock-dependent
livelihoods from being lost when feed resources areprovided to at least the level for maintaining livestock bodyweight. Feed targeted at key livestock assets, includingcore breeding animals, secures livelihoods for the longterm. Where feed interventions allow livestock to remain
productive, livestock actively supply nutrition forhouseholds and wider communities.
························································································
Feed interventions support additional livelihoods including
those involved in the feed supply line – transporters,
suppliers of supplementary feeds/concentrates, andanyone involved in feed camps (caretakers, guards, etc.).

2. Ensuring community
participation

Community participation is essential for the selection ofparticipating households and the appropriate livestock forfeed interventions. Ongoing active community participation
helps ensure the appropriate and equitable use of the feed
resources provided.
························································································
Community involvement in feed camp management is also
critical for their success.
continued over143

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in livestock
feed interventions

3. Responding toclimate change andprotecting theenvironment

Feed interventions should prioritise support for local
breeds.
························································································
Feeding should be staggered and aligned with provision ofwater to avoid high concentrations of livestock. It should bedone in conjunction with the use of ‘home-based’ feed
options where possible.
························································································
Environmental impacts need to be considered during theestablishment of feed camps.
························································································
It is important to avoid spreading plant pests and diseases
from other areas during the transportation of feed supplies.
························································································
Smallholder farmers may benefit from organic matterprovided by livestock, either in feed camps or when they
are brought to graze crop residues.

4. Supporting
preparedness and early
actionThe timely procurement, transport and pre-positioning offeed resources is essential for effective interventions.
························································································
Support for haymaking and irrigated fodder production canstrengthen resilience during non-emergency phases andincrease preparedness. Communities can also benefit fromearly warning systems and fully functional contingency
funds that can be activated when required.
························································································
Early interventions reduce livestock stress and support
animal welfare.

5. Ensuring coordinatedresponses

All interventions should be appropriately coordinated toensure efficient use is made of all available resources, aswell as integration with broader humanitarian assistance.
························································································
Complementary and coordinated interventions, including
livestock offtake, veterinary support, and water, increase
the effectiveness of all technical interventions.
continued over144

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in livestock
feed interventions

6. Supporting
gender-sensitive
programming

Women, men and youth should participate fully in eachstage of the intervention: design, implementation andmanagement, as well as monitoring, evaluation,accountability and learning (MEAL). This will avoid
gender-bias in the targeting of appropriate livestock types
and the numbers of participating households. Special
attention should be given to women-/child-headedhouseholds, who may be overlooked.

7. Supporting local
ownership

Feed interventions should identify potential for localising
the intervention as much as possible. This includes local
production, local transporters and warehouse operators,
and also local staffing and management of feed camps.

8. Committing to MEAL

Routine monitoring of the provision of livestock feed isnecessary to ensure cost-effective and quality supply,
effective distribution systems, and adequate
rations/nutrition levels for selected livestock.
························································································
Benefit-cost analysis of the provision of livestock feedversus other emergency responses is important.
Evaluations to promote accountability and the sharing of
positive and negative results from feed interventions arealso essential.

Targeting at-risk groups
Research in southern Africa confirms that during drought emergencies,
poorer livestock keepers lose more of their livestock (as a proportion of theirherds) than richer livestock keepers. They also spend more per animal on
average to protect them. It is therefore important for interventions to ensurethat poorer livestock keepers (with fewer livestock per household) receive anadequate share of livestock feed resources. This can be done through theappropriate design and management of emergency feed interventions.
Where such controls are inadequate, feed resources are typically diverted by
the wealthy and influential, who secure disproportionate amounts for theirown animals. While no less at risk, such households have access to greater
resources to protect and provide for their livestock. At another level,
inadequate controls may encourage non-livestock keepers to divert whole
shipments of livestock feed for sale to other livestock keepers.
145

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

Supporting local capacities and coping strategies
Livestock-keeping communities affected by emergencies invariably draw ontheir knowledge, skills and capacities to respond. In anticipation of seasonal
floods, smallholder farmers may move their livestock from flood plains tohigher ground. Additional livestock may be saved when timely and clear
official alerts are issued, with smallholder farmers moving their animals tosafety in anticipation. Where such alerts are not given, large releases ofwater from dams can result not only in the loss of field crops but also of
livestock, and damage to livestock-related infrastructure too.
Similarly, during the onset of drought, pastoralists may trek their livestock toprotected drought reserves. When these fail, they may trek again to areas
less affected by drought. To support such long-distance treks, pastoralists
tap into extended social networks. Increasingly too, they have to negotiatewith local and national governments. The African Union and sub-African
regional economic groups are progressively recognising the huge economic
benefits reaped from supporting livestock mobility. In West Africa, forexample, cross-border mobility rights are enshrined in law through pastoral
codes and the demarcation of livestock migratory routes. Support formobility, including customary cross-border mobility, helps strengthen local
coping strategies – as many pastoral areas of the world are located nearinternational borders. However, this kind of support needs to consider
security risks for livestock keepers, relations with host communities(including competition for available livestock feed), and increased threats
from the spread of livestock diseases. Hence, external support to customary
relocation strategies requires thorough assessment and analysis before it
can be adopted as an intervention.
Immediately after an emergency, it is not uncommon for livestock keepers tosell older and very young animals (see Chapter 8: Livestock offtake). They
may also prevent remaining animals from breeding, to protect females fromthe nutritional demands made by unborn young.
Recognising the importance of local capacities and coping strategies, it isimportant for external agencies to follow local guidance and to support andconsolidate local knowledge, skills and capacities (see LEGS Principle 7:
Local ownership).
Further specific examples of livestock keepers’ knowledge and skills arehighlighted in the key actions and guidance notes below.

146

4Technical standards
Livestock feed

Minimising the introduction of pests and diseases
During an emergency livestock feed intervention, it may be necessary toimport feed from another area (though preferably not from another country).
During such interventions, seeds of invasive plants, pests and diseases may
be transported and introduced. To minimise risk, it is important to ensure
independent quality assurance and high-quality phytosanitary management
at the point of purchase and dispatch.

Considering disruption of local markets
While recognising the benefits of emergency livestock feeding, it is importantthe intervention does not interrupt local livestock feed systems and markets.
Interventions should give priority to sourcing livestock feed locally andsupporting local suppliers (for example in the district/region). In this way,
local feed systems and markets can continue to support livestock production
after the emergency feed intervention is ended (see Process case study:
Animal feed banks in Niger for drought preparedness, described above).
A market assessment will help determine the best option and approach.
Such an assessment would clarify the amount of feed that can be purchased
and over what time interval without negatively affecting prices and supplies.
In some emergencies, it may be necessary to develop a hybrid model toensure continuity of supply, purchasing some feed resources locally, while
importing others.
By using cash- and voucher-based approaches, agencies can help supportand strengthen local livestock feed markets. As already indicated, this will
also help support continued improvements to livestock production after the
emergency has ended.

Camps
Displaced livestock keepers may arrive in Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)
or refugee camps with some of their livestock. Once resident, they may alsoacquire new animals. IDPs and refugees living with livestock require
additional support so they can feed and water their animals (see Chapter 5:
Water). They will also need essential animal healthcare (see Chapter 6:
Veterinary support).
The host community may also include livestock keepers. In this situation, thearrival of large numbers of additional livestock into the area is likely to put
further strain on available livestock feed and water resources. This may result
in competition that can erupt into conflict. To help ensure good relations with147

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

the displaced community, it may be helpful to also provide the hostcommunity with some supplementary livestock feed or animal healthcare.
Within the camp too, men and women with livestock require additional space
to ensure that the immediate area does not become soiled (see Chapter 7:
Shelter). In some cases, it may be helpful to relocate households withlivestock to areas with more space and access to pasture and feed
resources. In this way, possible tensions with the host community and withother displaced communities can be avoided.
The arrival of additional livestock in the area is not entirely negative. In someareas, smallholder farmers may welcome the opportunity to have livestock
grazing crop residues post-harvest, as this improves soil fertility through theaddition of organic matter.

Decision tree for livestock feed
options
The decision tree (Figure 4.1) summarises some of the key questions to
consider in determining which may be the most feasible and appropriate
option for an emergency livestock feed intervention. The standards, key
actions and guidance notes that follow provide more information for detailed
planning. Where possible, they build on preparedness activities conductedprior to the onset of the emergency, or in ‘normal’ times.

148

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

Figure 4.1: Decision tree for livestock feed options
Key:

Are livestock endangered
due to an emergency affecting
livestock feed resources?

Yes

No

Actions

Can appropriate livestock feed resources be sourced
and transported cost-effectively?

Are sufﬁcient funds available to achieve agreed livestock production
outcomes for an agreed number of households and livestock from a feedintervention through the duration of the emergency?

Is it possible to agree with male and female customary andcommunity leaders which households are highly dependent on
livestock and can beneﬁt from a livestock feed intervention?

Are women-headed households and households from marginal groups
appropriately represented?

Can local suppliers be supported to procure, transport, store andmake available adequate resources?

Can local suppliers
be supported to
implement cashor voucher-based
interventions?

Are direct feed
transfers feasible?

Is it appropriate and safe
to deliver feed resources toindividual households?

Home-based emergency feeding

No action* (unlessoutstanding questions
can be addressed)

Is there adequate local
support and capacity
to establish a feed camp?

Feed camp emergency feeding
For feed camp options
continue to next page149

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

Continued from
Feed camp emergency feedingon previous page

Can livestock be returned home easily
and safely each day after feeding?

In-out feed
camp system

Can more effective use be madeof resources in a camp setting?

Residential feed
camp system

No action* (unless outstanding
questions can be addressed)*The result ‘No action’ does not necessarily mean that no intervention shouldtake place, but rather that further training or capacity strengthening may berequired in order to be able to answer ‘yes’ to the key questions.

150

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

The standards
Standard 1: Preparedness
Preparedness activities are undertaken in advance of theemergency to ensure the timely procurement, transport andpre-positioning of feed resources.

Key actions• Undertake participatory assessments that consider local livestock ownerknowledge and skills, and local adaptive and coping strategies (seeGuidance note 1).
• Conduct a thorough pre-intervention availability assessment to identify
potential local sources of feed and analyse the level of risk of market
disruption (see Guidance note 2).
• Where feeds will need to be sourced externally and stockpiled, identify
pre-approved suppliers with reliable and sustainable sources, giving due
consideration to quality and price (see Guidance note 3).
• Conduct proper security assessments along proposed feed supply routes
and the areas of distribution (see Guidance note 4).
• Identify implementing agencies that have adaptable administrative
systems and procurement processes to allow them to purchase feed
efficiently and effectively (see Guidance note 5).
• Identify locally recognised community and/or administration structuresthat will be able to ensure fair and transparent distribution approaches(see Guidance note 6).
• Consider the wider policy constraints that might affect access to feed inemergencies, and advocate for customary strategies (see Guidancenote 7).

Guidance notes
1. Local coping strategies
For pastoralists, mobility is the primary livelihood strategy for accessing
widely dispersed seasonal grazing and water. In times of drought, mobility is
typically extended further and involves the trekking of livestock to remotegrazing areas. It may even involve moving across international borders intoneighbouring countries. In some cases, pastoralists transport livestock long
distances in lorries. There is little evidence to demonstrate the impact of151

4

Technical standards
Livestock feedagency support for enhancing migration to improve livestock survival rates.
However, the protection of migratory routes will almost certainly help
improve the overall resilience of pastoral production systems. Emergency
feed response plans can enable local livestock keepers to gain recognitionand provide support for their well-established adaptive and coping
strategies, such as mobility.
Most smallholder farmers collect and store crop residues during the harvest
season. These can be fed to livestock during the next dry/cold season, whennaturally occurring livestock feed is limited. During emergencies, they may
not be able to collect and store crop residues, or the amounts they have will
be inadequate. Support for livestock offtake and provision of feed will help
smallholder farmers balance animal numbers and availability of livestockfeed.
2. Availability of local feeds
The pre-identification of locally available livestock feed offers significant
advantages over imported feeds:• Cost: Locally available feeds are typically less expensive (althoughpurchase costs may be higher in the local area immediately affected by
the emergency).
• Transport costs: Shorter distances result in reduced transport costs.
• Transport losses: Shorter distances reduce the likelihood of theft anddamage/wastage during transportation where feed is loaded andunloaded on multiple occasions.
• Disruptions that result from imported feeds ‘seeping’ into local markets,
are avoided.
• Cash may be injected into the local economy through feed purchases.
• Local labour: There may be increased opportunities for the use of local
labour in the harvest, transport, storage and distribution of locallyprocured livestock feed.
• Local capacity: Support for local feed producers and markets can help
drive innovation.

On the other hand, local procurement may also result in competition between
agencies, local feed suppliers and local livestock keepers for available feed
resources. Typically, such competition results in quality compromise, inflated
feed prices and distorted markets that in turn draw imports into the area.

152

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

3. Sourcing feeds externally and stockpiling
Some emergency feeding programmes may benefit from the use ofconcentrate feeds with specific nutritional formulations or MNBs, whichcannot be sourced locally. In rare cases, these may have to be sourced from
cities or even, in some cases, neighbouring countries as a short-term
measure. To ensure the safe delivery of high-value feeds, appropriate
transport and infrastructure must be available. To further minimise potential
risks, interventions should include the following:• arranging adequate in-country storage facilities and pre-positioning offeed to allow stockpiling and cover for interruptions to deliveries(stockpiling is, however, not without risks of pilfering as well as feed
contamination or degradation; effective feed store management is key);• identifying and using more than one supply chain so that the failure of one
does not completely disrupt the intervention;• assessing the availability of local alternatives for short-term use as astopgap; for example, locally sourced high-protein cottonseed or oilseed
cakes, mixed with crop by-products and naturally available cactus andProsopis pods, might be an effective substitute for costly imported
concentrates (see Process case study: Using invasive plants for animal
feed in Sudan);• adopting more modest nutritional and production objectives for an
emergency feeding programme that might be satisfied using locallyavailable mixed feed.

4. Security
Minimising security risks to community members and staff in the
procurement, storage, transport and distribution of livestock feed takes
precedence in the delivery of all emergency livestock feed interventions (seeChapter 2: LEGS Principles on the Sphere Protection Principles). It should
therefore be part of preparedness planning. Most international agencies
have well-established security guidelines, and many collaborate with security
companies to ensure the well-being of their staff. In contrast, local agencies
with more limited resources find it difficult to achieve a similar level ofprotection. In complex emergencies, international organisations may partnerwith these smaller, less well-resourced agencies that are on the front line.
Agencies may reduce risks by contracting local transporters andpre-approving them to deliver to the final point of distribution. The reason for
the reduced risk is that such contractors typically have strong social
networks.

153

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

5. Administrative systems
Agencies with restrictive procurement systems that do not easily allow feedpurchase from small-scale suppliers may need to upgrade theiradministrative systems. It may be possible, for example, under an agency’s
emergency preparedness planning process, to develop a preferred suppliers
list and to support due diligence checks.
6. Distribution structures
Where possible, the distribution of daily or weekly feed rations should bemanaged by men and women representing local community structures andinstitutions. Customary elders (including men and women) should help recruit
reliable local staff and assist agencies to target participating households.
7. Policy/advocacy context
Preparedness activities should include a thorough policy assessment thattakes account of possible obstacles to the purchase, transport and deliveryof livestock feed, particularly in emergency contexts (for example, restrictions
on moving livestock feed across national and district boundaries). Where
local coping strategies exist but are not being used, an analysis of hindering
forces can also help identify the constraints and prevent an inappropriate
intervention. Advocacy may also help reinstate such strategies. For
example, it may be possible in the non-emergency phase of drought andflood emergencies for interventions to help establish drought/flood reserves
as part of a wider preparedness plan. In this way, a feed intervention canhelp address chronic livestock feed shortages, support unintended positive
outcomes and gain increased levels of local engagement and ownership (seeProcess case study: Animal feed banks in Niger for drought preparedness).

Standard 2: Assessment and planning
Assessment of options for the provision of emergency livestock
feed is informed by the role livestock play in local livelihoods;
livestock feed needs; and the opportunities for delivering anappropriate intervention.

Key actions• Initiate emergency livestock feed interventions only where there is a highprobability that affected communities will continue to keep and benefit
from livestock after the emergency has ended (see Guidance note 1).
154

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

• Select key livestock assets for feeding based on an analysis of theirimportance in local livelihoods, their health status, the chance of theirsurviving the emergency and their longer-term usefulness in rebuilding
livestock assets in the future (see Guidance note 2).
• Where it is necessary to establish feed camps, ensure appropriate
security, ease of access (for livestock and livestock keepers), and storage
facilities for feed and livestock medicines. Ensure too that logistics andresources are sufficient to support the camp for the duration of theemergency. Management of both livestock and feed resources should
also support the earliest possible return to normal livestock-keeping
practices (see Guidance note 3).
• Explore the use of CVA during the initial assessment (see Guidancenote 4).
• Consider linking with other emergency interventions such as childnutrition, livestock offtake, provision of water for livestock, and veterinary
support (see Guidance note 5).

Guidance notes
1. Affected communities continue to keep livestock
Some men and women affected by the emergency may be at risk of losing all
their livestock assets. This may be either through the direct loss of animals
or a reduction in household capacity through injury, ill health, migration ordeath. Or they may no longer be able to keep (or be interested in keeping)
livestock. Therefore, before launching an emergency livestock feedintervention, it is important to be sure that participating households want tocontinue to keep livestock. Community-led household targeting will identify
those most likely to benefit in the medium and longer term from theemergency livestock feed intervention. Others who will not benefit should be
provided with alternative assistance.
2. Targeting livestock
Some animal types are better adapted to coping with and recovering fromfeed and water shortages than others. Camelids and goats, for example, arefar better at surviving drought conditions than cattle and sheep. It may
therefore be strategic for interventions to target camelids and goats, and in
this way support the transition to more drought-resistant animal types.
Reference has already been made to the need to target core breeding
animals. It may also be appropriate for interventions to target working
animals that continue to carry water or supplies (including fodder) during
emergencies. Once the animal type and number have been agreed, however,155

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

livestock keepers themselves should be supported to select the individual
animals that will participate in the intervention.
3. Feed camps
Establishing feed camps requires significant investment (both financial andin-kind contributions). So it is important that local institutions and potential
participants are fully involved in all design and planning phases. Issues to beconsidered include whether available resources are adequate for the
anticipated duration of the emergency feeding intervention, security,
accessibility and exposure/shelter.
Management issues similarly should be addressed in an inclusive andparticipatory manner. These issues include construction of campinfrastructure (feed and water troughs/racks); handling systems for sickanimals; the management of feed stores; the daily handling of feed andwater; the provision of animal health services; and staff accountability
procedures. Where at all possible, overall managerial responsibility for feed
camps should be under local community control, with external technicalsupport as needed (see Process case study: Women help manage a nucleus
herd feeding programme in Ethiopia).
4. Use of cash and vouchers
CVA schemes work well for households with limited storage capacity.
However, they should be living in areas where livestock feed markets areworking well, and where quality feed resources are available. Vouchers are
particularly useful in ensuring regular access to fresh feed. Whileappropriate, there are potential challenges. For example, traders may findthemselves on the receiving end of inflated prices as producers seek toinflate profits. Careful monitoring of feed availability, quality and cost istherefore required to ensure that cash and voucher mechanisms cancontinue and also ensure value for money. For local traders and suppliers
involved in voucher schemes, an additional small financial incentive may beappreciated for their administrative time.
5. Complementary programming
Where appropriate, the provision of livestock feed may be integrated into a
broader programme of humanitarian assistance that includes child nutrition,
livestock offtake, and the provision of water and veterinary support.
Appendix 4.1: Assessment checklist for feed provision contains a checklist to
guide the assessment and planning process.

156

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

Standard 3: Feeding levels
Levels of emergency feeding should ensure livestock survival,
meet agreed production outcomes, and be sustainable over thelife of the intervention.

Key actions• Determine feeding levels for the intervention with reference to planned
nutritional aims for different livestock types (see Guidance notes 1 and 2).
• Ensure feeding levels by the intervention are both attainable andsustainable (see Guidance note 2).
• Where the loss of feed markets and stores represents an immediate or
short-term threat to future livestock production, replenish reserves as partof the emergency livestock feed intervention (see Guidance note 3).
4

Guidance notes
1. Nutritional adequacy
This concept recognises the difference between a maintenance diet – which
will keep an animal alive – and a production diet. The latter will support
growth, sustain a pregnancy, or support milk/egg production or draught
animal work. A maintenance diet for a small ruminant, however, will be very
different from a maintenance diet for a cow or a camel. For details ofdifferent definitions, feed components and suggested diets (including forequids, poultry and pigs) see FAO (2016), Chapter 6.
The higher the livestock production level, the more costly the intervention.
Hence, the higher the production level, the smaller the number of animals it
will be possible to feed and protect, and the shorter the duration of the
response. Given a choice, most livestock keepers will likely choose to protect
more animals and therefore agree to a reduced-value diet. However, if there
are nutritional benefits for children from continued milk production, it may bepossible to justify increased spending and support for a production diet.
2. Feed budgeting
Planning the quantities of feed involves balancing the daily feed requirementsof the participating animals, the purchase and transport costs, the durationof the planned feed intervention, and the intervention budget, as follows:• daily feed requirements – the daily feed needs of different animal types,
based on the planned nutritional aims of the intervention as describedunder Guidance note 1;
157

Technical standards
Livestock feed

• available feed resources – the quantities of different feeds available locallyor transported from other areas;• purchase price – the cost per unit;• transport cost – the distance from the source of feed to the final point ofdelivery (the central store or distribution points, in other words), and thecost per unit;• provision of feeding bowls and measuring tins – to ensure the best use ismade of available feed resources;• duration – the duration of the proposed programme;• budget – the financial resources available for the intervention;• people/staff required to deliver the intervention.

Based on the above information, it is possible to determine the number ofanimals that can be supported through the intervention. Where resources arelimited, it may be necessary to reduce the number of participating animals,
the duration of feeding or the nutritional aims. The alternative is to seek
additional funding.
3. Feed store replenishment
Rapid-onset or complex emergencies may destroy livestock feed stores anddisrupt feed markets and supply lines. Where these losses immediately
threaten livestock survival or continued production, interventions can include
the reconstruction of stores and the replenishment of supply lines. This
ensures the protection of key livestock assets, and their continued
production.

Standard 4: Feed safety
Where feed is purchased from outside the affected area, proper
sanitary, phytosanitary, and other aspects of feed safety ensure
the delivery of quality feed resources.

Key actions• Assess risk levels in local livestock populations, and naturally occurring
pasture and forage sources, to imported pests, diseases, and vectors(see Guidance note 1).
• Screen feed materials at the point of purchase for significant pests,
diseases, and other sources of contamination (see Guidance note 2).
158

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

• Implement appropriate measures to ensure that vehicles and storage
facilities are clean and sanitary (see Guidance note 3).

Guidance notes
1. Risk assessments
It may be difficult to undertake a risk assessment during an emergency.
Nevertheless, this is both necessary and important before committing to an
emergency livestock feed intervention. Where the risks associated with aparticular feed source are deemed high, it may be better to redesign theintervention and source feed resources elsewhere.
It is important to document practices and lessons of emergency feedinterventions, to ensure that lessons are learned (see Chapter 3: Emergency
response planning, section on MEAL).
2. Quality control
Wherever it is sourced, all emergency livestock feed must be quality assured.
This includes visual checks for weed seeds, pests, dust, sand, soil particles,
and metals; and laboratory checks for microscopic fungal growth, including
aflatoxin contamination. Feed samples tested in a laboratory should also be
tested for dry matter, crude fibre, mineral matter, crude protein, crude fat,and calcium content (particularly important for lactating animals).
3. Sanitary procedures
It is generally better to ensure that quality control measures are carried out at
the point of purchase and dispatch rather than at the point of delivery. As aminimum, quality control measures should include the following:• Quality assurance: Receive and file quality assurance papers from the
supplier, and ensure feed products are appropriately bagged and labelled
before transport.
• Washing and airing: Between loads, all lorries/trucks and storage facilities
need to be washed and aired.
• Record keeping: To avoid cross-contamination, keep records of materials
carried by lorries/trucks. For example, livestock feed should never betransported in trucks that have previously carried hazardous materials
such as agrochemicals, glass, lubricants or scrap metal.
• Minimal contact: Keep human contact with emergency livestock feed to aminimum. Community members should not, for example, be transported
on lorries that are also transporting livestock feed.

159

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

• Protection: When being transported, all livestock feed should be coveredby waterproof tarpaulins or covers to avoid dust and rain.
• Timelines: Transport and storage times should be kept to a minimum.

4160

Technical standards
Livestock feed

Appendices
Appendix 4.1: Assessment checklist for feed provisionThis checklist can be used during rapid initial assessments to help inform theappropriateness and design of emergency livestock feed interventions.
For all emergency feed interventions
Rations and nutritional quality• Have daily feed rations been developed that are appropriate to thespecific production objectives of the feed intervention? See FAO (2016),
p. 95.
• Does the planned feed regime take full account of the logistical difficulties
that may be encountered when attempting to deliver to target
communities?
• Do these feed rations take realistic account of available budgets?
4

Feed safety• Are feed quality assurance and standard operating procedures in place?
• Have feed quality assessments been conducted, including for possible
weed seed, pests, diseases and other feed contaminants that increaserisks associated with the intervention?
• Are the quality control measures (for example, routinely taking samples toa laboratory for analysis) for screening feeds adequate?
• Are storage times for feeds consistent with maintaining feed safety,
quality, and warehouse management?
• Are proper procedures in place for ensuring adequate standards ofcleanliness both for vehicles used for transporting feeds and for storage
facilities?

Sourcing and distribution of feeds• Are the agencies’ administrative systems flexible enough to meet theneeds of a continuing feed supply intervention?
• Where possible, has feed been sourced locally to minimise production
and transport costs, and to support local producers, traders and otherbusinesses?
• Where feeds are sourced locally, have steps been taken to ensure that
other stakeholder groups are not put at risk as a result?

161

Technical standards
Livestock feed

• Has provision been made for the replenishment of depleted feed stores
during the recovery phase?
• Can opportunities for backloading (for example, livestock offtake) be
identified to ensure trucks carry loads both into and out of affected areas,so increasing the efficiency of the distribution system?
• Are transport routes, warehouse and distribution networks adequately
protected from security risks?

For emergency feed camps
Acceptability of feed camp and identiﬁcation of affected communities• Are the local community, their representatives and local administration
actively participating in the intervention and regularly consulted?
• Have participating households (both male- and female-headed) been fully
and appropriately informed of what the planned feed camp can – andcannot – offer, and the terms under which they would participate?
• Have potential participating men and women been properly informed
about the risks to which they might be exposed because of participatingin the initiative?
• Are potential participating households likely to be able to meet thedemands of participation (such as providing labour for overseeing
animals)?
• Are proper procedures in place for identifying participating households
and the most appropriate animal types to be targeted by theestablishment of a feed camp?

Logistics and management• Can construction and other materials necessary for establishing the feed
camp be sourced locally or transported to the site at an acceptable cost,time and with minimal risk?
• Are adequate supplies of feed and water available or deliverable for thelevel of occupancy envisaged for the camp?
• Can appropriate support services be provided, such as animal health?
• Are there managers with appropriate levels of skills and commitment
available to run the camp?
• Are management structures in place that can address the needs andconcerns of all local stakeholders?
• Can adequate levels of staffing be put in place for the camp? (Where
possible, labour inputs should include participating communities.)
162

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

Appendix 4.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators forlivestock feed interventions

Designing theintervention

Implementation

Process indicators(measure things
happening)

Impact indicators (measure theresult of things happening)

Number of meetings
with livestock keepers,
community
representatives andother stakeholders,
including, where
relevant, private sector
suppliers

Roles and responsibilities of different
actors·······················································
Approach for feed provision,
including procurement, transport,
and distribution·······················································
Community engagement in selecting
participating households and number
and type of livestock to receive feed·······················································
Community involvement in managing
livestock to receive feed (e.g. invillage-based feeding centres)Amount and value of
feed procured anddelivered to feed sites···································
Number and type of
livestock receiving feed···································
Amount of feed by typeof animal per day···································
Duration of feeding···································
Tendering process –procurement andtransport···································
Administrative systemthat supports local
purchases···································
Availability assessment···································
Security assessment···································Cash and vouchers

Comparative body condition scoresof animals receiving versus notreceiving feed·······················································
Mortality rates in animals receiving
versus not receiving feed·······················································
Changes in child nutrition·······················································
Changes in women’s/girls’ timerequirements in collecting feed·······················································
Evidence of influence onhumanitarian policy·······················································
Reference to feed quality, quality
assurance and compliance withquality phytosanitary standards –point of purchase, transport, storage,
and delivery to end point/user·······················································
Routine use of laboratory analysis·······················································
Quality assessments

continued over163

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

Process indicators(measure things
happening)
Implementation(continued)

Impact indicators (measure theresult of things happening)
Local purchases·······················································
Security incidents·······················································
Local administrative
systems/institutions·······················································
Inclusivity of local structures·······················································
Cash/vouchers4164

Technical standards
Livestock feed

References and further reading
Ayantunde, A.A., Fernández-Rivera, S., and McCrabb, G. (eds) (2005) Coping with Feed Scarcity in
Smallholder Livestock Systems in Developing Countries, International Livestock Research Institute(ILRI), Nairobi, http://mahider.ilri.org/handle/10568/855
Bekele, G. and Abera, T. (2008) Livelihoods-based Drought Response in Ethiopia: Impact Assessmentof Livestock Feed Supplementation, Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, Digital Collections
and Archives, Medford, MA, http://hdl.handle.net/10427/71144
Bekele, G., Ali, T. E., Regassa, G. and Buono, N. (2014) ‘Impact of goat feeding and animal healthcare
on child milk access in Ethiopia’, Field Exchange 47, p72, https://www.ennonline.net/fex/47/goatCatley, A. (ed.) (2007) Impact Assessment of Livelihoods-based Drought Interventions in Moyale andDire Woredas, Ethiopia, Pastoralists Livelihoods Initiative, Feinstein International Center, Tufts
University, Medford, MA, together with CARE, Save the Children USA, and USAID-Ethiopia,
https://fic.tufts.edu/assets/IMPACT1-2.pdf
Catley, A., Admassu, B., Bekele, G. and Abebe, D. (2014) ‘Livestock mortality in pastoralist herds in
Ethiopia and implications for drought response’, Disasters 38(3): 500–516 https://doi.org/10.1111/
disa.12060
Cullis, A. (2021) Understanding the Livestock Economy in South Sudan: ﬁeld study ﬁndings, TANA
Copenhagen, https://tanacopenhagen.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Field-Report.pdf
FAO (2021) Pastoralist Knowledge Hub https://www.fao.org/pastoralist-knowledge-hub/en/
FAO (2016) Livestock-related interventions during emergencies – The how-to-do-it manual. Edited byPhilippe Ankers, Suzan Bishop, Simon Mack and Klaas Dietze. FAO Animal Production and Health
Manual No. 18. Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/i5904e/i5904e.pdf (See Chapter 6)
Gebru, G., Yousif, H., Adam, A., Negesse, B. and Young, H. (2013) Livestock, Livelihoods, andDisaster Response, Part Two: Three Case Studies of Livestock Emergency Programmes in Sudan, andLessons Learned, Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, Medford, MA, https://ﬁc.tufts.edu/
publication-item/livestock-livelihoods-and-disaster-response-part-two-2/
Goe, M.R. (2001a) Assessment of the scope of earthquake damage to the livestock sector in Gujarat
State, India, Consultancy Mission Report, FAO, Bangkok/Rome.
Goe, M.R. (2001b) Relief and rehabilitation activities for the livestock sector in earthquake affectedareas of Kachchh District, Gujarat State, India, Technical Cooperation Project Proposal, FAO,
Rome/Bangkok.
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and SOS Sahel UK (2009) Modern andMobile: The Future of Livestock Production in Africa’s Drylands, de Jode, H (ed), IIED and SOS Sahel
UK, London, https://pubs.iied.org/12565iiedKrätli, S. (2015) Valuing Variability: New Perspectives on Climate Resilient Drylands Development, deJode, H (ed), IIED, https://pubs.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/10128IIED.pdf
LEGS (2018) Revisiting the economic impacts of early drought response: How does early response
affect households in pastoralist area? LEGS Briefing Paper, prepared by A. Catley, LEGS
https://www.livestock-emergency.net/general-resources-legs-specific/
Ngaka, M.J., 2012, ‘Drought preparedness, impact and response: a case of the Eastern Cape andFree State provinces of South Africa’, Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 4(1), Art. 47,
https://jamba.org.za/index.php/jamba/article/view/47

165

4

Technical standards
Livestock feed

PASTRES: Pastoralism, Uncertainty, Resilience [website], https://pastres.org
Sadler, K., Mitchard, E., Abdulahi, A., Shiferaw, Y., Bekele, G. and Catley, A. (2012) Milk Matters: The
Impact of Dry Season Livestock Support on Milk Supply and Child Nutrition in Somali Region,
Ethiopia, Feinstein International Center, Tufts University and Save the Children, Addis Ababa,
http://fic.tufts.edu/publication-item/milk-matters/
Samanta, A.K., Ali, Y., Jahan, F.N. and Hossain, B. (eds) (2021) Feeding and Health Care for Livestock
During Natural Calamities, South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation, Dhaka, Bangladesh,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kuenga-Namgay/publication/351476488_Feeding_and_healthcare_of_livestock_during_natural_calamities_in_Bhutan/links/6099f743299bf1ad8d90ac0a/
Feeding-and-healthcare-of-livestock-during-natural-calamities-in-Bhutan.pdf

See also case studies for feed interventions in emergencies at: https://www.livestock-emergency.
net/resources/case-studies/4

166

Technical standards
Livestock feed4167

Technical standards
Provision of water

168Chapter 5: Technicalstandards for theprovision of water
170

Introduction

173

Options for water provision

177

Timing of interventions

178

Links to other LEGS chapters and other HSP standards

179

LEGS Principles and other issues to consider

183

Decision tree for water provision options

186

The standards

199

Appendix 5.1: Assessment checklist for water points

201

Appendix 5.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators
for water provision

202

Appendix 5.3: Considerations for water point management

203

References and further reading

Photo © Kelley Lynch
169

Technical standards
Provision of water

Chapter 5: Technicalstandards for theprovision of waterStandard 1
Preparedness

Standard 2
Assessment andplanning

Option 1
Water points

Option 2
Water trucking

Standard 3
Location of water
pointsStandard 5
Sources and quality
for water trucking

Standard 4
Rehabilitation andestablishmentof water points

Standard 6
Logistics anddistribution
for water trucking

Introduction
Water, alongside feed and veterinary services, is an essential element thatkeeps animals alive within all types of husbandry systems. Productive
animals are extremely vulnerable to disruptions in their water supply. In theabsence of water, most animals (except for some camelids) cannot survive
170

5Technical standards
Provision of water

for more than a few days. When emergencies result in the loss of natural
water sources, or physical damage to artificial water sources, access towater becomes a critical issue for livestock-keeping communities.
Emergency responses that support the provision of water keep livestock
alive. They also ensure livestock productivity is retained for crisis-affectedhouseholds (for example, through the supply of milk and eggs). The technicaloptions available for water provision vary depending on whether the
emergency is slow-onset or rapid-onset. Pre-emergency preparedness
ensures that assistance or support that targets existing water supplies, or
focuses on trucking in water from outside areas, is undertaken effectively.
Preparedness also means that support will not create further challenges for
affected communities.
This chapter presents information on the importance of providing water as alivestock emergency response. It also presents the technical options forwater interventions and the associated benefits and challenges of each.
Information is also available in Chapter 7, ‘Provision of water’, in FAO (2016).
For each technical option, LEGS provides information through standards,
key actions and guidance notes. Checklists for assessment, as well as
monitoring and evaluation indicators, are presented in the appendices at theend of this chapter. A list of further reading is also provided. Case studies
are presented on the LEGS website (see https://www.livestock-emergency.
net/case-studies).

Links to the LEGS livelihoods objectives
The provision of water for livestock in an emergency ensures the survival of
livestock assets during and beyond the emergency. It relates to all three ofthe LEGS livelihoods objectives:• Healthy livestock contribute to household food security. So the provisionof water relates to the first LEGS livelihoods objective by supporting
crisis-affected communities to obtain immediate beneﬁts using
existing livestock resources.
• As with the provision of feed, livestock vital to livelihoods are kept alive by
the provision of water during emergencies. This therefore relates to thesecond LEGS objective, to protect key livestock assets.
• In addition, the intervention supports existing and new livestock assets
through preventive, resilience-strengthening measures. These include thetimely rehabilitation of water points and water sources to maximise
capacity for storage and access. This is therefore in line with the third
LEGS livelihoods objective, to rebuild key livestock assets.
171

5

Technical standards
Provision of water

The importance of the provision of water for livestock in emergency
response
During emergencies, where water sources have been seriously
compromised, the provision of water is an extremely important intervention.
It is also critical to get it right, as poorly considered responses can lead toenvironmental degradation and the exacerbation of conflict.
In many communities, access to water for livestock is often extremely
variable: a reflection of the pre-existing climatic conditions as well as
inadequate public supplies. In the semi-arid and arid environments that
support low/highland pastoralism or mixed farming systems across Africa
and Asia, water supply is highly seasonal. Drought is a major factor, causing
a slow-onset emergency that frequently combines with conflict to create acomplex emergency. Tropical and subtropical climates have relatively highrainfall and more reliable year-round water supply. Here, rapid-onset
emergencies (such as earthquakes, but also floods) are more likely to cause
loss of water access. These losses occur through damage to water supply
facilities as well as water pollution through sewage, rubbish, silt, mud andcarcasses. (Earthquakes in more arid areas, including Pakistan, Iran and
Afghanistan, can also become complex emergencies when combined withconflict.)
In many dry areas, livestock water points (including boreholes, wells anddams) are now increasingly unable to support levels of demand. Water point
degradation results from chronic decreases in the water table, lack ofmaintenance or spare parts, intentional destruction, failed management, andhigher concentrations of animals. Long-term development to reduce fragile
and intermittent water access is often a complicated and highly contested
issue, linked to regional and national economic, energy and agricultural
policies. Within agriculture, the long-term water policy trend is towards
commercialisation, privatisation and large-scale irrigation, creating further
challenges for communities.
When responding to critical shortages in livestock water supply as part of an
emergency intervention, implementing agencies need to be aware of thecauses and broader issues in water access. They must also recognise thevery limited window for action if livestock are to survive. Preparedness is
crucial.

172

5Technical standards
Provision of water

While water for livestock must meet some basic quality requirements, thequality standard is not as high as it is for human consumption. Livestock canmake use of water that is unfit for humans. For specific animal daily water
quantity and quality requirements, see FAO (2016).
The provision of water also contributes to the first of the five animal welfare
domains, namely, ‘nutrition’ – factors that involve the animal’s access to
sufficient, balanced, varied and clean food and water. This is described in
Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS.

Options for water provision
As a general rule interventions should be based on the most cost-effective
and sustainable option for water provision. Rehabilitating or establishing new
water points often offers the most viable, long-term solution to water
shortages, assuming that their use is in line with LEGS Principle 3:
Environmental protection. However, when the need to deliver water is acute,an intervention may have to include expensive and unsustainable methods
such as water trucking, at least for the short term. Despite the initial highcosts, providing trucked water is more economically viable than replacing
lost livestock assets, and may be the more feasible option.
Delivery mechanisms such as vouchers, mobile money or cash payments –conditional or unconditional, restricted or unrestricted – may be appropriate
and cost-effective for water provision. Depending on the market andavailability, livestock keepers may use them to purchase private sector,
community-owned or other livestock water supplies. (See Chapter 3:
Emergency response planning for details on cash and voucher assistance –CVA.) However, direct cost recovery from affected communities should also
be considered. Humanitarian organisations now increasingly encourage
affected communities to make payments directly so that existing payment
systems for water are not undermined. This direct payment option should be
explored for both water points and water provision via trucking. Doing so ismore likely to lead to a more sustainable delivery chain than externallyprovided funding.

Option 1: Water points
Water points for livestock take several different forms, including wells,
boreholes, and surface water harvesting systems (for example, check dams
and storage tanks). Urban mains supplies may also be used.

173

5

Technical standards
Provision of water

During an emergency, the intervention may secure access to water points forlivestock keepers in one of three ways:
1. changing the management of existing water points to provide broader
access to crisis-affected communities;
2. rehabilitating existing but degraded water points;
3. establishing new water points.
Each of these approaches can present difficulties. While the first approach
could be implemented for the lowest cost, it may not be feasible due toinsufficient water supply. Or it may not be feasible because of thecomplexities of meeting the needs of existing users as well as new users
from crisis-affected communities. In slow-onset emergencies, rehabilitationof degraded water points may be appropriate as a preparedness
intervention. In rapid-onset emergencies, there may not be sufficient time forrehabilitation, unless the work required for improving water availability and/or
quality is relatively minor and spare parts are readily available. Establishing
new water points can be complex and time-consuming. Here, issues
including site location, social agreements, excavation, management, andconfirmation of community ownership make it more feasible as a long-term
development activity.
Conflict between the water demands of human populations and theirassociated livestock may also be an issue in all three approaches. This also
applies to existing or new conflicts between those with crop-based
livelihoods (see SEADS) and those with livestock-based livelihoods.
However, with proper planning and management it should be possible tocreate a network of distribution points that can meet the needs of bothhumans and animals.

Option 2: Water trucking
Water trucking should generally be regarded as a last-resort option and onlyused during the first stages of an emergency. It is expensive,
resource-inefficient and labour-intensive. Due to the critical impact ofdehydration on livestock, however, it is sometimes the only option that canbe implemented rapidly to keep animals alive in the short term. As a rule,
therefore, trucking should be regarded as a temporary intervention to be
replaced as soon as possible by other means of water provision.
Opportunities for cost sharing/cost recovery should also be explored.

174

5

Technical standards
Provision of water

Wherever possible, after thorough analysis and assessment, livestock
owners should contribute in cash or ‘in kind’ to the costs of water trucking.
This can lead to partially subsidised water trucking, with communities
managing contributions and organising the trucking themselves. However,where communities are unable to contribute, agencies may need to fully
subsidise water trucking. A sound communication strategy is essential forthis approach, since all stakeholders need transparent and equal information
flows.
Water trucking involves major logistical inputs, and great care and attention
need to be given to the planning and management of trucking operations.
This includes monitoring the evolving situation, making sure that routes
remain open, that drivers and other crew are protected from changes in the
security situation, and that tankers are maintained effectively.
More details on the benefits and challenges of the different options for theprovision of water are shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Beneﬁts and challenges of water provision options
OptionBeneﬁts

Challenges
5

1. Water points
1.1 Changing
managementof existingwater sources

This is a relatively cheap option,
making maximum use of existing
opportunities and resources·················································
It can normally be implemented
rapidly in response to an
emergency

There are often limited
opportunities on the ground toachieve this·················································
It has the potential to introduce
conflict among groups of new
users

1.2
Rehabilitating
existing water
sourcesThis is potentially cheaper thanother water provision options·················································
Management structures andsystems for the water source
may already exist·················································
It is a long-term solution that canoutlast the emergency

The reasons for original
degradation (e.g. low watertable) may still apply or recur·················································
It takes time, and sourcing
materials for rehabilitation works
will often take too longcontinued over175

Technical standards
Provision of water

OptionBeneﬁts

1.2
Rehabilitating
existing water
sources(continued)

It has potential to provide water
for both livestock and humanneeds·················································
It provides support to at-riskhouseholds throughcash-for-work initiatives (e.g.
dam desilting, cleaning natural
water catchments, rehabilitationof existing pan)

1.3
Establishing
new watersourcesThis has the potential to provide
sustainable new water sources
for emergency andpost-emergency populations in
immediate locality of need·················································
It has the potential to provide
water for both livestock andhuman needs

Challenges

It is more costly thanrehabilitation, requiring very highcapital investment and long-term
financing·················································The time needed is likely to be
too long for an effective
response to the emergency·················································
Appropriate siting may bedifficult in a short (emergency)
time frame·················································
Locally based and agreed
management systems need tobe established to prevent conflictand ensure equitable access,and to ensure sustainable use of
the water resource and thesurrounding environment·················································
There are potential negative
consequences (conflict,environmental degradation) of
making new areas accessible topeople and livestock·················································
There are risks due tomodification of the usual grazing
pattern (easy access to
dry-season pastures,
modification of migration routes,
land tenure disputes, etc.)
continued over176

5

Technical standards
Provision of water

OptionBeneﬁts

Challenges

2. Water trucking
This can respond rapidly to
immediate water needs·················································
It may make use of water of
insufficient quality for humanconsumption

It is expensive andresource-inefficient; moving
livestock to water sources where
there is still enough animal feed
may be more appropriate·················································
It is labour-intensive andlogistically complex·················································
It is not sustainable – temporary
solution only·················································
It offers the greatest potential for
conflict between human andlivestock water needs·················································
It requires a locally based
management structure to ensure
equitable access to water·················································
There is potential for conflict withexisting users of water source

Timing of interventions
Water trucking is a short-term measure that may be appropriate in theimmediate aftermath of a rapid-onset emergency, or in the emergency phaseof a slow-onset emergency. It should not be continued beyond these stages,
as it is a costly and unsustainable intervention. Changing water point
management or the rehabilitation of existing points, in contrast, may be
carried out in all stages of both emergency types. The establishment of new
water sources is a feasible solution when existing degraded water sources
are insufficient or unsuitable for rehabilitation. This intervention should ideallylink with longer-term water development programmes and improved
management, as part of both emergency preparedness and post-emergency
response. Table 5.2 suggests appropriate timing for each of these water
options.
Resilience-strengthening measures play a significant role in humanitarian
responses and should be considered during stable non-emergency periods.
177

5Technical standards
Provision of waterPreparedness contributions (for example, tools, spare parts) provided during‘normal’ times can help alleviate an acute phase of water shortages during
an emergency. Other preparedness activities are suggested in Standard 1:
Preparedness below.
Table 5.2: Possible timing of water interventions

Rapid-onset emergency
Options

Immediately after

Early recovery

Recovery

1.1 Water points:changing management
1.2 Water points:
rehabilitating
1.3 Water points:
establishing2.

Water trucking

Slow-onset emergency
Options

Alert

Alarm

Emergency

Recovery

1.1 Water points:changing management
1.2 Water points:
rehabilitating
1.3 Water points:
establishing2.

Water trucking

Links to other LEGS chapters andother HSP standards
The provision of water is complementary to other livestock-based
emergency responses. This is particularly the case for livestock feedinterventions and livestock offtake. During livestock offtake, some animals
are taken out of the production system. Water and feed are then provided tohelp ensure the survival of the remaining stock. Coordination between
initiatives and among agencies is paramount to avoid one activity
undermining another. Coordination with water requirements for crop
production may also be needed (see SEADS).
178

5

Technical standards
Provision of water

The provision of water for livestock may also be complementary to humanwater provision. This is particularly so where the rehabilitation or
establishment of water sources provides water of a suitable quality for bothanimals and humans. In contrast, however, there may be times when water
trucking for livestock may compete with human water supplies, unlesscarefully managed. For further information on human water supplies, see theSphere Handbook chapter on ‘Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene
Promotion.’ Coordination is also necessary to avoid livestock contaminationof human supplies. The need to ensure coordination between human andlivestock water supply may become particularly important in camp settings,
where space and water sources may both be limited (see Chapter 7: Shelter).

LEGS Principles and other issues toconsiderTable 5.3: Relevance of the LEGS Principles to water interventions
LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in provisionof water interventions

1. Supporting
livelihoods-based
programming

Water supply is critical for protecting livestock assets frommortality. Productivity of livestock is maintained only
through regular water intake, which ensures the productivityof livestock livelihoods.
························································································
Dysfunctional or disrupted water supplies resulting fromemergencies affect the income and livelihoods of at-riskfamilies. This is true in urban or rural settings, and pastoralor smallholder production systems.

2. Ensuring community
participation

Active community participation helps to avoid the risks
associated with marginalisation (e.g. when richer groups
secure private means of water provision for their animals).
It thereby ensures equitable access to water for all socialgroups.
continued over179

5

Technical standards
Provision of water

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in provisionof water interventions

2. Ensuring community
participation(continued)

Water management committees can help identify
appropriate solutions for adequate water supply.
Committees should include all social, gender and wealthgroups, and those who control private water businesses.
They can ensure fair access for all subsets and at-risk
groups of a crisis-affected community. Committees canalso lead to cost sharing of interventions (see Appendix
5.3).

3. Responding toclimate change andprotecting theenvironment

Excessive water extraction should be avoided as much as
possible. Establishing new permanent water points must
be carefully planned to avoid contributing to environmental
degradation.
························································································
Preparedness activities should include proper technical,
economic and social assessment of water supply options,with a view to ensuring water development plans takeaccount of climatic trends.

4. Supporting
preparedness and early
actionWater point rehabilitation as part of preparedness activities
supports communities likely to be impacted byemergencies.
························································································
Integration of emergency water strategies into long-termwater development plans, co-developed with local
government, can take disaster risk reduction (DRR) into
account.
························································································
Guidance/training on management of water sources mayhelp a community to be better prepared for emergencies.

5. Ensuring coordinatedresponses

Water for livestock may be provided at the same time asother interventions, such as feed provision, veterinary
support or livestock offtake. Coordination is important toensure that the activities complement and do notundermine each other.
························································································
Coordination is particularly important in the provision ofwater for livestock and humans to ensure the needs of bothare met. To limit the spread of disease, including zoonotic
threats as well as transmission from/to wild species,
livestock must not contaminate water supplies for humans.
continued over180

5

Technical standards
Provision of water

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in provisionof water interventions

6. Supporting
gender-sensitive
programming

Livestock are important for livelihoods of both women andmen. Therefore their participation in all water-related
management at community level can positively contributeto appropriate responses and ensure fairer water
distribution.
························································································Long distances to water points present potential risks andthreats for women and children, in particular, throughexposure to violent assault. These should be avoided
through protection mechanisms (e.g. accompanied water
fetching, lighting, guards, etc.).
························································································
Gender roles may have changed during an emergency orcrisis, particularly for poorer community members (e.g.
because of more limited access to water). These changes
and implications need to be understood in order to address
potential inequities.

7. Supporting local
ownership

Strengthening local ownership of humanitarian responses
includes identifying existing structures, such as water
management committees and other local initiatives linked
to water provision, emergency response and preparedness.
························································································
Land rights, ethnicity, and local politics may all affectaccess to water. Using local knowledge of water point
management and conflict avoidance is particularly
important within communities affected by complex orrecurring crises.
························································································
Customary knowledge of the relationship between water
sources and natural resource management, and otherrelevant cultural practices, are best understood throughlocal leadership.
························································································
Local water committees and community cash contributions
can help with the establishment, repair and management
costs of any water resource over the longer term.
continued over181

5

Technical standards
Provision of water

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in provisionof water interventions

8. Committing to MEAL

Monitoring water schemes is important to ensure that
equitable access is maintained for at-risk groups, and thatcosts remain affordable. In the same way, monitoring thewater management system will enable implementing
agencies to address issues and challenges.
························································································
Evaluating how schemes ensure water shortage recovery
can lead to the strengthening of longer-term resilience.
Sharing learning of intended and unintended consequenceswith humanitarian and development actors in the watersector helps build accountability and long-term strategy
development.

Security and conﬂict
Personal security and protection of water users are important considerations
in all emergency water options (see Chapter 1: Box 1.3, Protection
Principles). For example, during complex emergencies, people watering
animals at water points may be at risk from livestock theft, robbery, or attack,especially women. The water points themselves can be vulnerable andhighly sensitive to attack, and must occasionally be specifically protected. In
conflicts, wells and watering points can be deliberately contaminated withtoxins or animal carcasses; and boreholes and deep wells intentionally filledwith rocks.
Many natural water points have pre-existing customary institutions
responsible for their management. If interventions fail to involve existingwater management structures in emergency response, this may cause
friction between existing and new water users. Potential issues must be
identified prior to rehabilitation or establishment of water points to avoid
ownership conflicts. This will also ensure equitable access and sustainablesystems for the future.
Issues of water conflict are particularly sensitive in settlements and camps(see Chapter 7: Shelter). Camp residents who need to access water points
outside the settlement for their livestock may come into conflict with hostpopulations. Early negotiation with all stakeholders can help to minimise
potential conflicts.

1825

Technical standards
Provision of water

Decision tree for water provision
options
The decision tree (Figure 5.1) summarises some of the key questions to
consider in determining the most feasible and appropriate option for an
emergency water provision intervention. The standards, key actions andguidance notes that follow provide more information for detailed planning.
Where possible, they build on preparedness activities conducted prior to theonset of the emergency/in ‘normal’ times.

5183

Technical standards
Provision of water

Figure 5.1: Decision tree for water provision options

Are livestock endangered
due to an emergency causing
water shortages?

Key:

Yes

No

Actions

Is there high short-term risk of livestockmortality due to water shortage?

Is there potential for improved
management of water points?

Changing
management ofwater points

Do degraded water points exist
with potential for rehabilitation?

Are degraded water points in appropriate
sites to serve needy households?

Is the water of sufﬁcient quality andquantity to respond to the need?

5

Can the reasons for the previous
degradation be overcome?

Can rehabilitation be accomplishedcost-effectively?

Do local water management systems
exist or can they be created?

Can rehabilitated water points bemaintained in the medium/long term?

Have the environmental implications
and risks been assessed?

Rehabilitatingwater points

184

Continue toleft-hand column
next page

Continue toright-hand column
next pageTechnical standards
Provision of waterContinued from ‘no’ pathon previous page

Continued from ‘yes’ pathon previous page

Do suitable sites forthe establishment of new
water points exist in proximity
to needy households?

Are water sources of sufﬁcientquantity and quality available
within trucking distance?

Is the water available
in sufﬁcient quality andquantity?

Are land tenure issues
concerning new water
points clearly resolved?

Are there sufﬁcient resources
to support the establishmentof new water points?

Can adverse effects on
existing users of these sources
be avoided?

Can potential conﬂict overwater use (e.g. human versus
livestock) be avoided?

Are there sufﬁcient resources(logistical, ﬁnancial, transport)
to support water trucking
operations?
5

Do local water management
systems exist (or can they
be created) to manage
new water points?

Can new water points beestablished in time to relieve
the impact of the emergency
and can they be maintained?

Have the environmental
implications and risks beenassessed?

Establishing new
water points

Are there secureand viable routes?

Can water distribution
from trucking be managed
in conjunction withthe local community?

Are affected communities able
to provide cash contributions?

Partially subsidisedwater trucking

Fully subsidisedwater trucking

No action* (unless outstanding
questions can be addressed)*The result ‘No action’ does not necessarily mean that no intervention
should take place, but rather that further training or capacity strengthening
may be required in order to be able to answer ‘yes’ to the key questions.

185

Technical standards
Provision of water

The standards
Before engaging in water provision initiatives, the feasibility andappropriateness of the different technical options should be carefully
considered, as highlighted in Figure 5.1.

Standard 1: Preparedness
Preparedness activities facilitate planning for sustainable andappropriate water provision for livestock in emergencies.

Key actions• Map the location of existing and non-functioning water sources and note
their capacity (see Guidance note 1).
• Identify existing water management systems (see Guidance note 2).
• Assess the current and potential environmental impact of continued orincreased water extraction from existing water sources (see Guidancenote 3).
• Identify existing water development initiatives and the potential for
integrating emergency water strategies into ongoing longer-term activities(see Guidance note 4).

Guidance notes
1. Mapping of existing water sources and capacity
Information on existing (and non-functioning) water sources should begathered, including location and capacity, in ‘normal’ times, prior to theonset of any emergency. Where possible, information should also begathered on water quality. Agencies on the ground may already have thisinformation, particularly those working on longer-term water development.
The availability of this information facilitates rapid emergency assessment
and response planning (see Standard 2).
2. Analysis of existing water management systems
Water is a common natural resource, and its utilisation for humans, animals
and crops requires clear management practices. These include ensuring thattime of use, equal water distribution, maintenance and hygiene measures are
all adhered to.

186

5

Technical standards
Provision of water

Boreholes, ponds, dams and reservoirs, as well as shallow and deep wells,
are usually managed by local (often customary) institutional arrangements.
Emergency water provision should recognise and build on existing
management systems wherever possible and appropriate. Therefore, prior
identification is vital to inform emergency response planning.
In areas prone to conflict and social tensions, preparedness should involvean analysis of whether water access is a factor in exacerbating conflict. Prior
conflict analysis can also identify options for mitigation, such ascommunity-based conflict resolution mechanisms.
3. Environmental impact
Where heavy use of a water source is already causing negativeenvironmental impact, any additional use during an emergency will
exacerbate this situation. Prior understanding of vulnerable areas can informplanning to ensure that negative environmental impacts of emergency waterprovision are minimised.
The assessment should consider the impact on the environment of thelocation and capacity of any potential new water source. The siting of new
water sources can have a very negative environmental impact. Conversely,
when water points are planned in conjunction with natural resource
management strategies, the impact on the environment and on the natural
resources available for livestock can be beneficial.
4. Water development
The development of water sources, in particular the construction or
rehabilitation of infrastructure, is generally a longer-term development
activity. Where possible, development agencies can build contingency plansfor emergency water provision into these longer-term programmes. These
can include budget provision or flexible funding options to allow emergency
water interventions to be planned and implemented rapidly. Water pointdevelopment can provide an opportunity for greater social cohesion between
different groups (such as pastoralists and crop-based farmers), as theycollaborate on a common output for their shared water needs.

187

5

Technical standards
Provision of waterStandard 2: Assessment and planning
Water provision for livestock is based on an analysis of needs andopportunities, as well as existing local water management
systems.

Key actions• Building on any preparedness activities (see Standard 1), conduct ananalysis of different options that can be used to form the basis for waterprovision (see Guidance note 1).
• Assess existing and degraded water sources for water quality (seeGuidance notes 2 and 3).
• Identify existing or new effective management systems. This will ensure
continued provision of water of acceptable quality without conflict, while
addressing the needs of all the different users, including at-risk groups(see Guidance note 4).

Guidance notes
1. Analysis of options using existing water sources
The planning of water provision activities should begin with a participatory
assessment of existing water sources to review the availability, accessibility,
affordability and quality of the water they provide. This participatory
assessment should include analysis of water sources that have fallen into
disrepair and are no longer used. The assessment should take account ofwater access for poorer and more at-risk households. Where preparedness
planning is possible, this information may already be available (see Standard 1).
The needs for a water supply for humans should also form part of this initial
analysis.
When considering the option of relocating livestock to other existing water
sources, analyses should consider the cost, amount of water (and feed)available, and the capacity and willingness of the current water users toabsorb additional animals.
Because the cost of trucking water from other water points is very high,assessments should explore other existing options first before considering
this option. Appendix 5.1: Assessment checklist for water points contains achecklist for assisting with rapid water point assessment.

188

5

Technical standards
Provision of water

2. Water quality for livestock
Water quality for livestock is generally a much less critical issue than water
quality for humans. However, animals can also be affected by high mineralcontent and water-borne diseases such as salmonellosis, anthrax andcolibacillosis. In the absence of a recognised field test to assess thebacterial content of water, a basic investigation is recommended. Thisshould look at possible chemical contamination (nearby factories) andbacteriological/organic contamination (human settlements), including
consultation with the local community (see Appendix 5.1: Assessment
checklist for water points; see also ‘water quality’ in FAO (2016, p. 112)).
3. Contamination of human water sources
Where livestock and humans share water sources, the water may becomecontaminated by animals and affect human health and well-being. Simple
management measures can be used to prevent this, including the use oftroughs or pans for livestock watering. Protection of water sources may also
be necessary to prevent the water becoming contaminated with acaricides
and other chemicals used on livestock.
4. Water management systems
Many customary practices exist for regulating water access rights and water
point care in ‘normal’ times (see Standard 1, Guidance note 2). Any
rehabilitation of existing water sources, or the establishment of new sources,
should take into account these management systems. However, they may
not be sufficient to cope with the challenges of rapid-onset, and also
slow-onset, emergencies. Agencies may need to provide inputs and support
from outside.
In some societies, social constraints may make it difficult for different ethnicor caste groups to access the same water point. These issues need to behandled with considerable sensitivity to ensure response options guarantee
equitable access for all. LEGS Principle 6: Gender-sensitive programming, isspecifically recommended to strengthen sustainable and equitable wateruse. Participation of women in the decision-making process is known toincrease community inclusiveness and contribute to the protection of therights of at-risk groups.

189

5

Technical standards
Provision of waterStandard 3: Location of water points
Water source rehabilitation and establishment interventions arecarefully located to ensure equitable access to water for the
livestock of the most at-risk households in the emergencyaffected areas.

Key actions• Base the selection of water points for rehabilitation and/or the location ofsites for establishing new water points on a sound assessment of current
and future demands. This should take account of the demand from both
local human and livestock populations (see Guidance note 1).
• Ensure that the capacities of the water sources to be used can bereasonably expected to meet needs throughout the period of theemergency and beyond (see Guidance note 2).
• Take insecurity implications into account when planning the location ofwater points (see Guidance note 3).
• Organise siting of water points in conjunction with (male and female)community leaders, preferably building on existing customary water
management systems (see Guidance note 4).

Guidance notes
1. Assessment of demand for water
An assessment of demand for water during the emergency should be madebased on the best estimates derived from livestock population censuses,
local authority records, and consultation with local affected communities.
The assessment should consider ease of access for livestock and for watercollection. For example, if livestock are to consume water at the water point,then the demand assessment should consider reasonable walking distances
to determine the area to be covered by the water point. It should also look at
numbers of troughs, drinking schedules, watering intervals, holding areas
and expected waiting times. Where water will be carried to where theanimals are located, similar assessments should be made.
2. Ensuring adequacy of the water supply
The supply from a water point may be inadequate for meeting projecteddemand. In this case, additional arrangements may be necessary (forexample, establishing additional water points nearby or trucking in extra
supplies). The assessment of the adequacy of all proposed water supplies
190

5Technical standards
Provision of water

should take into account the likely future utility of the water points. Thisshould be both generally and in the event of other emergencies.
3. Insecurity
People taking their animals to water points may be at risk from livestock
theft, general robbery, and other forms of personal attack. This is because
their movements are easily predicted. The security needs of women andchildren in these situations are particularly important. Liaison with agencies
responsible for security in affected areas is needed when determining water
point locations, so they can anticipate these dangers as much as possible.
They can then put conflict-prevention and other safety measures in place.
4. Community leadership
As highlighted in Standard 1: Preparedness and Standard 2: Assessment
and planning, local water management systems should be consulted whensiting water points. This should apply both to the rehabilitation of existingsources and the establishment of new ones. Community leadership is vital toensure the future management and maintenance of the water source beyond
the emergency. It will also encourage sustainable and equitable access towater for all community members. This may be particularly important incamps because of potential competition for the resource between camp
residents and the local population. In these situations, negotiation andagreement with community leaders is paramount to avoid conflict.

Standard 4: Rehabilitation and establishment ofwater points
Rehabilitated or newly established water points represent a
cost-effective and sustainable means of providing clean water inadequate quantities for the livestock that will use them.

Key actions• Consider the rehabilitation of water points as an intervention only when
demand in the affected area cannot be adequately met by extending theuse of existing water points (see Guidance note 1).
• Undertake a full survey of degraded water points and the reasons for the
degradation for all locations in the affected area where demand exists, oris likely to develop (see Guidance note 2).

191

5

Technical standards
Provision of water• Consider establishing new water points as an intervention only when theuse of existing water points or their rehabilitation is not possible and when
the consequences have been carefully considered (see Guidance note 3).
• Deliver to the selected locations the technical inputs and materials
required to implement the rehabilitation/establishment programme
effectively (see Guidance note 4).
• Consider mechanisms that promote cost sharing between external
agencies and affected communities (see Guidance note 5).
• Ensure that people are available (and trained) for the routine management
and maintenance of water points (see Guidance note 6).
• Ensure that sustainable management structures are in place, supported
by community leadership (see Guidance note 7).

Guidance notes
1. Conﬁrmation of the need to rehabilitate water points
Extending the use of existing water points for communities affected by the
emergency is a cheaper option than water point rehabilitation. However,assessments should carefully evaluate the potential for introducing conflict
between existing and new users at the planning stage. In practice, it may bepossible to offer some coverage of affected communities by using existingsources, but this may need to be boosted by rehabilitation as well.
2. Identiﬁcation of water points suitable for rehabilitation
A comprehensive survey is a first requirement for developing a cost-effective
programme of water point provision. For each water point, this should
include details on:• water quality;• the resources required to undertake a rehabilitation programme;• likely water capacity (quantity and continuity);• extent of damage and ease/cost of repairs;• demand from users;• why the point has become degraded, and the implications for its
successful rehabilitation (issues such as conflict, water quality, andconfusion over ownership may contribute to lack of use, as well as
technical and maintenance issues).

192

5

Technical standards
Provision of water

3. Conﬁrmation of the need to establish new water points
Where rehabilitation of existing water points will not offer adequate coveragefor the affected community, the intervention may need to establish new ones.
The potential consequences of establishing a new water point include land
tenure issues, modification of grazing patterns, environmental degradation,and competition over resources. These should be carefully analysed.
4. Technical feasibility of the options
Understanding the reasons why water points have fallen into disuse caninform the assessment of the technical feasibility of rehabilitation. Other
basic requirements include:• availability of qualified water engineers and labourers to implement
interventions;• capacity to deliver required materials to the site, including adequate
access roads;• continuous availability of spare parts for wells and boreholes.

The equipment required for establishing new water points is likely to beconsiderably heavier than that for rehabilitation (for example, drillingrigs/excavation equipment for digging wells). It may therefore require
higher-capacity transport and better roads to allow access.
5. Cost recovery
As part of the assessment process, there should be an analysis ofcommunity capacity and willingness to contribute to the emergency
response water scheme. It may be necessary to convince decision makers,
traditional elders, political leaders, and particularly influential female leaders
to encourage community contributions in emergencies.
6. Responsibilities
Water points need routine management and maintenance, as well as people(whether community members or agency staff), for:• routine checking to ensure that water quality and supplies are being
maintained;• monitoring to ensure that access is maintained equitably for all users;• resolution of disputes among different user groups;• routine maintenance and ordering and replacement of damaged parts(manual wells are generally less damage-prone than boreholes);193

5

Technical standards
Provision of water• appropriate training of water committees for local users (taking into
consideration that men are often the gatekeepers of customary practices
that can limit women’s access to both resources and public roles).

7. Management structures
Whether water points are community-managed or privately owned, it isimportant to ensure that sustainable management structures are
sustained/established, with the endorsement of community leadership. Thisis vital for the future management and maintenance of the water source
beyond the emergency. It will also contribute to sustainable and equitable
access to water for all community members (see Appendix 5.3).

Standard 5: Sources and quality for water
trucking
Water for trucking is obtained from sources that can maintain an
adequate supply, of assured quality, during the plannedintervention period.
5

Key actions• Implement water trucking only as a short-term measure when otheroptions are not possible (see Guidance note 1).
• Ensure the supply of water can be maintained throughout the lifespan of
the proposed trucking operations (see Guidance note 2).
• Ensure that use of water sources by trucking operations does notcompromise the needs of their existing users and has the approval of any
relevant statutory authorities (see Guidance notes 2 and 3).
• Ensure that the use of water sources does not reduce the availability ofwater for human populations (see Guidance notes 3 and 4).
• Ensure that the water quality is suitable for livestock (see Guidance note 5).
• Ensure that tankers and other water containers are properly cleaned
before use (see Guidance note 6).

Guidance notes
1. Short-term measure
Water trucking should be considered as a last-resort measure to save thelives of livestock as it is expensive and administratively complicated. Using
trucks to deliver water for human use is also generally discouraged. Other
194

Technical standards
Provision of water

options, including relocation of livestock closer to existing sources of water,should be thoroughly explored before selecting trucking as an option.
2. Continuity of supply
Although water trucking operations should aim to operate only in the shortterm, this is not always possible. Whatever the term of the operation, arealistic assessment of the continuity of water supplies needs to be made at
the planning stage. This assessment should:• Assess whether proposed water sources have the physical capacity tocontinue to provide supply during the operation. The potential for
selected sources to be affected by the spread of the emergency should
be considered.
• Secure permission from existing users or from the relevant authorities toaccess the source.
• Ascertain whether accessibility of the sources can be maintained; forexample, repeated passage of trucks might degrade access routes.
• Consider budgetary implications carefully, as water trucking is generally ahigh-cost operation. Operational budgets need to be sufficient to handle
extended trucking services if alternative interventions are delayed. Costs
can be significantly reduced if water sources can be located close to theultimate distribution points. However, this can increase the risk of conflictwith existing users or threats to the continuity of supply.

3. Considering the needs of existing users
Water sources used for trucking operations are likely to have existing users.
Conflict with existing users can seriously undermine the viability of theoperation and create more adversely affected communities. Locating water
sources as close as possible to where the water will be consumed may befinancially desirable. However, this should not mean compromising thesesources for their existing users. During the planning stages of a trucking
operation, managers need to engage with local leaders and otherstakeholders and, where possible, use local mediation procedures to ensurethat existing users’ needs are properly taken into account.
4. Coordinating with the demands of human populations
In situations where water is scarce or where resources for trucking
operations are limited, the immediate needs of human populations must
always be prioritised. However, meeting the demands of human andlivestock populations does not have to be exclusive. In the case of awidespread emergency, the trucking infrastructure may be inadequate to195

5Technical standards
Provision of water

service both people and animals. However, small-scale localised operations
may be able to deliver an integrated service that supplies water to people
and their livestock. Provided that the availability of trucks and staff isadequate, water for livestock may be derived from sources that are not of
sufficient quality for consumption by humans.
5. Water quality
In cases where water trucking is for both humans and livestock, the Spherestandards for water quality apply. However, if high-quality water sources arelimited, interventions may source poorer-quality water from rivers or standinglake water, which cannot feasibly or economically be purified for humanconsumption, for use by livestock only.
6. Cleanliness of tankers
Tankers may have been used for transporting other types of liquid, including
toxic pesticides, herbicides, solvents, fuels, and sewage. Unless theirprevious history is reliably known, all vessels and distribution equipment
should be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected before being released for use
in water trucking operations.
5Standard 6: Logistics and distribution for water
trucking
Water is transported securely and distributed equitably in theaffected area.

Key actions• Ensure adequate staff capacity is retained during the intervention, througheffective investment and management (see Guidance note 1).
• Ensure that adequate resources are available to meet the recurrent costsof fuelling and servicing the tanker fleet and associated equipment (seeGuidance note 2).
• Where possible, select routes that will not be degraded by the frequentpassage of heavily laden water trucks (see Guidance note 3).
• Set up distribution points in appropriate locations, and accommodate any
livestock movements that may occur during the operation (see Guidancenotes 4 and 5).
• Undertake proper security assessments for the proposed water
distribution (see Guidance note 6).
196Technical standards
Provision of water• Review the ability of the community to contribute and the need forsubsidies (see Guidance note 7).

Guidance notes
1. Stafﬁng
Successful trucking operations require consistent and sustained staff inputs,
notably competent and experienced managers and supervisors. It is also
important to ensure that drivers and assistants are kept motivated throughproper reimbursement and careful attention to other needs, including
subsistence allowances and personal security.
2. Maintenance and fuel supplies
Qualified mechanics and reliable supplies of fuel and equipment need to beavailable throughout the duration of the trucking operation. This includes any
material needed to operate and maintain pumps, containers and delivery
equipment. Major issues to consider include:• The cost and availability of fuel: Ideally, it should be possible for drivers
to refuel without making major detours from the trucking route. This may
require fuel to be brought in separately, adding to the logisticalcomplications of the operation. This should also be a consideration in theoriginal selection of water sources.
• Spare parts: These should be readily obtainable; locally made equipmentthat is easily repairable is preferred.

These issues (particularly those relating to maintenance) may affect thedecision regarding the type of transport that will be used by the trucking
operation (for example, trucks or tractor trailers with bowsers or bladdertanks).
3. Ensuring the integrity of supply routes
Supply routes should be adequate for the passage of laden water tankers.
Otherwise, the response plan will need to make provision for theirmaintenance and repair: for example, through cash for work schemes. In
addition, communities living along the access route must also have theirwater needs addressed and be made aware of and approve the plan. If not,they may cause disruption by blocking the road or forcibly diverting the waterto fulfil their own needs. Implementing agencies must evaluate and resolve
any potential risk of conflict over the response in advance, to ensure that ‘dono harm’ principles are followed (see Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS on theSphere Protection Principles).

197

5

Technical standards
Provision of water

4. Managing distribution points
Livestock keepers may collect water from distribution points to take to theirlivestock or bring their animals to receive water directly, from a tank or pond.
In either case, a system needs to be established to ensure the needs of allattendees are met equitably and sustainably, based on appropriate existing
local water management systems. Where it is possible to establish storage
facilities, trucking can be more efficient. This is because tankers can decant
the water quickly and return to the source to collect more, thus reducing thewaiting time.
5. Water trucking to mobile livestock
Relocation of livestock is often a customary response to drought. Where thisoccurs, trucking of water may be considered to support the migration. This
will add considerably to the already complex logistics of water trucking.
6. Establishing a safe distribution network
The risk to the personal safety of staff employed in transporting water for use
in emergency programmes should always be of paramount importance.
7. Full or partial subsidy
As part of the assessment process, there should be an analysis of community
willingness and ability to contribute to the costs of water trucking. It may benecessary for agencies to either fully or partially subsidise water trucking.

198

5

Technical standards
Provision of water

Appendices
Appendix 5.1: Assessment checklist for water points
This checklist summarises the issues that need to be considered whenassessing potential water points for use by livestock keepers in an
emergency. Sources of information for answering the questions in thischecklist may vary from rapid field assessments to, in principle at least,
laboratory analyses for water quality. They should, however, always include
some consultation with the different stakeholder groups in the local area.
When assessments are carried out under time pressure, users may have toprioritise which questions need to be covered.
Supply of water• Is the water point currently producing water?

If yes:• Is the water point at risk of drying up over the course of the emergency
response?
• What is the capacity of the water point to support the local livestock
population?

If no:• Is it technically feasible (both in terms of cost and timescale) to rehabilitate
the water point to meet the needs of the local livestock population?
• Are there personnel available to manage and implement rehabilitation of
the water point?

Accessibility• Is the water point within easy reach of a significant population of affected
livestock?
• Are there any social, cultural or political constraints to the use of the water
point by livestock?
• Can water from the source be made available to affected livestock
keepers in an equitable manner (regardless of age, gender, ethnicity or
wealth)?
• Can affected livestock make use of the water point without:a. compromising the needs of existing users (human or animal)?
b. risk to the personal safety of the livestock keepers (including womenand children)?
199

5

Technical standards
Provision of waterc. interfering with other aspects of the emergency response?
Water quality• Are testing facilities (either field or laboratory) available to assess theadequacy of water quality for the source?

If yes:• Is there access to laboratories that can analyse for major chemical
contaminants?
• Are water testing kits available that can be applied to the water
points/sources under consideration?
• Are suitably qualified technicians available locally to undertake
assessments of microbiological contamination of water sources?

If no, the following questions may help make a rapid on-the-spot assessment:• Is water from the source clear or cloudy?
• Is there any evidence of salinity in the area (for example, formation of saltpans)?
• Are there any local indicators of chemical contamination (for example,
nitrates/nitrites, patterns of fertiliser and pesticide use, existence of local
small-scale industries such as tanneries or light industries)?
• Have there been any reports of water-borne diseases from the source?

Note: Participatory methods and techniques that are particularly useful forwater assessment include natural resource and service maps, and matrix
scoring of different water facilities. Details on participatory methods areprovided in Appendix 3.1 of Chapter 3: Emergency response planning andthe LEGS Participatory Techniques Toolkit.

200

5Technical standards
Provision of water

Appendix 5.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators forwater provision
Process indicators (measure things
happening)

Impact indicators (measure the result ofthings happening)

Designing the intervention
Number of meetings with
community/community representatives
and other stakeholders (including private
sector suppliers where relevant)Meeting reports with analysis of options
for water provision······························································
Action plan including: roles andresponsibilities of different actors;
approach for water supply (e.g.
rehabilitation of existing sources or
establishing new sources); community
involvement in managing rehabilitated or
new water points

Provision of water
Number of water points rehabilitated orconstructed by type and location······························································
Delivery capacity of water points······························································
Volume of water provided by trucking

201

Accessibility of water (physical distanceand safe access to water) for users andtheir livestock, including vulnerable
groups······························································
Availability of water – sufficient forlivestock needs······························································
Quality of water – suitability for livestock······························································
Number of livestock-keeping households
using water points versus number oflivestock-keeping households needingwater; breakdown of figures by vulnerable
group······························································
Number of livestock using water points
by livestock type; frequency of watering······························································
Increase or decrease in women’s andgirls’ labour burden to collect water for
livestock5

Technical standards
Provision of water

Appendix 5.3: Considerations for water point management
The establishment of clear management systems for water sources isimportant to secure the equal, fair and unbiased distribution of water. This
will also help to keep a maintenance schedule in place. Experience has
shown that unless management issues are considered at the beginning of anintervention, access may not only be inequitable but may result in conflict.
Management is also essential for the longer term. This is so that water points
do not fall into disrepair after the emergency is over, but continue to operate
into the recovery phase and beyond. Some potential issues for community
management are covered below. Where water points are privately owned,
the management arrangements will differ.
Diversity of membership: A management committee for a water point
requires a diversity of members from various social and cultural levels within
a community. If necessary, agencies should provide external support to local
communities to strengthen water committee management systems.
Inclusion of female representatives: The involvement of women isspecifically recommended to strengthen sustainable and equitable water
management. It is also recommended that women are included on water
management committees because they generally need to negotiate fordomestic water use as well.
Water points and water trucking: The management of water distribution
from water trucking activities can build on local water point management
systems. This will help ensure equitable distribution and access withincommunities.
Transparency: When cost sharing is involved in emergency water
responses, transparent procedures must be applied. By its nature,
management of funds and cost contributions, whether in cash or in kind, isvery sensitive. Financially responsible actors need to work closely withselected community members (and the organisation behind the intervention)
to be able to disclose accounts and values at any time.
Community savings: If funds and scope allow, a community may consider asavings scheme and/or community bank account to prepare for a future
emergency. It can define options for spending the funds depending on thetype of emergency and immediate needs, with the guidance of specialists asappropriate.

202

5Technical standards
Provision of water

References and further reading
Cash and cost recovery
Free online training modules on Water Trucking and Cost Recovery for Water Systems have beendeveloped by DisasterReady/Mercy Corps, in English and Arabic, https://get.disasterready.org/
water-trucking-and-cost-recovery-online-training/
ISW/SDC (2016) How to establish a Full Cost Recovery Water Supply System? What are the Key
Factors for Success and Replication?, SDC Briefing Note, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs(FDFA), Bern, https://www.rural-water-supply.net/en/resources/details/770

Technical guidance for water emergencies
House, S. and Reed, R. (2004) Emergency Water Sources – Guidelines for Selection and Treatment,
3rd edn, Water, Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC), Loughborough, https://wedcknowledge.lboro.ac.uk/details.html?id=18064

Water and livestock emergencies
FAO (2016) Livestock-related interventions during emergencies – The how-to-do-it manual. Edited byPhilippe Ankers, Suzan Bishop, Simon Mack and Klaas Dietze. FAO Animal Production and Health
Manual No. 18. Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/i5904e/i5904e.pdf (See Chapter 7)
Gebru, G., Yousif, H., Adam, A.E.M., Negesse, B. and Young, H. (2013) Livestock, Livelihoods, andDisaster Response, Part Two: Three Case Studies of Livestock Emergency Programmes in Sudan, andLessons Learned, Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, Medford, MA, http://ﬁc.tufts.edu/
publication-item/livestock-livelihoods-and-disaster-response-part-two-2/

Water trucking
Coerver, A., Ewers, L., Fewster, E., Galbraith, D., Gensch, R., Matta, J., Peter, M. (2021) Compendiumof Water Supply Technologies in Emergencies, 1st edn, German WASH Network (GWN), University ofApplied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland (FHNW), Global WASH Cluster (GWC) andSustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA), Berlin, ISBN: 978-3-033-08369-1, https://www.washnet.
de/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/GWN_Emergency-Water-Compendium_2021_new.pdf
WEDC, Loughborough University (2011) Delivering safe water by tanker, WHO Technical Notes on
Drinking-Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Emergencies, Number 12, WHO, Geneva,
https://wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/resources/e/mn/042-Delivering-safe-water-by-tanker.pdf
Wildman, T., Brady, C., and Henderson, E. (2014) ‘Rethinking emergency water provision: Can westop direct water trucking in the same places every year?’, Humanitarian Exchange Magazine, issue
61, article 13, Humanitarian Practice Network, https://odihpn.org/publication/rethinkingemergency-water-provision-can-we-stop-direct-water-trucking-in-the-same-places-every-year/
Wildman, T. (2013). Technical Guidelines on Water Trucking in Drought Emergencies, Oxfam GB,
London, https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/technical-guidelines-on-water-trucking-indrought-emergencies-301794/

See also case studies for water interventions in emergencies at: https://www.livestock-emergency.
net/resources/case-studies/203

5

Technical standards
Veterinary support

204

Chapter 6: Technicalstandards forveterinary support
207

Introduction

208

Options for veterinary support

216

Timing of interventions

217

Links to other LEGS chapters and other HSP standards

218

LEGS Principles and other issues to consider

224

Decision tree for veterinary support options

226

The standards

241

Appendix 6.1: Assessment methods and checklist for veterinary
support243

Appendix 6.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicatorsfor veterinary support

245

References and further reading

Photo © FAO/B. Geers
205

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Chapter 6: Technicalstandards for veterinary
supportStandard 1
Preparedness

Standard 2
Assessment andplanning

Option 1
Clinical veterinary
services

Option 2
Public sector
veterinary functions

Option 2.1
Veterinary
public health

Option 2.2
Livestock disease
surveillanceStandard 3
Clinical veterinary
service designStandard 5
Zoonotic
diseasesStandard 8
Livestock disease
surveillanceStandard 4
Examination andtreatment

Standard 6
Sanitation andfood hygieneStandard 7
Disposal of deadanimals

206

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Introduction
Livestock keepers often describe veterinary support as critical for protecting
livestock in emergencies, together with providing feed and water. Veterinary
care such as early diagnosis and treatment can help to prevent the death ofanimals from disease. Emergencies that lead to high livestock mortality havea major impact on livelihoods as it may take years for livestock-keeping
communities to recover. In many situations, livestock keepers aim to protect
core breeding animals. In general, veterinary vaccines and medicines are
inexpensive items relative to the value of livestock that would otherwise be
lost.
Agencies can support private veterinary service providers, NGOs andgovernments to provide clinical veterinary services. A veterinary intervention
that works with local service providers during emergencies will help maintainthe supply of livestock products for affected communities. Interventions canalso help ensure that veterinary services are available in the post-emergency
phase. Clinical veterinary care is usually the priority response during
emergencies. However, in some contexts, this might be complemented withsupport to public sector veterinary functions such as veterinary public healthand livestock disease surveillance.
This chapter presents information on the importance of veterinary support inemergency response, together with the technical options for veterinary
support and the associated benefits and challenges of each. Information is
also available in Chapter 5, ‘Veterinary support’, in FAO (2016). For eachtechnical option, LEGS provides information through standards, key actions
and guidance notes. Checklists for assessment, as well as monitoring andevaluation indicators, are presented as appendices at the end of this chapter.
Further reading is also provided. Case studies are presented on the LEGS
website (see https://www.livestock-emergency.net/case-studies/).

Links to the LEGS livelihoods objectives
Providing veterinary support in an emergency helps achieve two of the LEGS
livelihoods objectives, namely to support crisis-affected communities to:• protect key livestock assets; and/or• rebuild key livestock assets.

Besides preventing the death of livestock, veterinary care has positive
impacts on livestock production and welfare. This care can increase benefits
derived from animals, whether from milk production, fertility or their use asworking animals. Veterinary care can also help to rebuild valuable livestock
207

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

assets, whether these consist of pastoralists’ herds, a single donkey, a pairof draught oxen or just a few chickens.

The importance of veterinary support in emergency response
Livestock diseases are among the main causes of livestock mortality andreduced production in low- and middle-income countries. Emergencies canincrease disease risk, with different kinds of emergencies having varying
impacts on animal health. For example:• Droughts, floods and harsh winters reduce access to grazing, resulting in
weaker animals with lower capacity to withstand disease.
• Flooding displaces topsoil, creating favourable conditions for diseases
such as anthrax, while floodwater creates conditions for vector-borne
diseases such as Rift Valley fever.
• Natural hazards such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions can cause
direct injury to animals.
• The risk of infectious disease transmission increases when emergencies
cause livestock from different areas to congregate together.
• Displacement of people and their livestock can lead to disease outbreaks
if animals are moved to places where they have not acquired immunity tolocal diseases.
• The risk of zoonotic disease transmission between animals and people
can increase in crowded camp conditions.

LEGS does not cover the prevention and control of epidemic livestock
diseases of major international importance. Specific guidelines are available
from the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), as indicated in Chapter
1: Introduction to LEGS.
As part of emergency response, veterinary support contributes directly to
two of the five animal welfare domains described in Chapter 1, namely‘health’ and ‘mental state’.

Options for veterinary support
LEGS recommends two main types of veterinary support for emergency
response: clinical veterinary services and public sector veterinary
functions. These options for veterinary support are not exclusive, and morethan one option or sub-option may be selected and implemented. In line with208

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

LEGS Principle 2: Community participation, veterinary interventions should
be identified and prioritised with community members to ensure poorer andmore at-risk livestock keepers are included. This will also ensure thatinterventions address the needs actually experienced by the livestock
keepers. The Core Humanitarian Standard on quality and accountability(CHS) requires resources to be used effectively, efficiently and ethically. For
veterinary support, this means an appropriate distribution of resources
across different activities, but with an emphasis on support that directly
protects livestock assets. Further guidance is provided under Standard 2:
Assessment and planning.

Option 1: Clinical veterinary services
Livestock keepers usually prioritise clinical veterinary services (comprising
diagnoses, treatments and vaccinations) during an emergency. These
services can be delivered through the government, NGOs or private
veterinary service providers. In many lower-income countries, clinicalveterinary services are in transition from public to private sector. Therefore,
the growing private veterinary sector may be the main source of clinicalveterinary care. However, veterinarians are often based in major urban
centres or near more commercialised livestock farms. In remote areas,
veterinary paraprofessionals may be the main service providers, along withtraditional healers and various informal suppliers of veterinary medicines.
Veterinary paraprofessionals such as community-based animal healthworkers (CAHWs) are located in communities. They play an important role insupporting both clinical and public sector veterinary services and functions
during emergencies. In complex emergencies and droughts, CAHWs have
reduced livestock mortality and improved service delivery at a relatively low
cost. When good practices are followed, CAHW systems respond well to theanimal health priorities of livestock keepers, and receive strong local
acceptance and support. Good practices include the use of participatory
approaches in the selection, monitoring, appropriate supervision and, where
possible, training of both female and male CAHWs. Connections between
CAHWs and other animal health workers and drug/equipment suppliers arealso important. In some countries, however, CAHWs have no legal basis towork, and other animal health service delivery mechanisms may need to beconsidered.

209

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

In humanitarian crises, preventive and curative clinical veterinaryinterventions fall into two broad categories that can be implemented
simultaneously:• examination and treatment of individual animals or herds;• mass vaccination or mass medication programmes.

1.1 Examination and treatment of individual animals or herds: This
option allows for animals to receive treatments specific to the diseases
present at the time of the emergency. It assumes that animals in different
households or herds may have different diseases, and therefore allows forflexibility in the clinical care provided. In some countries, this approach isincreasingly supported during emergencies by veterinary voucher systems.
These systems are developed jointly by the community, private sector andgovernment partners (see Process case studies: Veterinary voucher schemein Kenya and Veterinary voucher schemes in Ethiopia). Similarly,
non-veterinary emergency responses that provide cash, directly or indirectly,
to households can enable people to pay for veterinary care from private
workers. In addition to providing case-by-case clinical care, theseapproaches aim to avoid situations in which the free provision of medicines
undermines existing private veterinary services.
More individual clinical care may also lessen the risk of drug resistancecompared with the mass treatment of animal populations.
1.2 Mass medication or mass vaccination programmes: These
programmes are widely used with the aim of preventing diseases in livestock
populations during emergencies. Most commonly, emergency mass
medication or vaccination programmes are one-off events and are
implemented at no cost to livestock keepers. Therefore, care is needed on
the part of agencies to ensure that the financial viability of existing veterinary
services is not undermined.
• Mass medication programmes often use anti-parasite medicines,
especially for worms and ectoparasites such as ticks or lice. Practitioners
and recipients of these widely used programmes have reported positive
impacts. However, because research has indicated limited impact or
cost-effectiveness (see Impact case study: Limitations of mass
deworming of livestock during drought in Kenya), LEGS does not yet
include a standard on mass medication. Should agencies choose themass medication option, LEGS recommends proper evaluation to better
document the impacts of mass medication and understand when andhow it should be used. It is recognised that a particular challenge with210

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

evaluating mass deworming programmes is that some impacts may only
be observed after the emergency. So this is something that needs
factoring into the timing and design of evaluations.
• Mass vaccination programmes usually cover infectious diseases such as
anthrax, clostridial diseases, forms of pasteurellosis, Newcastle disease,
Rift Valley fever, and sheep and goat pox. Although widely used, evidenceof the livelihood impact of mass vaccination during rapid-onset andslow-onset emergencies is very limited (see Impact case study:
Limitations of livestock vaccination during emergencies, Ethiopia).
Therefore, LEGS does not include a standard on mass vaccination. If
agencies choose to support mass vaccination, LEGS recommends proper
evaluation such as comparisons of mortality in vaccinated versus
non-vaccinated livestock. Three specific technical issues concerning
mass vaccination are:a. Timing: some types of vaccine will only be effective if they areadministered before the period or season of high disease exposure.
This timing may not coincide with the timing of the humanitarian crisis
or response.
b. Some livestock vaccines are inactivated (killed) vaccines that require
an initial course of two doses to achieve protective immunity. In thesecases, the administration of a single dose of vaccine can have minimal
effect. Similarly, a ‘booster’ dose will only be effective following acomplete initial course of vaccination, and the vaccination history ofanimals can be unknown.
c. The proportion of animals to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity
varies by disease. These proportions are often not specified innational strategies for animal disease control.
In some situations, such as complex emergencies, LEGS supports
vaccination as part of international disease eradication campaigns. In
these cases, the vaccination strategy will be set by a lead technicalagency such as the FAO, and should be followed.

Option 2: Public sector veterinary functions
In humanitarian crises, agency support to public sector veterinary functions
may supplement weakened government capacity. Or it may intervene where
no officially recognised government authority is present. It includes two
broad types of activity:• veterinary public health; and• livestock disease surveillance.
211

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

In complex emergencies, there are also examples of veterinary interventions
supporting policy and institutional strengthening. This may relate especiallyto the use of veterinary paraprofessionals in emergencies.
When considering support to public sector veterinary functions, threeimportant challenges are relevant in emergency contexts:
Prioritising veterinary support: Under LEGS Principle 1: Livelihoods-based
programming, and LEGS Principle 2: Community participation, veterinaryinterventions should be identified and prioritised with communities. Suchinterventions should achieve one or more of the LEGS livelihoods objectives.
There is a reasonable body of evidence showing how clinical veterinary care
contributes to supporting livelihoods during emergencies. Yet there is far lessevidence on the impact of support to public sector-related activities.
Typically, livestock keepers prioritise clinical care of their animals.
Cost-effectiveness: Based on the CHS, resources should be usedeffectively, efficiently and ethically. Some interventions aim to support bothclinical veterinary care and public sector veterinary functions. In thissituation, limited guidance is available on the appropriate distribution of anintervention’s human and financial resources across these two main types ofactivity.
Preparedness: For veterinary interventions, LEGS Principle 4:
Preparedness, should focus on planning for the timely delivery of clinicalveterinary care. This process can include developing inventories of local
veterinary service providers; pre-positioning suppliers of good-quality
medicines; and the provisional design of cash and voucher assistance (CVA)
with communities, alongside local private sector and government partners.
Planning can also involve ensuring that the veterinary workforce is preparedto participate in responses during emergencies. Preparedness does notinclude activities that are routine; core public sector activities during ‘normal’periods such as policy reform on national animal health issues; orvaccination programmes.
2.1 Veterinary public health: Veterinary public health includes theunderstanding, prevention and control of zoonotic diseases, and human foodsafety. Zoonotic diseases are transmissible from animals to humans, either
through animal-derived food such as meat or milk, or by contact withanimals. In ‘normal’, non-emergency periods, the control of these diseases isa key public sector function. Zoonotic diseases include (for example)
anthrax, salmonellosis, tuberculosis, brucellosis, rabies, mange, Rift Valley
fever, and highly pathogenic avian influenza (‘bird flu’). Specific guidelines for212

6Technical standards
Veterinary support

the prevention and control of these diseases are available from FAO andWOAH, including animal welfare considerations, as mentioned in Chapter 1:
Introduction to LEGS.
Veterinary public health is multi-sectoral. It involves not only veterinarians
and veterinary paraprofessionals in the public and private sectors, but also
human health workers, agriculturalists, social scientists, communication
professionals and others. Closely related to veterinary public health is theconcept of One Health. LEGS positions One Health concepts and activities
under veterinary public health.
Veterinary public health also includes the safety of animal-derived foods likemeat, milk or eggs. A specific concern is that some veterinary medicines
leave residues in these foods, leading to possible consumption of residues
by people. In humanitarian crises, the trade-offs between human foodsecurity and human food safety are not well understood. However,
emergencies can occur in areas characterised by pre-existing high levels ofhuman food insecurity and malnutrition. In some cases, malnutrition levels
exceed the World Health Organization (WHO) cut-off for emergencies even in‘normal’ periods. For people in this situation, the risk of continuing or
worsening food insecurity far outweighs the risk of ill health due toconsuming meat or milk that is contaminated with drug residues.
2.2 Livestock disease surveillance: Livestock disease surveillance aims tocollect information on livestock diseases for the purpose of understanding
the disease status of an area. It also supports the detection of new or
emerging diseases. Surveillance systems can provide information on theprevalence and economics of diseases, and support programmes for theprevention or control of major infectious and zoonotic diseases. Informationfrom disease surveillance can also support international trade in livestockand livestock products.
Examples of disease surveillance and investigation activities during
humanitarian crises include:• raising public awareness to stimulate disease reporting;• training veterinary paraprofessionals to report disease outbreaks;• supporting government surveillance systems by linking veterinary
paraprofessionals’ disease-reporting systems to official structures;• facilitating timely and region-specific disease outbreak investigation andresponse;

213

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support• providing regular feedback in the form of disease surveillance summaries
to the workers who report.

The benefits and challenges of the veterinary support options andsub-options are summarised in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Beneﬁts and challenges of veterinary support intervention
options
Sub-option

Beneﬁts

Challenges

Option 1: Clinical veterinary services
1.1 Examinationand treatment of
individual
animals/herds

This allows flexibility andveterinary care on acase-by-case basis··············································
It can support existing private
sector service providers (e.g.
through voucher schemes)··············································
It can involve the public sector(e.g. for supervision andquality control)··············································
Wide coverage is possible,
particularly when well-trained
and supervised veterinary
paraprofessionals such as
CAHWs are used··············································It allows targeted or strategic
prophylactic treatment or
vaccination of individual
animals or herds at risk··············································
Quantitative evidence of
impact on animal mortality isavailable··············································
There is a lower risk ofenvironmental contamination
relative to mass medication··············································
There is a lower risk ofcontributing to drug resistance
relative to mass medication

If provided free, the coverageand duration of the service arelikely to be limited by thebudget·············································
If provided free, it risks
undermining existing private
sector service providers·············································The quality of locally available
medicines may be poor –pre-positioning or priorselection of suppliers of
good-quality medicines isrequired6

continued over214

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Sub-option

Beneﬁts

Challenges

1.2 Mass
medication or
vaccination
programmes

It is relatively easy to
implement··············································
Mass deworming does not
require a cold chain··············································
Cost per animal can be low··············································
Mass medication has thepotential to provide income forthe veterinary sector (forexample, through voucher
schemes)

There are weak laboratory
facilities in many areas –especially during emergencies– for confirming diseasediagnosis before targeting
specific diseases·············································
Large-scale vaccination
programmes are difficult todesign properly without basic
epidemiological information·············································A single dose of inactivatedvaccines as part of a one-off
campaign may have limited
effectiveness, depending on
the disease in question·············································
Optimal timing of vaccination
is before the high-risk periodof exposure; this may notcoincide with thehumanitarian emergency·············································
Coverage is often determinedby budget rather thantechnical design criteria·············································
Free treatment andvaccination can undermine
the private sector·············································For many vaccines, there is aneed to establish or support
cold chains·············································
There is a risk of poor immune
response to vaccination in
animals already weakened(e.g. due to lack of feed)·············································The quality of locally available
medicines may be poor –pre-positioning of suppliers of
good-quality medicines isrequiredcontinued over215

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Sub-option

Beneﬁts

Challenges

Option 2: Public sector veterinary functions
2.1 Veterinary
public healthPublic awareness raising isoften inexpensive, although it
may require specialisedcommunication expertise to
design and test educational
materials in local languages··············································
This can foster collaboration
between veterinary, humanhealth, WASH and othersectors

Effective approaches often
need community
participation; livestock
keepers may have otherpriorities during emergencies·············································
If not carefully managed andtimed, it can divert resourcesaway from more direct
livelihoods-based assistance

2.2 Livestock
diseasesurveillanceThis can complement all otherveterinary interventions andassist impact assessment ofthese interventions··············································
It fosters linkages between thecentral veterinary authority andthe affected area··············································
It can help to promoteinternational livestock trade insome countries and regions

It needs to be based on
clearly defined surveillance
objectives·············································
It can easily become adata-driven rather than anaction-oriented process·············································
If not carefully managed andtimed, it can divert resourcesaway from more direct
livelihoods-based assistance
6

Timing of interventions
Support to clinical veterinary services is usually appropriate throughout eachstage of rapid-onset and slow-onset emergencies. However, support topublic sector veterinary functions may be most appropriate during therecovery phase. By this time, clinical veterinary care has addressed
immediate threats from livestock diseases (see Table 6.2).
Clinical veterinary care is usually appropriate throughout complex
emergencies. The timing of support to public sector veterinary functions willvary by context. For example, there may be areas of an affected country withrelatively low levels of conflict over long periods. This will allow a longer-term
perspective to be developed, which might include support to veterinary
public health or disease surveillance.
216

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Table 6.2: Possible timing of veterinary support interventions

Rapid-onset emergency
Options

Immediately after

Early recovery

Recovery

1. Clinical veterinary
services
2. Public sector
veterinary functions

Slow-onset emergency
Options

Alert

Alarm

Emergency

Recovery

1. Clinical veterinary
services
2. Public sector
veterinary functions

If vaccination is being considered, the timing of vaccination can be critical.
This is because many important livestock diseases have a seasonaloccurrence. The duration of vaccine protection can also be limited,
depending on the disease or vaccine in question. In these cases, vaccination
should be conducted before the period of high disease exposure. However,this time of year may not coincide with the timing of the humanitarian crisis,
and if so, vaccination may not be effective. In complex emergencies that last
many years, vaccination calendars can be used to assist planning the correct
timing of vaccination.

Links to other LEGS chapters andother HSP standards
Veterinary care alone does not guarantee livestock survival or productivity inemergency situations. So veterinary support should be integrated with otherlivelihoods-based livestock interventions. Livestock requires feed and water(see Chapter 4: Livestock feed, and Chapter 5: Water) and, in some areas,
will require shelter (see Chapter 7: Shelter).
Clinical veterinary services complement livestock offtake (see Chapter 8:
Livestock offtake) by helping to ensure the survival of the remaining stock.
Veterinary public health inputs, such as pre-slaughter and post-mortem
examinations, are important for slaughter offtake. Additional veterinary
217

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

support is required during the provision of livestock (see Chapter 9: Provisionof livestock) to examine livestock before purchase, for example, and todeliver clinical services after livestock distribution.
Veterinary interventions should support and not undermine local service
providers, including veterinary and paraprofessional workers, and private
veterinary pharmaceutical suppliers. The Minimum Economic Recovery
Standards (MERS) Handbook provides guidance for market analysis andimplementing economic and livelihood programmes in humanitariancontexts.

LEGS Principles and other issues toconsiderTable 6.3: The relevance of the LEGS Principles to veterinary support
LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in veterinary
support interventions

1. Supporting
livelihoods-based
programming

Veterinary support can reduce livestock mortality andtherefore protect livestock as financial and social livelihood
assets.
························································································
By working with local veterinary service providers and not
distributing free medicines, agencies help to ensure they
are not undermining the services needed after an
emergency ends.

2. Ensuring community
participation

Effective veterinary responses depend on the active
participation of communities in response design andimplementation. Participatory impact evaluation isrecommended to understand the impact of livestock
responses.
························································································
Livestock keepers can make important intellectual
contributions to service design, assessment and delivery.
They often possess detailed indigenous knowledge aboutanimal health problems, including disease signs, modes of
disease transmission and ways of preventing or controlling
diseases. This knowledge is particularly well documented
for pastoralist and agro-pastoralist communities.
Agency-provided training, and support for local people tobecome CAHWs, can and should build on this knowledge.
continued over218

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in veterinary
support interventions

3. Responding toclimate change andprotecting theenvironment

Using medicines on individual animals or herds selectively
will lessen the risks of environmental contamination (forexample, avoiding the large-scale application of certain
acaricides or anthelmintics).
························································································The potential impact on the environment always needs tobe considered in an emergency response, particularly in an
emergency, such as drought, that severely impacts natural
resources. Veterinary support is unlikely to result in herd
sizes that cannot be locally sustained, and helps tomaintain a sustainable population of healthier, moreproductive animals.

4. Supporting
preparedness and early
actionEffective veterinary support requires quality veterinary
medicines. So preparedness is critical to identify
appropriate quality sources, and to map and pre-position
supply chains and storage facilities.
························································································
Preparatory use of participatory epidemiology can identify
and prioritise most diseases specific to common
emergencies.
························································································
Preparedness and/or early action on potential bureaucracy
and ensuring effective funding flows are essential for rapid
response.

5. Ensuring coordinatedresponses

Coordination can help to ensure that veterinary support isprovided in a consistent manner. Coordination andagreement on roles and responsibilities for the delivery ofveterinary support is important to avoid confusion.
························································································
Other LEGS technical interventions need to be coordinatedwith veterinary support to maximise effectiveness.
························································································
Harmonised approaches are needed across interventions
that use CAHWs (for example, for CAHW selection, training
and supervision).
························································································
Harmonised approaches are also needed across veterinaryinterventions with a pricing or voucher value component toensure consistency.
························································································
Coordination can involve harmonising the timing of specificactions such as vaccination (for example, by using
vaccination calendars in complex emergencies).
continued over219

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in veterinary
support interventions

6. Supporting
gender-sensitive
programming

Gender-sensitive programming within veterinary support isan opportunity to address women’s frequent lack of accessto veterinary staff or to the traders who sell animal healthproducts. Animal health professionals should have theskills and knowledge for treating the working animals thatare often used by women.
························································································
Livestock extension workers and training programmes
should have a gender component. Where possible andappropriate, they should involve women throughspecifically targeted training activities and by recruitment of
women CAHWs.
························································································
Gender-sensitive programming is important for identifying
gender-specific issues relating to livestock keepers andlivestock health in an emergency. Animal health officials
need to prioritise the animals owned by women, such as
poultry, small ruminants and donkeys.
························································································
Female-headed households and at-risk groups may require
specific veterinary support.
························································································
Women often have significant ethno-veterinary knowledge
that should be taken into account in response planning.
Gender-sensitive programming can also identify where
divisions of labour may have changed (for example, when
women become responsible for different livestock species
following an emergency).

7. Supporting local
ownership

Interventions that provide support to clinical veterinary
services can be more effective and sustainable ifcommunity-based approaches are supported. Suchapproaches will recognise local people’s significant
capacities for primary animal healthcare.
························································································
Community-based animal health systems are localised
systems that provide an effective way for veterinary support
to reach the remotest rural communities. They can also
contribute to veterinary public health and livestock disease
surveillance systems.
continued over220

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in veterinary
support interventions

7. Supporting local
ownership (continued)

Local government and local NGOs should be involved indesigning and monitoring interventions such as veterinary
voucher schemes. Local government and NGOs should
also be supported to design and deliver training courses(for example, for CAHWs) and to co-develop standards andguidelines for CAHW systems and voucher schemes.

8. Committing to MEAL

Monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning (MEAL)
is needed to track the progress of veterinary responses andmake timely adjustments to implementation.
························································································
More impact evaluation is needed to strengthen learning
about emergency veterinary responses. There is very
limited evidence on the livelihood impacts of emergency
responses that support public sector veterinary functions.
························································································
Monitoring systems and impact evaluations can provide
valuable information to facilitate learning and improve
future practice.

Protection
Veterinary workers carrying cash and/or high-value medicines may bevulnerable to robbery or attack. Insecurity can also have animal health
implications. Animals stolen from a neighbouring group or area canintroduce disease into the herd. In camps, the risk of livestock assets andassociated goods being stolen is high (see Chapter 7: Shelter).

AccessIn remote areas with poor infrastructure and communications, veterinary
service delivery is a challenge even in ‘normal’ times. Access to communities
may only be achieved on foot or by boat. In camp-like settings, displaced
livestock keepers may be beyond the reach of regular veterinary services.
The more remote communities tend to be more at risk during an emergency.
In these situations, veterinary paraprofessionals are usually the mostappropriate service providers because they can travel to and function inthese environments.

221

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Affordability and cost recovery
When providing veterinary support to communities, there are different
approaches to cost recovery. Three options are outlined in Box 6.1.
Agencies responding to emergencies sometimes provide free veterinary
support. This practice can threaten existing private services that depend on
charging for veterinary care. It can also confuse livestock keepers, whoreceive services for a fee from some providers, then free from others. Thereis very limited evidence that providing free clinical veterinary care offers
significant livelihood benefits to crisis-affected communities or iscost-effective or equitable. More evidence of livelihood benefits is available
for veterinary paraprofessional systems that are based on some level ofpayment for services or which use voucher schemes.
Evidence shows poorer livestock keepers use private clinical services basedon simple, low-cost, community-based approaches. However, during
emergencies, agencies may face the challenge of providing rapid, equitableand effective clinical veterinary care while also supporting local private
service providers who require an income. Approaches such as veterinary
vouchers make clinical services available to poorer livestock owners while
also supporting the private sector.
Box 6.1

Clinical veterinary service delivery in emergencies:Three options for payment
Services delivered free of charge: Coverage usually depends on thelevel of funding by external agencies. In many cases, services will reach
only a small proportion of the crisis-affected community. If agency staff
deliver clinical services, the likelihood of them undermining local
services, markets and longer-term development processes is strong.
Without supervision, there may also be a risk that services will not beprovided free at the point of delivery.
Existing or newly trained veterinary paraprofessionals: Usually, theseworkers are paid by their community at rates lower than professional
services would require. This approach helps to strengthen local capacity
and supports systems that can be improved over time and as the
emergency recedes. It also improves accessibility and availability. On
the other hand, maintaining affordable services may be challenging.
continued over222

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Gradual introduction of payment for services: In this option, services
are provided free during the acute stage of an emergency. Providers
then request payment for services in later stages as livestock markets
begin to function. The risks of this option are similar to those of the first
approach. It may be difficult for providers to persuade people that theyneed to pay if the service was previously provided free.

Use of cash and voucher assistanceDuring emergencies, veterinary professionals and paraprofessionals canpartner with an agency to provide veterinary support. Delivery mechanisms,
such as vouchers, can then be used to provide their services. (See Chapter
3: Emergency response planning.) Cash and voucher assistance can help
reach poorer and more at-risk livestock users. It can also help to maintainprivate services during emergencies.
Agencies can provide cash and vouchers specifically for clinical veterinary
services. Some public sector veterinary functions can be subsidised as aform of indirect grant. See Process case studies: Veterinary voucher schemein Kenya, and Veterinary voucher schemes in Ethiopia, as well as Impact casestudy: Vouchers for livestock distribution and veterinary support in Somalia.

Camps
Camps with displaced people and their animals can create conditions for the
spread of disease. For example, animals from different areas may have close
contact or share feed or water troughs. Specific measures to reduce animal
disease risk in camps should be considered. One way to do this is toestablish quarantine areas where new arrivals are segregated from otheranimals for a period appropriate for the diseases of concern (see Chapter 7:
Shelter).
In camp settings, veterinary public health activities may be particularly
appropriate. Participatory assessment of disease risks involves livestock
keepers jointly identifying disease risks, including zoonotic diseases, andtaking measures to prevent disease outbreaks.

223

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Decision tree for veterinary support
options
The decision tree (Figure 6.1) summarises some of the key questions to
consider in determining which may be the most feasible and appropriate
option for an emergency veterinary support intervention. The standards, key
actions and guidance notes that follow provide more information for detailed
planning. Where possible, these should build on preparedness activities
conducted prior to the onset of the emergency – in ‘normal’ times.

6

224

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Figure 6.1: Decision tree for veterinary support options
Key:

Are livestock at risk from
diseases that cause high mortality
or potential production loss?

Yes

No

Actions

Can these diseases be
prevented by vaccines?

Do private sector service
providers exist (including
paraprofessionals)?

Can these diseases be
addressed by curative
veterinary medicines?

Can they be subcontracted
to deliver services?

Do government service
providers exist?+

Is the local
community involved in
the service design?

Do they have capacity todeliver the required services?

Can their capacity bestrengthened to deliver
the required services?

Can the vaccines andmedicines be procured andstored safely?

6

No action* (unlessoutstanding questions
can be addressed)or consider support
to public sector
veterinary functions

Can the service be provided
in a way that does notundermine existing or
future services?

Can coordination beestablished to ensureharmonised approaches
and coverage?

Can the personal securityof veterinary personnel
be protected?

Consider support toclinical veterinary services

225*The result ‘No action’ does
not necessarily mean that nointervention should take place,but rather that further training or
capacity strengthening may berequired in order to be able toanswer ‘yes’ to the key questions.
+

Where neither government nor
private sector veterinary services
exist (e.g. in conﬂict situations),
an operational response by external
agencies may be feasible fora limited period of time.

Technical standards
Veterinary support

The standards
Standard 1: Preparedness
Veterinary needs and capacities are assessed, and contingency
plans are in place prior to the emergency.

Key actions• Develop contingency plans for veterinary support with communities andlocal veterinary authorities and service providers (see Guidance notes 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5).
• Ensure contingency plans are guided by an assessment of the quality ofveterinary medicines from local suppliers, and of the capacity of local
service providers to store medicines properly (see Guidance note 6).
• Ensure contingency plans take account of the prevailing livestock diseasesituation specific to the local context and of the types of emergency in thearea (see Guidance note 7).

Guidance notes
1. Participatory contingency planning
In areas where livestock are an important livelihood asset and are at risk fromrapid-onset or slow-onset emergencies, agencies should develop
contingency plans for veterinary support. In line with LEGS Principle 2:
Community participation, community members should help develop theseplans, taking account of differences in the needs and priorities of different
gender and wealth groups. Local veterinary service providers andgovernment veterinary departments should also be involved in developing
the contingency plans.
2. Policy and legal factors
Preparedness planning should include carrying out a review of government
and agency policies, rules and procedures that relate to implementation
options. For example:• In some countries, certain types of veterinary paraprofessional workers
are not legally recognised or are restricted to a limited range of veterinary
activities.
• Some countries may have livestock disease control policies that need to
be followed; if these are not followed, agencies need to justify alternative
control methods.
2266

Technical standards
Veterinary support• There may also be restrictions on using certain types of veterinary
products, as defined by national drug registration bodies.
• The purchase of veterinary drugs is sometimes hindered by bureaucratic
requirements from some donors and governments. These may prevent
rapid and appropriate procurement in emergency contexts.
• Organisational or donor policy may hinder cost-recovery plans.

Understanding the policy context is vital, both for recognising potential
constraints and as a foundation for future advocacy or policy action.
3. Flexible funding
Where possible, development programmes working in areas that are at riskof humanitarian crises should include flexible funding or crisis modiﬁers toenable early response. Clinical veterinary support is dynamic and relevant
through all stages of emergencies. It should not be delayed or hindered bybureaucratic processes, and should be included as part of early response.
4. Service design
In cases where cash or vouchers are anticipated to access veterinary
services, agencies can outline specific aspects of the scheme before an
emergency occurs. These might include, for example, the monetary value ofthe voucher and the service fee required by the service provider. Modelcontracts and other administrative documents can be pre-prepared. For
other aspects of service design to consider during preparedness, seeStandard 3: Clinical veterinary service design.
5. Veterinary service providers
Given the importance of clinical veterinary care during emergencies,
preparedness includes an understanding of the types of veterinary workers
who are present in at-risk areas. Here, the emphasis should be on workers
who have been trained to diagnose and treat locally occurring livestock
diseases. Typically, these workers range from veterinarians to specific typesof veterinary paraprofessionals, and they may be positioned in public or
private sectors. Maintaining an inventory of such workers enables rapid
responses. It also helps identify gaps in clinical capacities and related
training or refresher training needs. Also see Standard 2: Assessment andplanning and Standard 4: Examination and treatment.

227

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

6. Medicine supply, quality and storage
Inventories of local veterinary service providers and suppliers of veterinary
medicines should be developed and maintained. The quality of veterinary
medicines is a critical issue. The quality of medicines from local suppliers
should be assessed, and supply chains should be mapped. Visualassessment of medicines can be supported by laboratory testing of medicine
quality. Medicine storage facilities should also be assessed (for example, theuse of refrigeration). Suppliers of good-quality medicines with adequate
storage facilities can be pre-positioned/selected. Local suppliers might also
benefit from awareness raising or training on issues related to medicine
quality and storage. In situations where veterinary medicines of suitable
quality cannot be sourced locally, agencies should consider and plan for theimportation of medicines. However, they should take into account theadditional time required.
7. Assessment of livestock diseases
The livestock diseases that occur during an emergency may differ from thosethat occur during ‘normal’ periods. Participatory assessments carried out
with livestock keepers can be used to identify and prioritise diseases that are
specific to the main types of emergencies that affect the area. Participatory
epidemiology methods are particularly useful for disease prioritisation. They
can be supported with secondary information (for example, surveillance
reports from local veterinary departments).
6

Standard 2: Assessment and planning
The crisis-affected population, including at-risk groups, actively
participates in veterinary needs assessment and prioritisation.

Key actions• Conduct rapid participatory veterinary needs assessment andprioritisation, involving all relevant subgroups within the crisis-affected
population, and in partnership with local veterinary authorities and service
providers (see Guidance note 1).
• Within the affected area (or, for displaced communities, ‘host community
area’), map and analyse all existing veterinary service providers in termsof current and potential capacity if assisted by aid agencies (seeGuidance note 2).

228

Technical standards
Veterinary support• Ensure the assessment before the emergency includes analysis of how
pre-selected service providers prefer to be paid (see Guidance note 2).
• Ensure the assessment includes a rapid analysis of policy or legal factorsthat may hinder or enable specific implementation strategies (seeStandard 1, Guidance note 3).

Guidance notes
1. Rapid participatory assessment
Rapid participatory assessment should:• be conducted using experienced veterinary workers trained inparticipatory methods;• include specific attention to the priorities of at-risk groups;• involve consultation with local government and private sector veterinary
personnel;• aim to identify and prioritise livestock health problems warranting
immediate attention according to livestock type and at-risk group;• be cross-checked against secondary data of adequate quality whereavailable.

A checklist and methods for assessment are given in Appendix 6.1:
Assessment methods and checklist for veterinary support. (See also
participatory data collection methods in Chapter 3: Emergency response
planning.) Formal livestock disease surveys involving questionnaires andlaboratory diagnosis are rarely feasible in emergency contexts. The modest
added value of the disease information obtained is rarely justified in relation
to the additional time and cost required, and the need for rapid action.
During protracted crises, more systematic livestock disease surveys or
studies may be necessary to refine disease control strategies. In thesecases, participatory epidemiological approaches should be used as well.
2. Mapping and analysis of veterinary service providers
Drawing on contingency plans (see Standard 1, Guidance note 5), agencies
should develop a map of existing service providers (veterinary surgeons andall types of veterinary paraprofessional workers), their activities andcoverage. This can be done rapidly if they have already developed aninventory of veterinary workers as part of preparedness (see Standard 1:
Preparedness). The map will assist agencies to define their strategy forservice delivery, including planned geographical coverage and access to
at-risk groups. They should review the pricing arrangements of the different

229

6Technical standards
Veterinary support

service providers (which could also include traditional healers and otherinformal workers) as part of this mapping and analysis.
Categories of veterinary paraprofessional workers vary between countries
but include:• veterinary assistants;• animal health auxiliaries/assistants;• animal health technicians;• CAHWs, as defined in national veterinary legislation and codes.

In some (usually conflict-based) emergencies, it is possible that neither thegovernment nor the private sector can provide adequate veterinary services.
In such cases, it may be appropriate for external agencies to support a
community-based service through the training of CAHWs and/or livestock
keepers. This should be based on plans for building government and/or
private sector capacity as this becomes feasible as part of a clear exit
strategy.

Standard 3: Clinical veterinary service design
Veterinary support is designed appropriately for the local social,technical, security and policy context with the active participationof crisis-affected communities.

Key actions• Ensure the service design process uses the information and analyses of
the contingency plan and/or the initial assessment. Also ensure it isbased on the active participation of the crisis-affected population,
including at-risk groups (see Guidance note 1).
• Check that the service design includes specific elements to reach at-risk
groups and, in particular, addresses challenges of accessibility andaffordability (see Guidance note 2).
• Ensure that the service design considers the need for rapid procurement
and availability of relevant veterinary vaccines and medicines. Also
ensure it considers the need for appropriate quality of products andproper storage at field level (see Guidance note 3).
• Check that the service design includes plans for rapid training of local
service providers as necessary (see Guidance note 4).
230

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support• Ensure that the service design is based on local social and cultural norms,
particularly in relation to gender roles (see Guidance note 5).
• Ensure that the service design maximises the security of local people,
veterinary service providers and aid agency staff (see Guidance note 6).
• Ensure that the service design incorporates payment for services, where
possible (see Guidance note 7).
• Ensure that the service design builds in the professional supervision ofveterinary paraprofessionals (see Guidance note 8).

Guidance notes
1. Design based on assessment ﬁndings
Service design should aim to address the prioritised livestock healthproblems identified in the contingency plan and verified during the initialassessment (see Chapter 3: Emergency response planning). It is rarely
feasible or appropriate for a primary-level veterinary service to address all
livestock health problems. In most cases, a limited range of vaccines andmedicines can prevent or treat the most important diseases in a given area.
The focus of the service on prioritised livestock diseases needs to beunderstood and agreed upon by all actors, including livestock keepers.
Where the service cannot address the priority (for instance, when necessary
facilities such as a cold chain are unavailable), this should be agreed uponwith all stakeholders, including the affected communities. Similarly,
appropriate timing for interventions (particularly vaccination) should be
discussed and agreed upon with all stakeholders. The affected communities
should be actively involved in the design of the service as far as possible.
2. Reaching at-risk groups
Service design should consider the types of livestock that at-risk groups own
or use, and should address the health problems of these types of livestock.
Special attention should be given to accessibility and affordability issues inorder to promote equitable access. Access to remote areas with limited
infrastructure may require expensive means of transport (by air, for example),
which limits coverage within a given budget. Alternatively, access can beachieved by using locally based veterinary paraprofessional workers, who
can travel on foot, mules, bicycles, boats or by other local means oftransport. In some cases, programmes may need to provide or support local
modes of transport for veterinary workers.

231

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

In rapid-onset emergencies, agencies might provide transport free of charge.
In more protracted crises, cost-sharing arrangements are often feasible. The
payment-for-services strategy needs to take account of the need for rapid
and equitable delivery, while also supporting private sector veterinary
workers where possible. For more at-risk groups, private veterinary workers
can be subcontracted to deliver a service for a specified short period of time.
They may use voucher schemes (see Process case studies: Veterinary
voucher scheme in Kenya and Veterinary voucher schemes in Ethiopia). In
areas where the private veterinary sector is active or where the government
charges for clinical veterinary care, normal pricing policies should be
followed. These circumstances can involve possible exemptions for targeted
at-risk groups. To avoid confusion, community participation and theagreement of community representatives on these issues will be needed, as
well as clear communication with all stakeholders.
3. Rapid procurement and storage
Agencies with limited experience in veterinary drug procurement should seek
expert advice. The quality of veterinary drugs and vaccines varies
considerably between suppliers, whether sourced locally or internationally.
Suppliers vary in their capacity to supply medicines in large volumes withappropriate expiry dates within agreed delivery times. The wide range of
products available can further complicate procurement. Because someveterinary vaccines require isolation of local field strains of disease
pathogens, agencies need to verify the vaccine’s exact composition. Local
importers, often located in capital cities, can supply readily available drugs inreasonable quantities. However, the quality, expiry dates and drug storage
conditions should be checked. At the local level, many veterinary vaccines
and some drugs require cold storage. They should not be purchased or used
unless adequate cold storage facilities are in place, as well as a cold chain
for transporting and storing them. Storage in camp-like settings may present
particular challenges because of the lack of cold chain maintenance andstorage. Cold storage facilities for human health services can sometimes beshared. However, human health professionals are sometimes unwilling tostore veterinary products in human health cold chains. A high-levelagreement needs to be reached beforehand to take full advantage ofexpensive cold chain facilities.
4. Community-based approaches
Where some veterinary workers are already present, and rapid delivery ofservices is required, training should be limited to short refresher courses.
These should focus on 1) clinical diagnosis of the prioritised diseases and 2)
232

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

correct use of veterinary vaccines or drugs. Depending on the existing
capacity of local personnel, this refresher training is not always needed.
Where agencies need to select and train veterinary paraprofessional workers
such as CAHWs from scratch, guidelines are available for CAHW systems indevelopment programmes rather than emergency programmes. These
guidelines note the importance of linking CAHWs to higher-level
paraprofessionals or veterinarians to support medicine supply to CAHWs
and for CAHW supervision (also see Guidance note 8). To enable rapid
response in emergency situations, agencies may need to streamline somegood practice principles relating to CAHW selection and training. However,as emergencies become protracted or come to an end, further training is
recommended to enhance CAHW knowledge and skills. In some countries,
national technical intervention standards and guidelines for CAHW systems
are available, as well as training manuals for short, practical, participatory
CAHW training courses.
5. Social and cultural norms
The design of veterinary support needs to take account of local social andcultural norms, particularly those relating to the roles of men and women as
service providers. In some communities, it is difficult for women to handle
some livestock species, move freely or travel alone to more remote areas
where livestock might be present. However, even in very conservative
cultures, it is often possible for women to be selected and trained by womenas CAHWs to provide the service to other women.
6. Protection
Where livestock are very important to local economies and livelihoods,
veterinary drugs are highly prized. These small-volume, high-value items areeasy to steal and resell. Service design should consider the risk to veterinary
personnel of violence, abduction or theft. Livestock are often grazed awayfrom more secure settlements. Sometimes they are moved long distances to
grazing areas and water points. Veterinary workers travelling to such areas
may be at risk, especially in conflict situations. Local veterinary
paraprofessional workers may be appropriate in these situations. This isbecause they know the area and may be familiar enough with armed groups
or security forces to be able to negotiate access.
7. Payment for service
Based on evidence, service design should incorporate payment for services
where possible. Voucher schemes should be used for the most at-risk
livestock keepers. Other livestock keepers should rapidly resume full
233

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

payment for services. Governments may consider all vaccination as a ‘public
good’ rather than a ‘private good’. However, prevention of diseases noteasily transmitted between animals, such as clostridial diseases, may beconsidered as a private good. Theoretically, the private sector is bestequipped to deliver private goods.
8. Professional supervision of veterinary paraprofessional workers
Even where paraprofessionals such as CAHWs are working in remote areas,
they should be under the overall supervision of a veterinarian. Professional
supervision enables monitoring of the correct use of veterinary products,
disease reporting to the authorities, and integration of CAHWs into existing
private veterinary services. In some situations, the use of mobile phones canimprove supervision of CAHWs.

Standard 4: Examination and treatment
Clinically trained veterinary workers conduct examination andtreatment with the active participation of the affected
communities.

Key actions• Maximise the use of veterinarians and clinically trained veterinary
paraprofessionals for the diagnosis and treatment of livestock diseases(see Guidance note 1).
• Clearly document the roles and responsibilities of all actors. Where
appropriate and necessary, make written agreements (see Guidancenote 2).
• Euthanise incurable sick or injured animals humanely and safely (seeGuidance note 3).

Guidance notes
1. Use of veterinarians and clinically trained veterinary
paraprofessionals
In many humanitarian situations, livestock diseases will be recognised bylivestock keepers. Indigenous knowledge on livestock diseases is an
important resource to assist diagnosis. In some situations, physical accessto animals by trained veterinary workers will be limited or impossible, andtherefore veterinary staff depend on reports of diseases provided bylivestock keepers. When veterinary staff can access livestock, the diagnosis
will depend heavily on the clinical examination because laboratory support is234

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

often not available. In these situations, the clinical skills and knowledge ofveterinarians and clinically trained veterinary paraprofessionals should be
used for diagnosis and treatment. Their clinical training will likely be basedon curricula in local veterinary schools and training institutes. These should
cover the livestock species and diseases of relevance locally.
In complex emergencies, agencies should consider some support to local
veterinary laboratories to assist disease diagnosis or establish a basic
laboratory. The correct diagnosis of disease with laboratory support is
especially important in the case of certain epidemic diseases and wherelarge-scale vaccination is being considered. Misdiagnosis in these situations
would lead to incorrect vaccines being used. Laboratory diagnosis can also
support disease surveillance (see Standard 8: Livestock disease surveillance).
2. Roles and responsibilities
During emergency clinical veterinary service provision, problems may occur
due to lack of stakeholder coordination. For example, problems can arise
from a misunderstanding of the roles and responsibilities of different actors.
These include false expectations about the service’s aims and coverage, orconfusion over pricing arrangements or recipient selection. Many of these
problems can be avoided by being committed to community participationand consulting stakeholders. Where possible, there should be close
collaboration with local authorities and private sector actors. Roles andresponsibilities should be documented in memoranda of understanding or
similar agreements. These can provide useful points of reference insubsequent disputes.
3. Euthanasia
Animal euthanasia should follow humane standards and practices.
Depending on the sickness/injury and method of slaughter, some livestock
carcasses may be fit for human consumption (see Standard 6: Sanitation andfood hygiene). Criteria for euthanasia should follow international or
government guidelines, as should the procedures for euthanising and safe
carcass disposal. Religious and traditional considerations with regard toslaughter also need to be taken into account.

235

6Technical standards
Veterinary support

Standard 5: Zoonotic diseases
The crisis-affected population has access to information andservices designed to prevent and control zoonotic diseases.

Key actions• Include participatory assessment of zoonotic diseases and theirprioritisation in the initial assessment of animal health problems (seeGuidance note 1).
• Design and implement zoonotic disease control measures either in
conjunction with the provision of clinical services or as a stand-alone
activity (see Guidance note 2).

Guidance notes
1. Assessment
The contingency plan (Standard 1: Preparedness) and/or rapid participatory
assessment (conducted under Standard 3: Clinical veterinary service design)
should include assessment of zoonotic diseases in terms of actual cases orrisk. During emergencies, zoonotic disease risk may increase or decrease.
Examples include 1) anthrax associated with abnormal movement of
livestock to grazing areas that are normally avoided; 2) rabies associatedwith local populations of wild or domestic predators, possibly attracted tocarcasses or garbage; 3) zoonotic disease associated with close contact
between animals and people; 4) unhygienic conditions arising from thecrowding of people and animals in camps; and 5) water supply breakdown.
2. Zoonotic disease control
The disease control method varies according to the zoonotic diseases inquestion. For some diseases, veterinary paraprofessionals may provide
information to livestock keepers verbally or by using leaflets. Such workers
might also assist with organising vaccination campaigns, for example,
against rabies, or with the humane control of stray dog populations.
Outreach to women can be particularly important because women can play asignificant role in livestock health management. Yet they are often
overlooked in disease control measures. Where private workers are used ona short-term basis, payment for their services by an external agency isusually required. Zoonotic disease control efforts should be harmonised
between agencies and between areas as part of the coordination effort.
Collaboration with human health agencies and programmes helps harmonise236

6Technical standards
Veterinary support

approaches and enables the sharing of resources such as cold-storage
facilities (see Standard 3, Guidance note 3).

Standard 6: Sanitation and food hygiene
Sanitary and food hygiene measures relating to the consumptionof livestock products and the disposal of livestock are established.

Key actions• Construct slaughter slabs during protracted crises (see Guidance note 1).
• Establish meat inspection procedures at slaughter slabs and abattoirs
used by the affected population (see Guidance note 1).
• Publicise good food-handling practices (see Guidance note 2).

Guidance notes
1. Slaughter facilities and meat inspection
In camp-like settings or in situations in which slaughter facilities have beendamaged, it may be appropriate to construct slaughter slabs. This willencourage humane slaughter as well as hygienic handling and inspection bytrained workers. Similarly, animal welfare, health, and hygiene standards willneed to be met for livestock offtake for slaughter. Here, either fixed or mobile
slaughter slabs may need to be constructed (see Chapter 8: Livestock
offtake). In all these cases, consultation with local livestock workers orbutchers will help to determine the correct locations for slaughter slabs andtheir design. Meat inspection procedures are generally well known to animal
health personnel. Safe disposal of offal from slaughtered livestock should beensured.
2. Public awarenessBased on the findings of the assessment, public education campaigns
should be conducted as appropriate to raise awareness of best practices insafe food handling and preparation. For example, campaigns can give
advice to control tuberculosis or brucellosis through improved hygiene whenhandling either animals or meat, or when preparing food, and by encouraging
consumption of boiled milk.

237

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Standard 7: Disposal of dead animals
Dead animal disposal is organised hygienically according to need.

Key actions• Assess the needs for disposal (see Guidance note 1).
• Dispose of carcasses to ensure good hygiene (see Guidance note 2).

Guidance notes
1. Disposal needs assessment
When natural hazards such as fire or earthquakes occur, many animals may
be injured, and either treatment or euthanasia may be required. Slow-onset
emergencies such as drought and severe winter may cause large numbers ofanimal deaths, as may widespread floods or cyclones. The hygienic disposalof animal carcasses then needs to be considered. Animal carcasses may
spread disease, are unsightly, produce noxious odours, and attract
scavengers such as packs of dogs, hyenas or jackals, and crows andvultures. In droughts and winter emergencies, animals die mainly fromundernutrition, dehydration and hypothermia respectively, and not from
diseases. Yet disease agents may remain in carcasses and pose risks tohuman and animal health. Another key consideration may be thepsychological effect on livestock keepers of constantly seeing their deadanimals. On these grounds alone, it may be justifiable to organise disposal.
2. Disposal
Environmental and health considerations should be taken into account.
Composting can be an effective way to dispose of animal bodies that also
produces useful fertiliser. Burying animals anywhere where water sources
may be contaminated should be avoided. Cash for work schemes, in which
community members are paid to undertake carcass disposal, have beenused effectively (see Process case study: Carcass disposal in Mongolia). See
FAO (2016) for technical details on carcass disposal, including composting.

238

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Standard 8: Livestock disease surveillance
During protracted emergencies, a livestock disease surveillancesystem is supported that ensures timely response to disease
outbreaks.

Key actions• Conduct livestock disease investigation in response to disease outbreaks
to confirm diagnosis and trace the source of disease as well as where it
may have spread. This can also instigate or modify control measures asnecessary (see Guidance note 1).
• In protracted crises, and for livestock diseases covered by national
disease surveillance policies or eradication strategies, collect informationin line with these policies and strategies (see Guidance note 2).
• Ensure the coordination body compiles livestock disease data andsubmits the compiled report to the relevant veterinary authority (seeGuidance note 3).

Guidance notes
1. Veterinary investigation and response
Veterinary initiatives and agencies should have the capacity to conduct
investigations of disease outbreaks. Within multi-agency initiatives, this task
may be entrusted to a team or individual with specialist training in disease
investigation, including post-mortem examination and laboratory diagnosis.
In the absence of such assistance, agencies should be prepared to collectrelevant samples and submit them to a diagnostic laboratory, either incountry or abroad. All activities need to complement government veterinary
investigation systems, where these exist, with official reporting of diagnoses
being made by government actors. During protracted crises, agencies
should consider establishing a small, local diagnostic laboratory to support
the capacity of clinical veterinary workers and disease investigations.
Sharing facilities with medical laboratories may be feasible. Investigators
should use standard recording forms with checklist questions to assist withcollecting relevant information for tracing disease sources and spread. To
ensure the continued support of communities, veterinary investigation needs
to be closely linked to timely responses to control a disease outbreak (forexample, through the treatment or vaccination of livestock).

239

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

2. Animal disease surveillance
In many countries, specific animal diseases have national or international
control or eradication programmes. Standardised surveillance procedures
are set by international organisations such as WOAH and FAO. Where
possible, livestock disease surveillance systems in protracted crises should
follow these procedures. Operational constraints may prevent theimplementation of standard surveillance procedures. Here, liaison withnational authorities (if working) and either WOAH or FAO can enable modified
surveillance methods to suit the conditions.
3. Reporting
In protracted crises, all agencies should submit regular (usually monthly)surveillance reports to the coordination body for compilation and submission
to the relevant government authority. They should provide brief reports thatsummarise pooled surveillance data from the region to veterinary workers
who submit data.

6240

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Appendices
Appendix 6.1: Assessment methods and checklist for veterinary
supportIndicator

Useful method*

1. Accessibility: The physicaldistance between livestock
keepers and the nearest trained
veterinary workers

Participatory mapping: Simple sketch maps of agiven area with:– locations and owners of livestock– nearest veterinary services/types– distance (km, hours, etc.)

2. Availability: A measure of aservice’s physical presence andconcentration/availability in an
area

Participatory mapping: As above···········································································
Direct observation: Veterinary workers
Facilities···········································································
Interviews: Assess existing stocks of veterinary
products
Quality of medicines and equipment
Barriers to availability based on caste, ethnicity,
gender, etc.

3. Affordability: The ability ofpeople to pay for services

Semi-structured interviews···········································································
Observation: Veterinary facilities
Livestock markets
Price lists(These will determine normal service costs andlivestock values, and allow comparison of service
costs against livestock worth. If livestock markets
are still functioning, or if livestock offtake is taking
place, it is more likely that people will be able topay for veterinary support. See also MISMA.)

4. Acceptance: Relates tocultural and political acceptanceof veterinary workers, which isaffected by sociocultural norms,
gender issues, language
capabilities, and other issues

Interviews: with male and female livestock
keepers (young and old)

continued over241

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Indicator

Useful method*

5. Quality: This includes
veterinary workers’:level of training
technical knowledge and skills
communication skills
and the quality and range ofveterinary medicines andvaccines, or access toequipmentInterviews: Veterinary workers···········································································
Direct observation: Veterinary facilities
Education certificates
Licences to practise or equivalent

All indicators

Matrix scoring: Scoring different types ofveterinary workers operational in the area against
the five indicators shows the relative strengths andweaknesses of each type.

* See Suggested participatory methods for carrying out initial assessment in Chapter 3: Emergency
response planning.

6242

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Appendix 6.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators forveterinary support

Designing the intervention

Process indicators(measure things
happening)

Impact indicators(measure the result ofthings happening)

Completion ofparticipatory survey andanalysis·······································
Number of meetings with
community/community
representatives·······································
Number of meetings
between private veterinary
workers and implementing
agencyIdentification of mostimportant animal healthproblems in the community
according to different
wealth and gender groups·········································
Analysis of options for
improving animal health·········································
Veterinary vouchers:
Value of vouchers agreed
with community and local
private veterinary service
providers
Affected community
selection criteria agreed
Number of veterinary
paraprofessionals linked to
private veterinary drug
supplier or agency
Reimbursement system for
private sector workers andsuppliers agreed
Monitoring system agreed·········································
Implementing agency
provides medicines:
Number of veterinary
paraprofessionals suppliedby agency andgeographical coveragecontinued over243

6

Technical standards
Veterinary support

Process indicators(measure things
happening)

Impact indicators(measure the result ofthings happening)

Rapid veterinary
training/refresher training

Number and gender ofworkers trained·······································
Number and type ofanimal health problems
covered in training course·······································
Cost of training

Improved veterinary
knowledge and skills
among trainees

Veterinary activities

Veterinary vouchers:
Number of vouchers
distributed by area andtype of household

Livestock mortality by
species and diseaseagainst baseline·········································
Geographical coverage ofveterinary workers·········································
Proportion of
livestock-rearing
households serviced·········································
Proportion or number ofworkers functioning after
training·········································
Action taken according todisease outbreak reports·········································
Human nutrition –consumption of animalsourced foods incommunity in relation to
improved animal health andaccording to wealth andgender groups·········································
Income in community inrelation to improved animal
health and according to
wealth and gender groups·········································
Influence on policy

Number of treatments perdisease per livestock type
per household
Number and value ofvouchers reimbursed·······································
Medicines provided byagency or private
veterinary pharmacy:
Quantities and types of
medicines supplied toveterinary workers
Cost of medicines
supplied to veterinary
workers
Number of treatments perdisease per livestock type
per worker per month
Number of monitoring
forms submitted byveterinary workers
Number of disease
outbreaks reported byveterinary workers

244

6Technical standards
Veterinary support

References and further reading
Admassu, B., Nega, S., Haile, T., Abera, B., Hussein A., Catley, A. (2005) ‘Impact assessment of acommunity-based animal health project in Dollo Ado and Dollo Bay districts, southern Ethiopia’,
Tropical Animal Health and Production 37: 33–48, http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:TROP.0000047932.
70025.44
Aklilu, Y. (2003) ‘The impact of relief aid on community-based animal health programmes: the Kenyan
experience’, in K. Sones and A. Catley (eds), Primary Animal Health Care in the 21st Century: Shaping
the Rules, Policies and Institutions, proceedings of an international conference, 15–18 October 2002,
Mombasa, Kenya, African Union/Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources, Nairobi, http://www.eldis.
org/go/home&id=13563&type=Document#.U38tmbkU_Vh
Baker, J. (2011) 5-year evaluation of the Central Emergency Response Fund, country study: Mongolia,
Channel Research, Belgium on behalf of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), http://www.alnap.org/resource/11664
Bekele, G., Akumu, J., (2009) Impact assessment of the community animal health system in ManderaWest, Kenya, Tufts University, CARE, Save the Children, VSF Suisse, Nairobi, https://fic.tufts.edu/
pacaps-project/Coordination%20Support/VSF%20ELMT%20CAH%20PIA%20report.pdf
Braam D.H., Chandio R., Jephcott F.L., Tasker A., Wood J.L.N. (2021) ‘Disaster displacement andzoonotic disease dynamics: The impact of structural and chronic drivers in Sindh, Pakistan’, PLOS
Glob Public Health 1(12): e0000068, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000068
Burton, R. (2018) Humane destruction of stock, PrimeFact 310, Fourth edition, New South Wales
Department of Primary Industries, Orange, New South Wales, https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/
assets/pdf_ﬁle/0007/1309489/Humane-destruction-of-stock.pdf
Catley, A., Admassu, B., Bekele, G. and Abebe, D. (2014) ‘Livestock mortality in pastoralist herds in
Ethiopia during drought and implications for drought response’ Disasters 38(3), 500-516,
https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12060
Catley, A., Leyland, T. and Blakeway, S. (eds) (2002) Community-based Animal Healthcare: A Practical
Guide to Improving Primary Veterinary Services, ITDG Publishing, London.
Catley, A., Leyland, T., Mariner, J.C., Akabwai, D.M.O., Admassu, B., Asfaw, W., Bekele, G., andHassan, H.Sh., (2004) ‘Para-veterinary professionals and the development of quality, self-sustaining
community-based services’, Revue scientiﬁque et technique de l’ofﬁce international des épizooties
23(1): 225–252, http://www.livestock-emergency.net/userﬁles/ﬁle/veterinary-services/
Catley-et-al-2004.pdf
Catley, A. (2020) ‘Participatory epidemiology: reviewing experiences with contexts and actions’,
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 180, 105026, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105026
Catley, A. (2005) Participatory Epidemiology: A Guide for Trainers, African Union/Interafrican Bureau
for Animal Resources, Nairobi.
Catley, A., Abebe, D., Admassu, B., Bekele, G., Abera, B., Eshete, G., Rufael, T. and Haile, T. (2009)‘Impact of drought-related livestock vaccination in pastoralist areas of Ethiopia’, Disasters 33(4):
665–685, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2009.01103.x
FAO (2011) The use of cash transfers in livestock emergencies and their incorporation into Livestock
Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS). Animal Production and Health Working Paper. No. 1.
Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/i2256e/i2256e00.pdf

245

6Technical standards
Veterinary support

FAO (2012) An assessment of the impact of emergency de-worming activities, FAO report
OSRO/KEN/104/EC – FAOR/LOA NO. 008/2012, FAO, Nairobi. https://www.livestock-emergency.
net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RVC-WSPA-FAO-ILRI-2012.pdf
FAO (2016) Livestock-related interventions during emergencies – The how-to-do-it manual. Edited byPhilippe Ankers, Suzan Bishop, Simon Mack and Klaas Dietze. FAO Animal Production and Health
Manual No. 18. Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/i5904e/i5904e.pdf(See Chapter 5)
Farm Africa (2006) Immediate support to agro-pastoral communities as a drought mitigation response:
Marsabit and Moyale Districts, Final Report to FAO, OSRO/RAF/608/NET (CERF2), Farm Africa,
Nairobi.
Gary, F., Clauss, M., Bonbon, E., Myers, L (2021) Good emergency management practice: Theessentials – A guide to preparing for animal health emergencies, 3rd edn, FAO Animal Production and
Health Manual No. 25. Rome, FAO, https://doi.org/10.4060/cb3833en
Heath, S.E., Kenyon, S.J., and Zepeda Sein, C.A. (1999) ‘Emergency management of disasters
involving livestock in developing countries’, Revue scientiﬁque et technique de l’ofﬁce internationaldes épizooties 18(1): 256–271, https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.18.1.1158
Hufnagel, H. (2020) The quality of veterinary pharmaceuticals: a discussion paper for the Livestock
Emergency Guidelines and Standards, LEGS, https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/
uploads/2020/11/LEGS-Discussion-Paper-The-Quality-of-Veterinary-Pharmaceuticals-1.pdf
Iles, K. (2002) ‘Participative training approaches and methods’ and ‘How to design and implement
training courses’, in A. Catley, T. Leyland, and S. Blakeway (eds), Community-based Animal
Healthcare: A Practical Guide to Improving Primary Veterinary Services, ITDG Publishing, Rugby.
LEGS (2020) The challenges of emergency veterinary voucher schemes: research into operational
barriers to applying LEGS, LEGS Briefing Paper. https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/
uploads/2020/02/The-Challenges-of-Emergency-Veterinary-Voucher-Schemes-LEGS-BrieﬁngPaper-January-2020.pdf
LEGS (2020) LEGS core standards and community-based animal health services, LEGS Briefing Paper,https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/LEGS-Core-Standards-andCommunity-Based-Animal-Health-Services-LEGS-Briefing-Paper-January-2020.pdf
Leyland, T. (1996) ‘The case for a community-based approach, with reference to Southern Sudan’, in
The World Without Rinderpest, pp. 109–120, FAO Animal Health and Production Paper 129, FAO,
Rome.
Leyland, T., Lotira, R., Abebe, D., Bekele, G. and Catley, A. (2014) Community-based animal healthcare in the Horn of Africa: an evaluation for the US Ofﬁce for Foreign Disaster Assistance, FeinsteinInternational Center, Tufts University, Addis Ababa and Vetwork UK, Great Holland.
Linnabary, R.D., New, J.C. and Casper, J. (1993) ‘Environmental disasters and veterinarians’
response’, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 202(7): 1091–1093.
Mutungi, P.M. (2005) External evaluation of the ICRC veterinary vouchers system for emergency
intervention in Turkana and West Pokot districts, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
Nairobi.
Okell, C.N., Mariner, J., Allport, R., Buono, N., Mutembei, H.M., Rushton, J., Verheyen, K. (2016)‘Anthelmintic administration to small ruminants in emergency drought responses: assessing theimpact in two locations of northern Kenya’, Tropical Animal Health and Production 48:493–500,
https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Okell-at-al-2016.pdf

246

6Technical standards
Veterinary support

Regassa, G. and Tola, T. (2010) Livestock emergency responses: the case of treatment voucher
schemes in Ethiopia, FAO, Addis Ababa.
Schreuder, B. (2015) Afghanistan, a 25-years’ Struggle for a Better Life for its People and Livestock,
DCA-VET/Erasmus Publishing, Lelystad/Rotterdam, https://dca-livestock.org/books/
Schreuder, B.E.C., Moll, H.A.J., Noorman, N., Halimi, M., Kroese, A.H., and Wassink, G. (1995) ‘A
benefit-cost analysis of veterinary interventions in Afghanistan based on a livestock mortality study’,
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 26: 303–314, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-5877(95)00542-0
Simachew, K. (2009) Veterinary voucher schemes: an emergency livestock health intervention – casestudies from Somali Regional State, Ethiopia, Save the Children USA, Addis Ababa.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2010) 2010 Dzud Early Recovery Programme,
UNDP Project Document, United Nations Development Programme, Ulaanbaatar.
Vetwork UK (2019) Operational barriers to applying LEGS: research report, https://www.livestockemergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/LEGS-Research-Report-Operational-Barriers-toApplying-LEGS-December-2019.pdf
World Health Organization (2021) ‘Tripartite and UNEP support OHHLEP’s definition of ”One Health”’,
https://www.who.int/news/item/01-12-2021-tripartite-and-unep-support-ohhlep-s-definition-ofone-healthSee also case studies for veterinary support interventions in emergencies at: https://www.livestockemergency.net/resources/case-studies/6247

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement248Chapter 7: Technicalstandards forlivestock shelter andsettlement
251

Introduction

254

Options for shelter and settlement

259

Timing of interventions

260

Links to other LEGS chapters and other HSP standards

261

LEGS Principles and other issues to consider

265

Decision tree for livestock shelter and settlement options

268

The standards

282

Appendix 7.1: Assessment checklist for livestock shelter andsettlement provision

284

Appendix 7.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicatorsfor livestock shelter and settlement285

Appendix 7.3: Livestock shelter and climate challenges

287

References and further reading

Photo © The Brooke249

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Chapter 7: Technicalstandards for livestock
shelter and settlement
Standard 1
Preparedness

Standard 2
Assessment andplanning

Option 1
Livestock
shelter

Option 2
Livestock andsettlement

Standard 3
Livestock
shelterStandard 4
Livestock andsettlement
7

Standard 5
Transition to durable
livestock shelter solutions

250

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Introduction
Livestock shelters are the physical structures that, in some environments,
animals need to survive. Not all livestock require shelter, or their need for
shelter might be seasonal. Shelters can be either temporary or longerlasting, according to need. Needs include protection against cold/hot
climates, predators, and/or theft; prevention from wandering; and provisionof a healthy environment for livestock and people. Shelters are also often
used to manage livestock or as an animal husbandry practice.
Livestock settlement is the term used to refer to the wider context oflivestock shelters. It includes land rights, environmental implications ofshelter provision and access to feed and water. During emergencies, there
are many areas where shelter and settlement needs for people and livestock
overlap. Shelter and settlement for people is covered in detail in the Sphere
Handbook.
Whether a community is displaced or non-displaced by an emergency is a
key determinant of how they recover their shelter and livelihoods. Whencommunities have been displaced, they may arrive in areas that are
significantly hotter, colder, wetter or drier than they have been used to. They
may also have greater need for livestock shelter. During complex
emergencies, security often becomes a significant shelter and settlement
issue.
This chapter presents information on supporting livestock shelter andsettlement as an emergency livestock response, together with the technicaloptions for each, and their associated benefits and challenges. Information is
also available in Chapter 8, ‘Livestock shelter and settlement’ in FAO (2016).
For each technical option, LEGS provides information through standards,
key actions, and guidance notes. Checklists for assessment, as well as formonitoring and evaluation indicators, are presented in the appendices at theend of this chapter, and further reading is provided too. Case studies arepresented on the LEGS website (see https://www.livestock-emergency.net/
resources/case-studies/).

Links to the LEGS livelihoods objectives
Livestock shelter and settlement relates primarily to the second of the LEGS
livelihoods objectives: to support crisis-affected communities to protect
key livestock assets.

251

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Livestock shelter can be vital to ensure livestock survive an emergency andcontinue to support livelihoods. As well as designing shelters to protect
livestock assets after an emergency, it is important to include emergency
mitigation measures (for example, earthquake-resistant livestock shelters) as
preparedness before an emergency. ‘Build-back-safer’ elements are also
important for the design of long-term shelters.

The importance of livestock shelter and settlement in emergency
response
Livestock shelter interventions may be appropriate before, during andfollowing an emergency. They may either replace the structures forpreviously sheltered animals, or construct new livestock shelters in response
to a new context. Some examples of interventions are:• when previously sheltered animals lose their shelter, for example, as aresult of a flood or earthquake in which structures have been destroyed;• when livestock keepers are displaced because of an emergency, and theirlivestock lose access to previous shelter, or the context requires new
shelter (for example, when they move into camps);• when extreme weather conditions (heat or cold) or conflict and insecurity
require new shelter for previously unsheltered livestock;• when livestock have been distributed as part of the response, and new
shelters are required to protect them from weather, theft or predators.

The provision of livestock shelter as part of an emergency response also
contributes to three of the animal welfare ‘domains’ described in Chapter 1:
Introduction to LEGS, namely ‘Environment’, ‘Health’ and ‘Mental state’.
The safety, security and welfare of their livestock are a primary concern of
livestock keepers during or following all types of emergencies. There aremany cases of livestock keepers prioritising the shelter needs of theirlivestock. This is irrespective of whether or not support is provided byintervening agencies, and in some cases in preference to safe shelter for
their own family members (see Box 7.1).

252

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Box 7.1

Actions of livestock keepers in prioritising shelter
In areas prone to yearly flooding, communities may constructflat-topped and compacted earth mounds, or else platforms on wooden
pillars. Animals can then be herded onto these in response to flood
warnings. There may not be enough space for both livestock andhumans, or livestock protection may be too far away from safe areas forhumans. In such cases, livestock keepers may forego their own shelter
to remain close to their livestock.
In climates with cold seasons, displaced families may cohabit with theiranimals in shared shelters. The families benefit from the body heat of the
livestock during the winter nights, although co-location increases thepotential for zoonotic disease transmission.
In complex emergencies, co-location with animals may help to reduce
the risk of livestock being stolen. If there is not sufficient safe space forlivestock within camps, displaced livestock keepers may prefer toremain outside the camps with their animals. They might do this even if
it increases their general insecurity, and results in less access to basic
services in the camp, such as health or education.
Displaced livestock keepers sometimes use materials distributed fortheir own shelter to make shelters for their livestock. They may do soeven if this compromises the effectiveness or safety of the shelter
intended for human use. In Pakistan after the 2005 earthquake, shelter
agencies distributed kits of shelter materials, including nylon rope
intended to bind the wooden joints of the shelters together. Many
families chose instead to use the nylon rope to tether or makeenclosures for their goats. Shelter experts then worked with thecommunities to identify scrap metal from the rubble of the destroyedhouses to use instead of the nylon rope to secure the wooden joints ofthe shelters. This meant the families could have an earthquake-resistantshelter and look after their livestock at the same time.
(Source: J. Kennedy, personal comment.)

253

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Options for shelter and settlement
Despite evidence of the importance of livestock shelter to livestock keepers,
it is an underdeveloped component of emergency response. There arelimited examples of effective interventions in this area. In line with LEGS
Principle 2: Community participation, crisis-affected communities should be
supported in choosing their own shelter options. These should be based on
how they judge their needs and on their preferred options for recovery.
Agencies need to recognise these priorities, providing sufficient shelter
support for livestock as well as for people. Other key elements to consider
are whether the affected community has been displaced or not, and theclimate.
For people, the options for shelter and settlement support have become
wide-ranging. They include alternatives to simply providing physical sheltersor shelter construction materials. Flexible support options allow more
efficient use of limited resources in times of crisis. Cash and voucher
assistance (CVA) and market-based approaches, together with support for
housing, land and property rights (HLP), have become central to many
human shelter responses. They provide greater dignity and decision-making
power to emergency-affected households. These different shelter options
should also be used to allow livestock keepers to define their shelter
priorities for their livestock.
In terms of human shelter, camps are described as an option of last resort:
to be avoided if other better options are available. Other options may provide
more safety and dignity to households, as well as closer access to livelihood
opportunities and basic services such as health and education. For major
assets such as livestock, however, a camp may be the preferred option as it
can provide sufficient space and security.

Livestock shelter and settlements for displaced and non-displaced
populations
People’s physical displacement during an emergency obstructs their options
for recovery. Displacement over an international border may affect whether
local authorities permit an individual to shelter in certain places, or undertake
any livelihood activities including those that are livestock-related.
Displacement may also have a significant effect on the social and economic
networks that people need to reconstruct livelihoods and shelter. Those who
can remain in their normal location, despite the impacts of an emergency,
may have more security and more access to support.

254

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Interventions will involve decisions on whether displacement/evacuation isnecessary or ‘remaining in place’ is feasible. Where possible, human andlivestock shelter and settlement support should be provided to individual
households and communities in their original homes. When livestock keepers
have been displaced with their livestock, shelter and settlement supportshould be provided individually or collectively in suitable sites or enclosures.
These should be within reasonable distance from grouped settlements forhuman populations, such as temporary planned or self-settled camps.

Livestock and shelter in different climates
In many areas of the world, temperatures make extreme changes over thecourse of a year. The need for protection from extreme temperatures may
also be accompanied by other adversities: high winds, heavy rain or snow, or
extended dry periods. When deciding upon individual shelter, camp andsettlement options, it is important to consider to what degree livestock andpeople traditionally protected or sheltered each other in the local context.
For example, they may have shared a cold-weather shelter to share warmth,
which may impact the choice and design of the shelter or settlement.
Shelter for livestock can include physical protection from extremes of heat(for example, ventilation or shade), cold (for example, wind barriers), dry
weather, or wet weather (for example, raised areas away from or above wetor flooded land). Several common shelter design principles, and sheltermaterials, work equally well in providing physical protection for both people
and livestock. However, enough shelter space or materials must be provided
to ensure adequate climate protection for households and livestock at thesame time. In the first instance, it is often more cost-effective and easier forthe affected communities to use resources already present, such as theshade available under existing trees. This is as long as these resources areequitably available to all who need them.

Option 1: Livestock shelter
Where there is urgent need for livestock shelter, livestock keepers
themselves are the first responders and will construct temporary structures.
However, where possible, shelter materials and construction should also be
adaptable for the long term (see Table 7.1). Temporary and longer-lasting
livestock shelter interventions may take a range of forms, depending on theneeds and nature of the emergency. In almost all instances, these can be
combined with related support for human shelter. Actions might include:• repair, construction, or reconstruction of livestock shelters by contractors
or agencies, or directly by affected communities themselves;
255

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement• providing materials to livestock keepers for shelter construction – thismay include their being provided with support for human shelter
construction on the understanding that some materials may also be used
for animal shelter;• incorporating livestock shelter needs into human shelter programming (inother words, designing shelters or camp layouts so that both humans andtheir livestock can shelter in the same location together);• providing training in shelter design and construction that covers both
combined or separate human and livestock shelter;• cash or voucher assistance for livestock shelter needs – in many
interventions supporting human shelter, agencies use commodity or value
vouchers or conditional cash grants (this might involve, for example, theirdistributing the cash in tranches dependent upon the completion of the
shelter in stages, and to approved safety standards: this is to ensure thatshelters are safe and meet the needs of everyone in each household);these approaches will need to be aligned with the preferred cash
approaches for livestock shelter (see Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS
and Chapter 3: Emergency response planning on CVA);• information, advocacy and support for negotiation of secure tenure forland use of individual shelter plots (to avoid forced eviction of livestockand livestock keepers).

There are some types of human shelter, such as ‘collective centres’, where it
is unlikely that the shelter will accommodate livestock. However, for mostother types of shelter it is possible for livestock to be accommodated. This
will either be in designated structures within the individual shelter plot, or indesignated locations separate from shelters but still within a camp or
settlement. Where livestock cannot be directly accommodated, negotiation
with local host communities is needed to arrange livestock shelter that isnear livestock keepers and is safely accessible.
Community livestock shelters can be used for displaced or non-displaced
crisis-affected communities. Construction work may include repairingdamaged structures or building new structures for groups of households withlivestock in spontaneous settlements, collective centres and within camps.
Affected communities will often have the skills to build a communal livestock
shelter as a group, if given materials and some support. People will often
prefer to build multiple smaller community livestock shelters to share withpeople they know, if they cannot build the preferred individual livestock
shelter for each household.

256

7Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Option 2: Livestock and settlement
Settlement interventions complement livestock shelter construction,
particularly for displaced communities. They may include:• support in negotiations on land rights or on access to grazing and/or
shelter or other policy issues;• liaison with site planners and camp managers about the shelter needs of
livestock accompanying displaced populations;• provision of infrastructure to support the livestock of displaced people (forexample, water supply);• environmental management to address the needs of both livestock andhumans in camps in order to ensure public and animal health.

Most settlements that result from emergencies are spontaneous. They are
constructed by those who live there, and without the benefit of any initialinterventions by trained site planners. As a result, settlements often lack
many basic services and have inadequate space for livestock. In such cases,
an incremental programme of smaller-scale insertions of basic service
facilities is often more realistic than a total reorganisation of the entire
settlement. Site planners should be consulted to ensure that expanding asettlement, or inserting new facilities and public spaces, takes realistic
account of the needs of livestock and livestock keepers.
Increasingly, both planned and unplanned camps are located in or at theedges of urban areas. These settlements often experience complex
challenges in terms of availability of space, interactions with hostcommunities, environmental impact, and access to resources like water,
drainage and electrical power. Settlements in or near urban areas may
provide livestock keepers with better access to markets, livelihoods, andveterinary support. Yet there may simply not be enough space to provide
minimum standards of shelter to all livestock.
Urban and peri-urban shelter and settlement needs fall into three main
themes:• Transhumant herding households affected by emergencies, but retaining
their livestock, may conduct their own risk analyses and divide livestock
responsibilities. Some household members may become locallydisplaced and find shelter in urban or peri-urban locations with somelivestock (for example, women and girls, so as to access health and otherservices). Other household members may then keep most of the livestockin rural areas for access to grazing and water.

257

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement• Rural households who, having lost all or most of their livestock in an
emergency, are forced to migrate to urban or peri-urban areas. This
forced displacement will leave families in need of shelter and otherresources. Livestock shelter should suit the livestock that people are able
to keep in the urban environment. For example, people used to herding
sheep in Mongolia who move to a peri-urban area of Ulaanbaatar after adzud may start to raise pigs.
• Urban and peri-urban families affected by rapid-onset emergencies whoneed replacement for livestock and poultry shelter destroyed during thenatural hazard; this might include, for example, replacement of chicken
enclosures and pig sheds.

In all these situations, care is needed to ensure that livestock waste andhealth are factored in to reduce potential disease transmission between
livestock and people (see Chapter 6: Veterinary support).
Table 7.1: Beneﬁts and challenges of livestock shelter and settlement
options
OptionBeneﬁts

Challenges

1.1 Temporary
livestock
shelterThis responds to immediate
shelter needs of livestock·················································
Generally cheaper thanlonger-lasting solutions, so more
people can benefit

It may need to be demolishedand rebuilt in the longer term if
location, accessibility, or tenure
issues are not carefully
considered

1.2
Longer-lasting
livestock
shelter

Livestock keepers remain with along-term asset after the
emergency is over·················································
More economical use ofresources in the long term

It is generally more expensive
than temporary structures·················································
Not appropriate for displaced
populations who are certain to
return to their original areas in avery short period after the
emergency
continued over258

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

OptionBeneﬁts

Challenges

2. Livestock
settlement
interventions

These enable design andplanning of wider settlement
issues to allow for livestockneeds as well as those of theirkeepers in a range ofpost-emergency situations. They
include both camp andnon-displaced contexts·················································
They help reduce potential
tension or conflict with hostcommunities

Depending on the nature andphase of the emergency, time islimited for discussions with hostcommunities before immediateneeds are met·················································
Agencies may not recognise theimportance of livestock as key
livelihood assets for affected
communities and may therefore
be reluctant to address livestock
settlement issues

Timing of interventions
Livestock shelter and settlement needs vary according to the different
phases of an emergency. Needs range from immediate response solutions
up to durable solutions, once access to these is feasible during recovery.
The requirement for livestock shelter may evolve from disaster risk reduction
programming, through life-saving interventions, to actions that integrate
livelihood recovery with ‘building back better’. Shelter and settlement
support should prioritise solutions for affected communities that are
sustainable in terms of design, location and construction.
It is important to consider the different risks that livestock and livestock
keepers face at different times. The threat of robbery or violence will be moreprevalent during complex emergencies, as well as in the first chaotic days ofa rapid-onset emergency before stability has been established. The risks offorced eviction from a location may become apparent at a later stage.
Seasonal cycles are also important. Many communities who become
displaced due to an emergency will not be able to re-establish permanent
housing for either themselves or their livestock within the first 12 months. In
these cases, multiple yearly weather cycles need to be planned for.

259

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Table 7.2: Possible timing of livestock shelter and settlement
interventions

Rapid-onset emergency
Options

Immediately after

Early recovery

Recovery

1.1 Temporary shelterinterventions
1.2 Longer-lasting shelterinterventions
2.

Settlement
interventions

Slow-onset emergency
Options

Alert

Alarm

Emergency

Recovery

1.1 Temporary shelterinterventions
1.2 Longer-lasting shelterinterventions
2.

Settlement
interventions

Links to other LEGS chapters andother HSP standards
The provision of livestock shelter complements the livestock interventions
described in the other LEGS technical chapters. Where the crisis-affected
community is displaced, livestock shelter interventions should be part of aplanned response to the full range of livestock needs, including feed, waterand veterinary support (Chapters 4, 5 and 6). If livestock are in situations
where shelter is vital for their survival and well-being, such as in cold
climates, livestock provision interventions (Chapter 9) should address shelter
needs. In such cases, the intervention should also provide basic advice on
animal housing, particularly if species are being introduced to communities
that are not familiar with them.
Livestock shelter cannot be considered separately from human shelter andsettlement. In some – but not all – instances, both animals and humans will
require shelter following an emergency. Coordinated interventions thatconsider the needs of both humans and their animals will have the greatest
impact in the medium and long term, with livelihoods supported and lives
260

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

saved. However, the settlement needs of communities will always takeprecedence over those of livestock. It is critical, therefore, that interventions
for livestock do not negatively affect the provision of human settlement. But
in many cases, settlement needs for humans and livestock areinterdependent, further highlighting the need for coordination and joint
planning (see LEGS Principle 5: Coordinated responses). For example,
providing sufficient water to cover the needs of people and livestock isnormally considered in a joint needs assessment for a household.
The Sphere Handbook chapter on ‘Shelter and Settlements’, and the otherfurther reading listed at the end of this chapter, cover human shelter andsettlement in detail. The shelter and settlement issues in Sphere that may
have a bearing on livestock include shelter design, materials andconstruction methodologies, land rights, environmental management, andthe planning and design of infrastructure such as facilities, buildings andcamps.

LEGS Principles and other issues toconsiderTable 7.3: Relevance of LEGS Principles to shelter and settlement
LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in shelter andsettlements interventions

1. Livelihoods-based
programming

Providing shelter and settlement support can reduce
livestock mortality and therefore protect the key livelihood
assets of livestock owners.
························································································
Use of cash and market approaches to provide livestock
shelter can support wider non-livestock owning livelihoods.
························································································
Providing spaces for local markets for livestock products incamps and settlements can help retain livelihoods.
························································································
Shelter locations provide support to additional livelihoods,
including their use to store tools related to livestock.
continued over261

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in shelter andsettlements interventions

2. Ensuring community
participation

It is essential to have community participation in livestock
shelter and settlement design. This will ensure human andlivestock health and safety, efficiency of responses andcost-effectiveness. Consultation on the location of
livestock areas and the construction of livestock shelters is
also essential in camps.

3. Responding toclimate change andprotecting theenvironment

Livestock shelter and settlement interventions should
consider the environmental implications by: establishingclimate-appropriate shelter for people and livestock;ensuring sustainable procurement and use of sheltermaterials; considering the environmental impacts of grazing
and water access in and around camps; addressing waste
management, including management of livestock-produced
waste in camps and settlements; and ensuring
environmental rehabilitation in camps after their closure.
(This is not low-cost, and in some cases the environmental
degradation caused may not be fully reversible or may
continue for several years.)

4. Supporting
preparedness and early
actionIdentifying and preparing for the impacts of rapid-onset
emergencies (through risk assessments and improving
existing shelter and settlement provisions) will mitigate
livestock losses. Early action to release tethered livestockis also critical.

5. Ensuring coordinatedresponses

Coordinated interventions that consider the needs of bothhumans and their animals will have the greatest impact inthe medium and long term, with livelihoods supported andlives saved.

6. Supporting
gender-sensitive
programming

Shelter and settlement options should support the
mitigation of gender-based violence risk, including
mitigation of risks for women and children who look after
livestock.
························································································The role of and effectiveness of good site planning can
support access to livelihood opportunities for women.
continued over262

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in shelter andsettlements interventions

7. Supporting local
ownership

Acknowledging the needs, and utilising the expertise, of
local host communities in managing livestock-relatedresources inside and outside a camp is critical.
························································································
Land rights, ethnicity, and local politics may all impact theprovision of shelter and settlement. Utilising local
knowledge and following conflict avoidance strategies are
particularly important when supporting displacedcommunities.

8. Committing to MEAL

There needs to be more evidence on how specific types ofshelter and settlement support for livestock keepers canhave a positive impact on livestock keepers and theirlivelihoods. Monitoring of the interventions, and impact
evaluations, can provide valuable information to facilitate
learning and improve future practice.

Security and conﬂict
Rapid-onset natural hazards can threaten the physical security of bothhumans and livestock. These range from floods and landslides toearthquakes and fires. Complex emergencies on the other hand, cause
insecurity by combining civil unrest with slow-onset and rapid-onset
emergencies. Livestock shelter interventions may need to consider physicalprotection from the different types of emergencies and the varied
combinations of insecurity. The threat of insecurity may arise or beintensified as a result of the emergency and any subsequent displacement,or it may have been present before the emergency occurred. In all instances,interventions should consider Sphere Protection Principle 1, ‘Avoid exposing
people to further harm’ (see Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS).
To reduce risk, livestock keepers may undertake different coping
mechanisms. For instance, self-built walls and barriers around the shelter
plots may give better protection for livestock. External interventions forcontrolling insecurity in camp settings depend on whether livestock keepers
prefer to keep their livestock together with their household or physicallyseparated in designated locations used by multiple households at the sametime. This in turn depends on local cultures, the amount of space available
and the nature of the emergency.

263

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Land use and housing, land and property rights
Lack of secure tenure/rights for accessing housing, land or property canoccur when households are displaced into new locations by an emergency. It
can also occur when households are not displaced, but when documentationor other proof of tenure agreements has been lost because of theemergency. Alternatively, those who make the decisions about security oftenure (landlords or local authorities) may change as a result of theemergency. This is as much the case for both individual livestock shelters as
for livestock shelters in camps or settlements.
In many communities, security of tenure and use of land is dependent on
customary agreements rather than on written documentation in full
conformity with national laws. In some cases, customary agreement may bestronger and more widely used than ‘formal’ paper-based mechanisms, andthis should be recognised. Displaced communities may not be able toaccess or engage with either customary or formal land rights mechanisms
used by local host communities. Therefore they may not have secure accessto land for any livestock, or to land for their own shelter.
When supporting HLP rights for livestock keepers, it may be useful to adapt
the ‘Due Diligence Standard’ approach. This has become commonly usedfor HLP and for human shelter more generally, and has been adopted by the
Global Shelter Cluster. This ‘due diligence’ approach applies a ‘good
enough’ benchmark, working with local actors to identify security-of-tenurearrangements (formal or informal). These are robust enough to move forwardwith shelter support, and may be incrementally strengthened later.

Local markets and cash
Working with local markets to provide shelter for livestock can have several
benefits. When contemplating a markets-based approach to procuring
materials, it is important to coordinate with other humanitarian sectors
undertaking emergency market assessments. This should ensure local
markets can provide sufficient shelter or construction materials for livestock
shelter, as well as for human shelter, for water, sanitation and hygiene(WASH) facilities, and for any other physical structures. Care is needed
during the assessment process to ensure that relying on local markets will
stimulate the market supply. The markets must not be under too much strain
so that they cease to provide other daily items to the emergency-affected
and host populations. In addition, while necessary materials may be locallyavailable, they may not be of sufficient quality to provide shelter that isstrong enough, durable enough, and gives enough thermal protection. In

264

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

some cases, restricted commodity vouchers are used that specify the use of
construction materials of sufficient quality.

Decision tree for livestock shelter andsettlement options
The decision tree (Figure 7.1) summarises some of the key questions to
consider in determining which may be the most feasible and appropriate
option for an emergency shelter and settlement intervention. The standards,
key actions and guidance notes that follow provide more information for
detailed planning. Where possible, they build on preparedness activities
conducted prior to the onset of the emergency/in ‘normal’ times.

7265Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Figure 7.1: Decision tree for shelter and settlement options
Key:

Yes

No

Actions

Do livestock require shelter in non-emergency times?
Has this shelter been
affected by the emergency?

Do livestock need shelter
as a result of the emergency
or new circumstances?

Have the affected livestock
keepers been displacedby the emergency?

Can animal shelter andsettlement be addressedin a way that supports safe
cohabitation with humans?

No action*(unless outstanding
questions can beaddressed)

Can local animal shelter
designs and cultural practices
be taken into account?

Can animal shelter andsettlement be addressed ina way that minimises adverse
environmental impact?

Settlement andinfrastructure support

Continue tonext page266

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Continued fromprevious page

Is there an urgent need forlivestock shelter?

No action*(unless outstanding
questions can beaddressed)

Can the physical shelter
provided ensure a healthy andsecure living environment
for livestock?

Are local construction
materials available?

Can other materials
be sourced atreasonable cost?

Can longer-lasting
designs and structures
be built in therequired time frame?

Can physical structures
be built that minimise risks
to livestock in the eventof future disasters?

Temporary
livestock shelter

Longer-lasting
livestock shelter*The result ‘No action’ does not necessarily mean that no intervention
should take place, but rather that further training or capacity strengthening
may be required in order to be able to answer ‘yes’ to the key questions.
7267

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

The standards
Standard 1: Preparedness
Livestock shelter and settlement preparedness activities reduce
the risks and impacts of emergencies.

Key actions• Assess the potential risks that rapid-onset emergencies may have on
existing livestock shelter provision (see Guidance note 1).
• Promote the design and construction of livestock shelters and settlement
planning that will minimise risks to livestock and their keepers andincrease resilience to emergencies (see Guidance note 2).
• Identify contingency measures for evacuating confined livestock likely to
be impacted by emergencies (see Guidance notes 3 and 4).

Guidance notes
1. Assessment of risks
An assessment of potential risks from the impacts of rapid-onset
emergencies and the susceptibility of existing livestock shelter andsettlement provision should be undertaken as part of preparedness. Both thenumber and the density of livestock should be key elements in suchassessments.
2. Construction that minimises potential livestock losses
Appropriate construction of livestock shelters and support to settlements
can help mitigate the impact of emergencies on livestock. When
constructing livestock shelter, mitigation measures to reduce the risk oflivestock losses in emergencies may include:
Earthquake resistance: Sites for livestock shelter and settlement
infrastructure should always be on stable ground and away from areas at riskof landslides and damage due to aftershocks. Structures for livestock shelter
should be designed to be safe in the event of an earthquake through the useof seismic-resistant designs or lightweight construction. While they may use
local materials and technology, it may be necessary to advise changes tolocal building practices to provide for increased earthquake resistance.
Flood impact mitigation: Where possible, livestock shelters should be sitedaway from areas at risk of flooding, especially flash flooding. Where this is268

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

not possible, sites may need improved drainage, or livestock shelters may
have to be raised above previous flood levels. Reinforced construction may
be considered for foundations to reduce the risk of building failure.
Cyclone resistance: Livestock shelter construction should ensure that roofs
are adequately tied and secured to the structure. It should also ensure thatstructures are located away from the immediate coastline if there is danger ofrelated tidal surges.
Tsunami impact mitigation: Animal shelters should be located away from thecoastline wherever possible.
Volcano impact/wildﬁre mitigation: Lava flows, falling ash and wildfires may
be life-threatening to livestock, may damage feed or water supplies, and may
also destroy existing livestock shelters. As livestock may be trapped in
shelters if they stay there for too long at the start of an eruption or wildfire,
early evacuation may be a safer policy. Livestock evacuation plans,
developed with at-risk communities, should be prepared in advance.
In all these cases, technical expertise from construction and site planning or
urban planning specialists should be sought to ensure the construction
adheres to best practices in disaster risk reduction.
3. Contingency measures for evacuation of livestock
Some types of rapid-onset emergencies, such as earthquakes, give nowarning and no time for the evacuation of livestock to safety. However, there
are other rapid-onset emergencies, such as cyclones, wildfires, floods andvolcanic eruptions, where early-warning systems may provide a short time
window in which the evacuation of livestock is possible. For theseemergencies, communities in at-risk locations can be supported to develop
livestock evacuation plans and evacuation enclosures for livestock. The
routes should not block the evacuation of the human population, but willneed to lead to designated areas close enough to human evacuation centres.
This is so that livestock keepers do not risk their lives in order to guard or tofeed their livestock at the height of the emergency. Planning for evacuations
and enclosures will also need to consider livestock feed and waterrequirements.
4. Untethering of animals
Another critical approach is identifying and putting measures in place toensure that livestock are temporarily freed, to avoid the risk of starvation inan emergency before other assistance arrives. Experience has shown thatanimals such as dairy buffaloes and cows have died where they were269

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

tethered when the families to whom they belonged were killed or injured. A
simple response is to untie or release these animals so that they have achance to find feed and water. These animals should be marked with paint,
for example, so that they can subsequently be reunited with their keepers.
Emergency preparedness activities should include encouraging livestock
keepers to do this in emergencies when sufficient warning is given.

Standard 2: Assessment and planning
Assessment and planning for livestock shelter and settlement
needs are based on community consultation, consideration of
local environmental impacts, and sustainable livelihoods
programming.

Key actions• Consult crisis-affected communities on local animal shelter andsettlement practices. Ensure that the consultations also include those
who have been indirectly affected by the emergency such as hostcommunities (see Guidance note 1).
• Aim to meet the livestock shelter needs of the most at risk in thecommunity (see Guidance note 2).
• Assess the likely local environmental impact of livestock shelterinterventions to minimise any adverse impact (see Guidance note 3).
• Ensure the sustainable livelihood needs of the community form part of theassessment and inform the emergency response (see Guidance note 4).
• Where appropriate, conduct a market assessment to investigate thefeasibility of cash or voucher transfers to support shelter and settlement
interventions (see Guidance note 5).
• Negotiate livestock shelter and settlement interventions with all relevant
wider stakeholders (see Guidance note 6).

See Appendix 7.1: Assessment checklist for livestock shelter and settlement
provision.

270

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Guidance notes
1. Community participation
Livestock keepers need to be consulted on which types of animal shelter are
typical for the species they keep, as well as on materials, site selection, site
access considerations, hygiene, and livestock management. Special
attention should be paid to:• understanding roles and responsibilities for animal care (age- andgender-based divisions of labour);• involving host communities when displaced livestock keepers receive
support in camp settings (this is to ensure that the location of the
livestock shelter and settlement infrastructure does not cause conflict,environmental pressure, or competition for employment or natural
resources);• considering community versus individual shelter options, based on
discussions with affected communities, local norms, and the current
conditions (security, weather, etc.). In most cases, it is preferable toprovide livestock shelter for individual households based on practice prior
to the emergency. However, this may not always be possible, appropriate
or affordable.

2. At-risk groups
Assessment and planning should examine the specific needs of potentiallyat-risk groups. They should look at the need for priority assistance tounaccompanied children, the elderly, the sick or those with mobility
impairments, who may not be able to build their own livestock shelters.
Those without access to construction materials may also need additional
assistance. As with any intervention, assistance provided to at-risk groups
should not undermine the ability of a community to provide and care forthese groups using its own coping strategies.
3. Local environmental impact
Agencies must assess the impact on the local environment of livestock
shelters and settlement interventions. Such assessments should include any
unsustainable use of local materials or unsustainable concentration of
livestock in confined areas. This may be particularly important in campsettings (see also Standard 4). The impact of livestock shelters on theenvironment can generally be divided into four areas, all of which need to beadequately considered in the initial assessment and planning for livestock
shelter, as well as in subsequent monitoring and evaluation:

271

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement• the choice of materials, how they are used to construct livestock shelters,
and the ways materials no longer needed or exhausted are disposed of;• the impact of livestock movements, grazing or sheltering on areas in andaround camps and settlements;• the impact of livestock-related waste products (including waste products
from slaughter) on areas in and around camps and settlements;• the impact of zoonotic disease transmission from wildlife or hostcommunity livestock and the mixing of animals that previously did notcome into contact (for example, in community livestock shelters).
Agencies should consider the potential impacts on local human anddisplaced populations, for example, if bird flu is present in the hostpoultry population or in the wild bird population.

4. Sustainable livelihoods
Temporary measures to support livestock during an emergency may berequired. However, every effort should be made to ensure that shelter andsettlement interventions consider the long-term livelihood needs of theaffected community. This includes taking into account the impact ofanticipated changes to land use, permanent changes to community
livelihoods, and changes to livestock management practices as thecommunity recovers from the emergency.
5. Market assessment
Where construction materials are locally available, agencies should assess
the possibility of providing cash or vouchers for their purchase. This will
support local markets and give greater control over the process to theaffected communities. Specialists can help ensure that the required technicalspecifications for livestock shelter materials are included in market
assessments and are followed in livestock shelter construction.
6. Wider stakeholder participation
Livestock shelter interventions should be negotiated with stakeholders
beyond the affected community, especially when livestock keepers havebeen displaced. Stakeholders should coordinate livestock shelter andsettlement interventions for displaced populations with human shelter andsettlement responses to ensure coherent planning and complementarity ofactivities (see LEGS Principle 5: Coordinated responses). Stakeholders may
include the local authorities that deal with agriculture, water supply,
sanitation, land use and housing.

272

7Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Standard 3: Livestock shelter
Livestock are provided with a healthy, secure living environment
appropriate to the context and for the intended use.

Key actions• Base the design of livestock shelter interventions on local animal housing
designs (see Guidance note 1).
• Ensure that livestock shelter provides adequate protection from any
hazards, prevailing climatic conditions, and the extremes of daily andseasonal weather (see Guidance notes 1 and 2).
• Ensure that livestock shelters are constructed using designs and materials
that minimise any environmental impact (see Guidance notes 3 and 4).
• Design and construct livestock shelter appropriately for the species anduse. Even if constructed for temporary use, the materials and structure
should be capable of longer-term use or adaptation (see Guidance notes
2, 3 and 5).
• Ensure shelters are safely accessible by all livestock keepers (seeGuidance note 6).
• Establish quarantine systems for community livestock shelters (seeGuidance note 7).
• Ensure that livestock are afforded adequate physical protection from theftand predators (see Guidance note 8).

Guidance notes
1. Appropriate hazard-free living environment
Making livestock shelters safer from earthquakes, fires or floods employs,
with few exceptions, the same materials and engineering techniques that areused to make human shelters safer. Agencies should consult with shelter
specialists to identify options that use local construction techniques andlocally available materials. This will mean that shelters can be sustainably
constructed, maintained and repaired by the livestock keepers themselves. It
is important for them to incorporate community knowledge on local designand cultural norms, local building materials and local construction methods.
Only very rarely will ‘shelter systems’ or imported prefabricated solutions be
appropriate. When deciding on safe locations for livestock shelter, it isimportant to consult both those with local knowledge of the terrain and thosewith humanitarian mapping expertise.
273

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

2. Healthy, secure living environment
In hot climates, shelter should provide well-ventilated shaded space. In cold
climates, it should provide a suitably well-sealed enclosure that is free fromdraughts and offers insulation from the ground. Where extreme weather
conditions prevail, agencies should address shelter needs before theprovision of livestock. (See also Appendix 7.3: Livestock shelter and climate
challenges.)
3. Appropriate design
Shelter for livestock should be based on local building technologies and use
local materials. After a natural hazard, livestock shelter may be built using
salvage material from damaged infrastructure and buildings. Efforts tomaximise the potential for salvage should be encouraged, with toolkits
distributed and training provided in their use. See p. 119 of FAO (2016), for atable on space requirements and different materials; see also p. 122 fordesign considerations for livestock shelter.
4. Environmental degradation
If livestock shelter construction requires or encourages the harvesting of
locally available material, it can risk permanent environmental degradation.
The cutting of trees to provide construction timber for shelters andenclosures, or to fire bricks, is a particular risk. In order to minimise any
negative environmental impact, agencies should work with experts and local
actors to undertake the following actions:• Select shelter designs which use materials efficiently, and require theleast amount of repair and replacement of materials.
• Select shelter materials that are from identifiable sustainable sources.
• If using ‘living’ resources, such as thorn bushes, as a main material for
livestock enclosure barriers, ensure that the species is native to the local
area. Ensure also that it is not invasive, and will not cause any damage tothe local ecology.
• Consult with site planners and environmental experts about camp layoutsthat can disperse both the routes and the enclosures for livestock, toreduce the concentration of environmental impact. This should be where
local custom and security concerns permit.
• Consult with all local stakeholders, including from the host community, toidentify areas that are the most vulnerable in terms of impact fromlivestock. These might need barriers or other physical protection installed.

274

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

5. Transition to longer-term shelter
Some emergencies may require urgent provision of livestock shelter toensure the survival of the animals. However, these shelters may not besuitable for the long term. Agencies may need to support communities toreconstruct longer-lasting shelter. The potential to integrate emergency
livestock shelters into transitional or more permanent structures is particularly
important. For example, designs for livestock shelter for emergency use
might incorporate long-lasting roofing and structure in anticipation of a later
upgrade to permanent shelter with walls, doors and fencing.
6. Universally accessible design
The design of livestock shelters is only appropriate when livestock keepers
can fully use and access it regardless of their gender, age or whether they
have any disabilities. Shelters should have dimensions and features thatallow entrance and usage by persons with disabilities. In consultation withwomen and girls, agencies may need to provide additional safety features
such as lighting at night-time, to reduce the risk of gender-based violence inand around livestock shelters.
7. Community shelter
In some cases, community shelter may be the preferred option. Before
livestock enter the communal shelter, the following activities should beundertaken:• Identification/marking of livestock should be carried out with the least
amount of pain to livestock.
• Livestock should be screened for parasites and disease.
• Livestock health status should be recorded on arrival (for example, theirgeneral condition; if they are pregnant).
• Livestock coming from a distance should be quarantined in a separate
shelter for a period suitable for local prevalent diseases to become
apparent.
• The monitoring of livestock in the quarantine shelter and the communal
shelter should be considered. A rota could be set up and roles defined forthe households that have livestock in the shelter.
• Depending on local knowledge and structures, quarantining should be
integrated with existing environmental and animal health systems andpractitioners. This will also help with local acceptance and conflict
resolution with host communities, as they can be more confident thatlivestock arriving in their community are being monitored for disease.
(See Chapter 6: Veterinary support).
275

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

8. Theft and attack
Livestock shelters and settlement interventions should ensure that animals
are protected in accordance with local norms from theft and predators. This
may include provision of suitable doors with closing mechanisms or secure
enclosures around livestock accommodation. Agencies need to consult withlivestock keepers, site planners, camp managers and local authorities, about
the best security strategies (for example, community security patrols in andaround the livestock areas). This should take place whether livestock aresheltered in separate locations or not.

Standard 4: Livestock and settlement
Settlement supports safe and sustainable cohabitation withhumans, and provides a secure, healthy and sustainable
environment for livestock.

Key actions• Ensure that settlement planning and implementation supports humansafety and the safe cohabitation of livestock with humans (see Guidancenote 1).
• Ensure that settlement planning supports safe access for women andgirls, men and boys, to all livestock enclosures, livestock water resources,and other livestock-related infrastructure inside and outside the camp(see Guidance note 2).
• Ensure that livestock-related infrastructure is accessible to livestock
keepers with disabilities (see Guidance note 3).
• Ensure that the safety of both humans and livestock has been
considered, in terms of site planning for evacuation routes and fire safety(see Guidance notes 4 and 5).
• Minimise the local environmental impact of support to settlement (seeGuidance notes 6 and 7).
• Ensure that livestock shelter and settlement activities support sustainablehuman settlement (see Guidance note 8).
• Ensure that settlement infrastructure minimises negative public healthimpacts (see Guidance note 9).

276

7Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Guidance notes
1. Human safety and cohabitation
The location of livestock shelters can affect the safety and protection of
livestock keepers. For example, shelters built at some distance from humanhabitation may expose people to the risk of physical attack, particularly
women and children, especially in conflict areas. Conversely, livestock
shelter and infrastructure too close to human settlement can increase the riskof spreading disease. This may involve trade-offs concerning the maximum
distance between livestock shelters and human settlements for security
against theft and attack, and the minimum distance between livestock
shelters and human settlements for health and prevention of disease.
Agencies should consult with experts on this.
Settlement planning by agencies should also provide for the safe
cohabitation of livestock and human communities. This is particularly
important to reduce the risk of zoonoses. Site plans should ensure thatwaste-product treatment areas or drainage networks are separated fromthose used by humans (including those used by the host community).
Greater distancing may be necessary between infrastructure for livestock
waste treatment and facilities for human health programming, food storage
or education, as well as child-friendly spaces.
2. Mitigation of gender-based violence
Women and girls, and men and boys, involved in livestock-keeping activities
have the right to engage in these activities safely and in dignity, and without
the threat of gender-based violence (LEGS Principle 6: Gender-sensitive
programming). In camp settings, agencies should engage with others
involved in site planning, and in particular, with women’s groups. This
process can identify tasks that women and girls undertake for livestock
keeping, along with site layouts, public facilities, or infrastructure that could
help mitigate livestock-related gender-based violence risks.
3. Accessibility
For members of livestock-keeper households with disabilities, displacement
into camps or settlements may pose particular challenges. Agencies should
engage with organisations for persons with disabilities, local committees,
and shelter and settlement specialists. They can then develop designmodifications for livestock-related infrastructure in order to reduce thebarriers to livestock-keeping tasks experienced by persons with disabilities.

277

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

4. Fire safety and evacuation
A basic requirement of site plans for camps is adequate routes for emergency
evacuation and for emergency vehicle access. This is in case of either armed
attack on the camp, or the outbreak of fire. As a rule, planners incorporatesuch routes into an overall site plan, including firebreaks (designated gaps
between shelter blocks to prevent fire spreading) and fire extinguisher
stations. At a time of sudden emergency inside a camp, livestock keepers
may want to make an emergency evacuation of their livestock. Livestock
may also attempt to break out of their enclosures in such emergencies. To
protect human lives in these situations, it is imperative that livestock should
not be able to enter human-designated evacuation routes, emergency
access routes, or assembly points. Site planners need to establish
alternative routes for livestock, and install barriers or diversions between
livestock areas and human evacuation routes. Depending upon the local
context, this may be easier if designated livestock enclosures are situated at
the edges or rear of the camp, and away from main entrance routes.
5. Pathway encroachment
In interventions, care needs to be taken that, during any dry season, a living
fencing enclosure does not become a fire risk. There also needs to be afirebreak gap between the fencing for these enclosures and any humanshelter plots. Generally, fencing or enclosure barriers should not encroach
upon or block any of the designated pathways for humans in the camp or
settlement.
6. Local environmental impact
The environmental impact of support to livestock in settlements should be
minimised. Support should also avoid dense concentrations of livestock to
reduce the risk of overgrazing. Site plans for camps or settlements may
therefore need to include several smaller livestock enclosures, rather than
one single central enclosure for all livestock in the camp. In cases where thisstrategy for multiple dispersed enclosures is necessary, site planners stillneed to ensure that each enclosure allows access to water and feed
resources. It should also be safely accessible by all livestock keepers.
7. Land access negotiations
The inclusion of livestock in camps puts significant additional pressure on thelocal environment and resources. Because competition with local livestock
populations for resources may be a potential source of conflict, interventions
must include negotiated access to pasture and grazing with the local

278

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

population. Negotiated access may change according to the season. It may
also need to be rotated between locations, in order to be more sustainable.
8. Sustainable settlement of humans and livestock
Livestock keepers may be remaining in their locations of origin; establishing
durable housing or shelter in new locations following displacement; or may
be returning to locations of origin after a period of displacement. In all cases,
tensions may be present, or increased, over the use of land and otherresources for livestock. Where livestock keepers have been displaced,settlement must consider local grazing rights and management structures,
accessibility, and land rights and ownership. Resolution is likely to require
extensive consultation with stakeholders, as well as advice from local
authorities and specialists in other sectors in order to identify sustainable
solutions (see Standard 2, Guidance note 6). Agencies may need to support
negotiations for conflict mitigation, and safe and sustainable sharing of land
resources through appropriate design of housing, settlement and land use
zoning.
9. Public health impact
Settlement should be designed to allow for the hygienic management anddisposal of animal excreta, especially where livestock-keeping communities
are displaced and living in camps. Management options could include:• providing cash or other incentives for spreading manure;• ensuring night enclosures do not have a large build-up of dung and are
kept clean or moved regularly;• building enclosures outside the perimeter of human settlements to limit
livestock access;• ensuring adequate distance between human dwellings and animal
shelters;• ensuring that livestock water sources, enclosures and routes aredownstream from any water source that is used for human use (thisshould include any water source intended for schools and child-friendly
spaces, or for health facilities);• ensuring any drainage networks used for livestock-related waste(including waste products from slaughter and livestock markets) are
separate or downhill from drainage networks used for human shelter inthe same area. This should include any nearby settlements of hostcommunities.

279

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

The density of livestock should also remain at a safe level – see Table 14 on
p. 119 of FAO (2016), for more details on the spatial requirements of different
species.

Standard 5: Transition to durable livestock shelter
solutionsLivestock shelter and settlement planning supports a transition
from emergency shelter to more durable and sustainable solutions.

Key actions• Design livestock shelters so that they can be maintained, repaired andupgraded over time by the livestock keepers (see Guidance notes 1 and 2).
• Develop a strategy for settlement planning that considers potential
increases in livestock population and livestock variety during the time ofdisplacement into a settlement. It should also take into account theevolving needs of livestock and livestock keepers over that time (seeGuidance note 3).

Guidance notes
1. Transitional shelter approaches
Shelters constructed by livestock keepers or humanitarian actors may bevery basic and short-term in the first phases after an emergency. Thereafter
there may be a need to replace or upgrade them so they can be transitional
and play a role in recovery towards durable solutions for affected
communities. Depending on the local context, this ‘transitional’ quality may
mean that livestock shelters are designed to be ‘transportable’ (movable to adifferent location) or ‘transferable’ (able to be donated or exchanged amonghouseholds, depending on needs). They may also be designed as‘transformable’ (able either to be upgraded and made more durable orchanged so that the shelter is used for a different function by the household).
Similar approaches, and design techniques, may already be common forhuman shelters, depending on the local context.
2. Technical training
As part of the support to transition and upgrade the livestock shelters overtime, implementing agencies may consider including technical training forthe construction of shelters. This should specifically include likely livestock
shelter needs for when livestock keepers are able to return to their locationsof origin or establish themselves in new locations.
280

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

3. Changing needs for spaces in a camp or settlement
Livestock keepers during a first emergency displacement, or when firstentering a camp, may do so with depleted livestock numbers. Over time, thenumbers may increase (through natural births, market acquisition or both),and their land-space requirements in and around a camp may also increase
accordingly. Further pressure on land use may result from expansions of thecamp to provide shelter for an increased human population. Or it may comefrom competition for land or other resources due to the positive developmentof other livelihood opportunities (cropping agriculture, see SEADS, or
small-industry workshops, etc.) over time. In addition, as livestock shelters
themselves are upgraded, the upgrading process may require more space.
All of these issues will need to be integrated into the overall plan both for the
initial site and for any eventual site expansion. Depending on the local
context, an initial strategy of smaller, more dispersed livestock enclosures
may help in this transition.

7281

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Appendices
Appendix 7.1: Assessment checklist for livestock shelter andsettlement provision
Shelter (temporary and longer-lasting)• Is there an immediate need for temporary livestock shelter?
• What is the estimated population of the different species of animals that
may require shelter?
• What specific housing requirements do the different species have in theparticular climatic and environmental conditions?
• What are the key social groups?

a. What are the roles of men and women, girls and boys in particularcomponents of livestock care?
b. Who in the community is normally responsible for shelter
construction?
c. Are there groups with special needs or who are at higher risk (forexample, displaced women or unaccompanied children)?
• What are the prevalent shelter options for the human population? Arethey in temporary or transitional shelters, or in older shelters that require
repair or reconstruction?
• What are the local animal housing designs, construction techniques, andraw materials?
• Do these building practices adequately reduce the risk of loss in future
emergencies?
• Are sufficient local materials available?

a. How are local construction materials harvested?
b. Will construction of shelters cause significant environmental
destruction?
c. Would cash or vouchers be appropriate for supporting shelter
reconstruction without negatively affecting local markets?
d. Should building materials be transported into the area?
• What local construction practices can be adapted for the shelter design,in order to make the shelters more resistant to any hazards in the future?
• What practices related to livestock shelter, such as tethering animals
rather than giving them free movement, might keepers need to change toreduce immediate livestock mortality in any future event?
282

7

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Settlement issues• Are there specific hazards (for example, flooding, landslides, unexploded
ordnance – UXO) that are present either in any self-settled locations, or inany potential locations for planned camps? Are there any other ‘red line’issues that may make the site non-viable (for example, constant or
seasonal lack of sufficient water for both humans and livestock)?
• What are the settlement patterns of livestock keepers?

a. Have livestock keepers been displaced from their original settlements?
b. Is there potential for conflict between different livestock-keeping
communities (for example, a displaced population and the hostcommunity)?
c. Are there adequate grazing resources locally? Is pasture degradationa potential consequence of the presence of displaced people and theirlivestock after the emergency?
d. What are the existing land rights and management systems forcommunal or shared livestock shelters and settlement infrastructure,
and will these be appropriate for any newly constructed shelters?
e. What other settlement needs do livestock keepers have (for example,
safe access for women, boys and girls)?

7283

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Appendix 7.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators forlivestock shelter and settlement

Provision of shelterand settlement
support

Process indicators(measure things
happening)

Impact indicators (measure the result ofthings happening)

Number of shelter
structures
supported by typeand location·····························
Number and typeof settlement
interventions

Number of households/livestock withaccess to shelter versus number ofhouseholds/livestock in need of shelter······························································
Mortality in sheltered livestock versus
mortality in livestock without shelter······························································
Reported increased or decreased accessto livestock products as a result of shelterinterventions, particularly for at-risk
groups······························································
Number of households/livestock withaccess to grazing, infrastructure andother settlement needs······························································
Number of livestock keepers from at-risk
groups (women, boys and girls, older
people, people with disabilities,
households from ethnic or other minority
groups, etc.) reporting safe access tolivestock shelter

7284

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Appendix 7.3: Livestock shelter and climate challenges
Climate challenges

Common livestock shelter interventions

Heat

Roofed shade areas (with higher roofs for additional
ventilation)························································································
Shade walls························································································
Water tanks/livestock bathing areas························································································Camp layout plans that permit cross-ventilation and windflow around areas used for livestock as well as humans························································································
Use of shelter materials with slow thermal-transfer
properties (e.g. mud bricks)························································································
Use of shelter materials with high reflective qualities

Cold

Additional insulation for livestock shelters························································································
Livestock shelter designs with lower roofs, to reduce thevolume of space that needs to be heated························································································
Where culturally appropriate, shared shelter (and shared
warmth) between households and livestock························································································
External walls as wind barriers for outdoor pens andpaddocks························································································
Sufficient indoor storage space for livestock cold-weather
feed

Dry/reduced watersupplyAdditional space inside shelters, or in shaded areas, forwater-storage containers························································································
Construction of watering points, with wells or boreholes orwater reservoirs designated for livestock, in locations safely
accessible by all in and around camps or settlements (seeChapter 5: Water).

7

continued over285

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

Climate challenges

Common livestock shelter interventions

Wet

Raised foundations or plinths for livestock shelters, toprovide dry standing space and feed-storage areas························································································
Livestock shelters designed with roofs with wide
overhangs, to provide additional protection from rain bothin and around the shelter························································································
Integration into the main drainage networks in camps ofdrainage and waste management systems for livestock-use
areas.

(Note: The design of the interventions listed in this table should be undertaken by agencies in
consultation with experts and affected communities.)

7286

Technical standards
Livestock shelter and settlement

References and further readingCamp Coordination and Camp Management (CCCM) Cluster (2021) Minimum Standards for CampManagement, CCCM Cluster, https://cccmcluster.org/resources/minimum-standards-campmanagement
Catholic Relief Services (2012) Managing Post-Disaster (Re)-Construction Projects, How-To Guide,
CRS, Baltimore, MD, https://www.crs.org/our-work-overseas/research-publications/managingpost-disaster-reconstruction-projects
Corsellis T. and Vitale A. (2005) Transitional Settlements: Displaced Populations, Oxfam GB andUniversity of Cambridge shelter project, https://www.sheltercluster.org/sites/default/files/docs/
Transitional%20Settlement%20-%20Displaced%20Populations.pdf
Dosti Development Foundation (DDF) and FAO (2007) Livestock shelter and supplementary cattle feed
project report, 2006–2007, DDF and FAO, Pakistan.
FAO (2016) Livestock-related interventions during emergencies – The how-to-do-it manual. Edited byPhilippe Ankers, Suzan Bishop, Simon Mack and Klaas Dietze. FAO Animal Production and Health
Manual No. 18. Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/i5904e/i5904e.pdf (See Chapter 8)International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and Oxfam (2007) A Guide
to the Speciﬁcations and Use of Plastic Sheeting in Humanitarian Relief, IFRC and Oxfam,
https://www.sheltercluster.org/sustainable-solutions-working-group/documents/plasticsheeting-guideInternational Organization for Migration (IOM) and The Shelter Cluster (2018) Site Planning: Guidance
to Reduce the Risk of Gender-Based Violence, 3rd edn, Global Shelter Cluster,
https://sheltercluster.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/public/docs/site_planning-gbv_booklet_
apr-2018_web_high-res_v3_0.pdf
IOM, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR) (2015) Camp Management Toolkit, IOM, NRC, UNHCR, https://www.refworld.org/pdﬁd/
526f6cde4.pdf
Jha, A.K. with Barenstein, J.D., Phelps, P.M., Pittet, D., Sena, S. (2010) Safer Homes, Stronger
Communities: A Handbook for Reconstructing after Natural Disasters, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/2409
The Shelter Centre (2012) Transitional Shelter Guidelines, Shelter Centre, Geneva,
https://sheltercluster.org/resources/documents/transitional-shelter-guidelines
The Shelter Cluster (2013) Land Rights and Shelter: The Due Diligence Standard, Shelter Cluster,
https://sheltercluster.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/public/docs/4.2_gsc_land_rights_and_shelter_the_due_diligence_standard.pdf
Sphere Association (2018) The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in
Humanitarian Response, 4th edn, Geneva, https://spherestandards.org/handbook-2018/
UNHCR (2015) UNHCR Emergency Handbook, 4th edn, UNHCR, https://emergency.unhcr.org/
topic/27459/camps
UNHCR and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2005) Planning and Animal
Husbandry in Refugee and Returnee Situations: A Practical Manual of Improved Management,
UNHCR and IUCN, Geneva, http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/4385e3432.pdf
In addition, many practical case studies for shelter and settlement can be found in the various
editions of Shelter Projects, https://www.shelterprojects.org/
See also case studies for livestock shelter and settlement interventions in emergencies at:https://www.livestock-emergency.net/resources/case-studies/287

7

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

288

Chapter 8: Technicalstandards forlivestock offtake
290

Introduction

292

Options for livestock offtake

296

Timing of interventions

298

Links to other LEGS chapters and other HSP standards

298

LEGS Principles and other issues to consider

301

Decision tree for livestock offtake options

303

The standards

315

Appendix 8.1: Assessment checklist for livestock offtake

317

Appendix 8.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicatorsfor livestock offtake

319

References and further reading

Photo © FAO/Mohammad Rakibul Hasan
289

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

Chapter 8: Technicalstandards for livestock
offtakeStandard 1
Preparedness

Standard 2
Assessment andplanning

Option 1
Commercial
livestock offtake

Option 2
Slaughter livestock
offtake for consumption

Standard 3
Commercial
livestock offtake

Standard 4
Slaughter livestock offtakefor consumption

Introduction
Livestock offtake can be critical for enabling livestock-dependentcommunities to reduce the adverse effects of drought, and to rescue somevalue from livestock assets in the form of much-needed cash or meat.
Livestock offtake is best applied during slow-onset emergencies such as
drought, before animals lose their value, die or pose a risk to public health. It
is generally less applicable in rapid-onset emergencies.

290

8Technical standards
Livestock offtake

If livestock offtake interventions are to be effective, preparedness isessential. Three scenarios highlight the importance of advance preparedness
when planning livestock offtake interventions:
1. Early interventions in slow-onset emergencies, before livestock become
too emaciated, will allow communities to sell their stock at near market
values to external buyers.
2. When interventions happen late in a drought, due to lack of
preparedness, the prices obtained for emaciated livestock will be very
low. Here, livestock are likely to be used for local meat distribution only.
3. Interventions that take place very late are likely to lead to the slaughter ofstock for their disposal only (see Box 8.1).
This chapter presents information on livestock offtake as a livestock
emergency response. It also provides the technical options for livestock
offtake interventions and the associated benefits and challenges of each.
Information is also available in FAO (2016, Chapter 4: Destocking). For eachtechnical option, LEGS provides information through standards, key actions
and guidance notes. Checklists for assessment, as well as monitoring andevaluation indicators, are presented as appendices at the end of this chapter.
Further reading is also provided. Case studies are presented on the LEGS
website (see https://www.livestock-emergency.net/resources/casestudies/).

Links to the LEGS livelihoods objectives
Livestock offtake can provide immediate assistance to affected
communities, protecting their remaining livestock in line with the first andsecond of the LEGS livelihoods objectives. Livestock offtake can support
crisis-affected communities to:• obtain immediate beneﬁts using existing livestock assets – byproviding cash or food from the sale of at-risk or unmarketable animals;• protect key livestock assets – by ensuring the survival of remaining
animals. Cash sales enable herders to buy livestock feed and water (orprophylactic drugs) or transport remaining animals to less affected areas.

The importance of livestock offtake in emergency response
Livestock offtake is a valuable response to drought when animals would
otherwise deteriorate and die. It allows potential livestock losses to beconverted into cash or meat. Prior advocacy work may be required ahead ofan emergency, when herders may be reluctant to part with the stock that arelikely to perish. Livestock offtake can also be viewed as a resilience-building
291

8

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

tool: removing animals relieves pressure on scarce feed, grazing and watersupplies, to the benefit of the remaining stock (see LEGS Principle 3: Climatechange and the environment). In addition, meat from slaughtered animals
supplements the diets of at-risk families, providing much-needed protein inlean periods.
Livestock offtake also contributes to at least two of the animal welfare ‘fivedomains’, as described in Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS, which are their‘health’ and ‘mental state’. When sold animals are moved to a morefavourable location, this may allow them to resume their normal behaviour.
When necessary, slaughter offtake will also relieve animals from the pain anddistress associated with starvation and thirst. As livestock offtake involves
handling, transporting and slaughtering animals, it is important to ensure thatthey do not suffer pain, fear or distress.
Livestock offtake is not usually applicable in rapid-onset emergencies, suchas earthquakes and floods, since livestock are either killed or they survive.
However, when natural hazards, such as cyclones or fires, destroy available
feed supplies, removing animals may be an appropriate response. Whenanimals pose a risk to public health, they need to be humanely slaughteredand disposed of – see Box 8.1.

Options for livestock offtake
The two most common livestock offtake interventions are commercial offtakeand slaughter offtake for consumption.

Option 1: Commercial livestock offtake
In commercial livestock offtake, agencies provide external support so thatmarket operators (livestock traders, feedlot owners, butchers, etc.) can still
continue to operate when the livestock market begins to fail. Market failure
can result from the following circumstances: weak demand; excess supply;
animals in poor condition; the inaccessibility of animals; or the unwillingnessof livestock keepers to sell. The result is usually a collapse in livestock prices
and market operators withdrawing from the market. The aim of commercial
livestock offtake is to help the livestock market to function in these difficult
circumstances. It assists with the marketing of drought-weakened livestock
before their condition and value deteriorate too far and they become
impossible to sell.

292

8

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

There are several benefits to commercial livestock offtake:• It provides cash for the crisis-affected communities.
• It promotes a longer-term relationship between buyers and livestock
keepers.
• It can have an overall positive impact on large numbers of livestock andtheir keepers.
• It is one of the more cost-effective drought interventions, since it does not
involve agencies purchasing animals directly.

To succeed, commercial livestock offtake requires an active private trading
system for livestock, and an accessible domestic or export demand. Animals
do not always go directly to an abattoir but may be sent elsewhere to regain
their condition. They may then be slaughtered or resold later.
Typical agency support to livestock traders can include assistance inbringing together buyers and sellers of animals; and facilitating short-term
credit, subsidies and tax exemptions. Bringing livestock keepers and traders
together is the simplest and most effective intervention. In order not to
disrupt the normal market, the support provided should be the minimum
required to facilitate and overcome the immediate constraints.
Some agencies have intervened directly to purchase animals in emergencies
rather than working with the commercial livestock traders. Caution isrequired with this approach, however, to make sure that direct purchasing
does not undermine the long-term sustainability of the private market. If
traders are still actively operating in livestock markets, interventions are notrecommended.

Option 2: Slaughter livestock offtake for consumption
Unlike commercial livestock offtake, agencies rather than private traders
initiate slaughter livestock offtake for consumption. It is appropriate when
the local market for livestock has failed and traders have withdrawn.
Invariably the animals are in a poor condition and livestock prices havecollapsed. In these circumstances, an agency purchases animals andarranges for their humane slaughter. Fresh meat is then distributed to thecrisis-affected communities. Because fresh meat is perishable, if it cannot be
distributed straight away, immediate action must be taken to preserve it bysalting, boiling or drying.

293

8

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

Slaughter livestock offtake for consumption is a more costly option foragencies than commercial livestock offtake as it involves the direct purchaseof animals. The cost is partly offset by the additional benefits from the meat
distribution, as well as the employment opportunities – including from theprocessing of hides and skins. Operational costs can be reduced if agencies
directly distribute the purchased animals to target communities for them toundertake the slaughter and meat distribution process themselves. There arealso animal welfare and public health benefits associated with improved
slaughter and meat processing. In some countries, religious and culturalissues will need to be considered for the slaughter of cattle.
Participants in slaughter livestock offtake for consumption might include:• those eligible to sell animals for slaughter, especially female-headedhouseholds and those from marginalised communities;• those eligible to receive meat, especially large families, single-parent andorphan households, the elderly and other at-risk groups – if there isenough, it may be simpler to distribute the meat equally to the wholecommunity to avoid potential resentment; agencies often give the meat toanother agency for distribution as part of a broader food assistanceprogramme, which may include schools, hospitals and prisons;• those who may be employed in the slaughter and processing of animals.
This will provide them with income as well as skills for the future.

Box 8.1

Slaughter for disposal
In severe and prolonged drought situations, animals may become soemaciated or diseased that they are unfit for human consumption. A
decision to conduct slaughter for disposal might then be made by therelevant veterinary or public health authorities based on ante- andpost-mortem inspections. In such cases, slaughter should meet locally
acceptable welfare standards, and the carcasses must be disposed of tominimise risk to public health.
In some rapid-onset emergencies, such as typhoons, floods andearthquakes, euthanasia of injured or unrecoverable animals (companion
as well as other animals) may have to be considered and suitable
methods identified.
continued over294

8

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

Considerations for carcass disposal are discussed in Chapter 6:
Veterinary Support, and in the FAO (2020) carcass management
guidelines. FAO (2001) also provides guidelines for humane handling,transport and slaughter of livestock.

The benefits, challenges and key requirements of the different options are
summarised in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1: Beneﬁts, challenges and key requirements of livestock
offtake options
Beneﬁts

Challenges

Key requirements

1. Commercial livestock offtake
Provides cash for
immediate needs and/or
reinvestment in livestock·······································
Builds on existing coping
strategies·······································
Relieves pressure on
scarce feed/grazing andwater supplies·······································Can handle large numbersof animals·······································Is relatively low in cost
(majority of costs borne bytraders)·······································
Promotes longer-term
relationships between
buyers and sellers

Has to be carried out
before stock deterioratesignificantly·······································
Traders’ preference is forprofitable animals; they
may not necessarily target
emaciated animals owned
by at-risk groups·······································
Carries potential risks toanimal welfare throughinappropriate handling andtransport.

Interested buyers·········································
Willing sellers·········································
Accessible domestic orexport markets·········································
Infrastructure: roads;
holding grounds; feed andwater; trekking to thenearest road; and security·········································
Conducive attitude within
agencies to livestock tradeand credit provision·········································
Willingness within agencies
to engage with the private
sector8
continued over295

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

Beneﬁts

Challenges

Key requirements

2. Slaughter livestock offtake for consumption
Provides cash for
immediate needs and/or
reinvestment·······································
Relieves pressure on
scarce feed/grazing andwater supplies·······································
Provides supplementary
food assistance·······································
Surplus fresh meat can bepreserved·······································
Provides employment
opportunities within local
community

Operationally more
complex unless target
communities directly
engage in the slaughterand distribution of meat·······································
Higher administration
costs in the absence ofcommunity participation·······································
More expensive, as it
includes the purchase ofanimals·······································
Less long-termsustainability·······································
Less conducive tohandling larger number ofanimals·······································
Basic necessities, such as
water, may be scarceduring drought

Local institutions toorganise, manage and help
target communities·········································
Coordination between
implementing agencies toagree on methodologies
and, in particular, pricing
strategies and operationalareas·········································
Food assistance operations
willing to accept meat·········································
Implementing agency withorganisational capacity to
manage the programme·········································
Slaughter infrastructure isalready available, or there
is potential for construction·········································
Conducive public healthpolicy·········································
Slaughter and distribution
managed by agency in a
way that is appropriate tocultural norms·········································
Ability to use humane
handling and slaughter
processes
8

Timing of interventions
The stage of the emergency usually determines the type of livestock offtake
undertaken. It is important to note that there is a limited time period forcommercial livestock offtake. It is most effective in the alert and alarmphases in a slow-onset emergency (see Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS on
emergency phases). Useful preparedness strategies might involve the priorlisting of potential livestock traders, value adders, meat processors,296

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

ranchers, etc. to allow timely support to commercial livestock offtake (seeLEGS Principle 4: Preparedness). Slaughter livestock offtake for
consumption, however, invariably takes place in the late alarm, emergency,
or early recovery phases. By this time, livestock are in such poor condition
that they are unmarketable, and commercial livestock offtake is notapplicable. Livestock offtake can also take place after rapid-onset
emergencies – for example, in places affected by wildfires, if there is loss ofpasture (see Table 8.2).
Livestock keepers rarely value their animals solely in financial terms. They
consider many factors, including the chance of their animals surviving in theprevailing conditions. At the height of a drought, they may be willing to sell
animals at almost any price, but at the first signs of rain they may change
their minds. Agency flexibility is needed to respond quickly to changing
circumstances and to switch resources into alternative interventions. The
Minimum Standard for Market Analysis (MISMA) may be useful for ensuring
prices being offered for livestock remain valid in emergency contexts where
inflationary pressures are acute.
Table 8.2: Possible timing of livestock offtake interventions

Rapid-onset emergency
Options

Immediately after

Early recovery

Recovery

1. Commercial livestock offtake
2. Slaughter livestock offtakefor consumption

Slow-onset emergency
Options

Alert

Alarm

Emergency

Recovery

1. Commercial livestock offtake8

2. Slaughter livestock offtakefor consumption

297

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

Links to other LEGS chapters andother HSP standards
An important aim of a livestock offtake intervention is to improve the survival
chances of the remaining livestock, especially the core breeding animals.
Agencies therefore often undertake livestock offtake with other LEGS
interventions as part of an integrated approach. Typically, these include
providing feed, water and veterinary support (see Chapters 4, 5 and 6). The
LEGS Participatory Response Identification Matrix (PRIM), described in
Chapter 3: Emergency response planning, is a valuable tool in making theseassessments. Chapter 6: Veterinary support, contains information on thedisposal of carcasses.
Commercial livestock offtake requires a good understanding of market
processes. The Emergency Market Mapping Analysis (EMMA) tool and the
Minimum Standard for Market Analysis (MISMA) provide standards andguidance to support this process (see Sources of speciﬁc information in
Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS).
After a drought, rebuilding stock numbers to levels that can sustain ahousehold can take years. In pastoralist and agro-pastoralist communities,
livestock interventions alone may not be enough. Additional humanitarian
support, such as food assistance, may be required. The Sphere Handbook
provides detailed guidance on this.

LEGS Principles and other issues toconsiderTable 8.3: The relevance of the LEGS Principles to livestock offtake
LEGS Principle
1. Supporting
livelihoods-based
programming

Examples of how the principles are relevant in livestock
offtake interventions
Livestock offtake supports livelihoods by improving thesurvival chances of the remaining livestock, especially core
breeding animals.
························································································
When livestock offtake is combined with other LEGS
interventions (feed, water provision and veterinary support)
as part of an integrated approach, livestock livelihoods arefurther supported.
continued over298

8

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in livestock
offtake interventions

2. Ensuring community
participation

Ensuring community participation is essential for the fair
selection of livestock offtake participants. This selection
should be based on agreed criteria and recent risk andcapacity assessments.
························································································
Private traders aim to maximise profit and may exclude
communities with poor access, poor security or inadequate
facilities. Agency assistance given to livestock traders
should therefore be conditional on ensuring active
community participation, so that those who are at risk are
not excluded. However, traders should have the discretion
to buy the animals they prefer.
························································································
Direct engagement of communities in the slaughter anddistribution of meat helps to reduce the cost of livestock
offtake operations.

3. Responding toclimate change andprotecting theenvironment

Livestock offtake issues can have positive or negativeenvironmental implications. Slaughtering of animals
generates local waste (including condemned carcasses)that needs to be disposed of safely to avoid pollution.
Tanning of hides and skins has similar issues.
························································································The removal of large numbers of livestock can relieve
localised pressure on natural resources during a time of
scarcity, such as a drought.
························································································
Concentration of animals around camps and markets may
have a short-term detrimental effect on the immediate
environment.
························································································
Where indigenous breeds are under threat, care should betaken not to exacerbate any loss of local biodiversity.
continued over299

8

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in livestock
offtake interventions

4. Supporting
preparedness and early
actionThe time frame for commercial livestock offtake is very
limited during a crisis, and preparedness is essential. Priorlisting of potential livestock traders, butchers, value adders,etc. when a crisis is imminent, will help to kick-start
commercial livestock offtake in the alert/alarm phase.
························································································
In drought, early interventions before livestock become too
emaciated allow communities to sell stock at close to theirmarket price to external buyers. Later interventions result in
emaciated livestock that will fetch only low prices for meat
distribution. Interventions that take place very late result inthe slaughter of stock for disposal at minimal prices.

5. Ensuring coordinatedresponses

The establishment of coordination groups that involve key
stakeholders, and affected community representatives, canhelp ensure that livestock offtake interventions areappropriately targeted and managed.
························································································
Coordination among those engaged in slaughter livestock
offtake for consumption is vital. This ensures that purchaseprices and ways of working are agreed, and avoids
competition and confusion.

6. Supporting
gender-sensitive
programming

Gender-sensitive programming is necessary when choosing
livestock offtake options and for selecting those whoshould benefit most.
························································································
Slaughtering may provide employment options for men andwomen (depending on cultural norms). Meat distribution
options and drying activities may also provide employment
opportunities.
························································································Cash from selling big animals (cattle, camels, yaks) may
increase male spending power. Meanwhile, women may
only have the discretion to sell small stock (sheep andgoats), as well as poultry, and to control the proceeds fromthis. Interventions should therefore assess balancing thetypes of animals selected for livestock offtake in order tobenefit both women and men.
························································································
Particular attention is needed to ensure that widows andfemale-headed households are not excluded from theintervention.
continued over300

8

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in livestock
offtake interventions

7. Supporting local
ownership

Livestock-owning communities frequently have their own
local coping strategies for responding to emergencies.
Building on these local strategies through community
management of the livestock offtake process (for example,
local coordination groups overseeing targeting, pricing anddistribution) will increase their effectiveness. Customary
offtake practices also observe and respect cultural norms
and taboos related to selection criteria, slaughter and meat
distribution practices.
························································································
Livestock offtake stimulates the local economy during acrisis through the sale of animals, enabling communities topurchase food and other essential commodities. Livestock
offtake operations also provide opportunities for
employment of community members.
························································································
When dealing with external traders, local communities andlocal market actors may need additional support fromexternal agencies.

8. Committing to MEAL

Understanding livestock markets and trends is key toplanning and implementing successful livestock offtake.
The purchase of livestock for either commercial offtake orslaughter offtake for consumption is likely to have an
impact on local markets. Monitoring livestock prices isimportant to understand this impact and ensure that at-risk
groups are not adversely affected.

Decision tree for livestock offtake
options
The decision tree (Figure 8.1) summarises some of the key questions to
consider in determining the most feasible and appropriate option for an
emergency livestock offtake intervention. The standards, key actions andguidance notes that follow provide more information for detailed planning.
Where possible, these build on preparedness activities conducted prior tothe onset of the emergency/in ‘normal’ times.

301

8Technical standards
Livestock offtake

Figure 8.1: Decision tree for livestock offtake options
Key:

Are some livestock ina ‘saleable’ condition?

Do traders, feedlot owners,
butchers, etc. exist withinterest in purchasing stock?

Do markets exist elsewhere
and are they accessible?

Does the necessary
infrastructure exist(or can it be created)?

Is the broader development/
institutional context
conducive for trade?

Commercial
livestock offtake

Yes

No

Actions

Do livestock still havefood value?

Are local groups available toorganise livestock offtake (orcan capacity be strengthened)?

Is there coordination at theappropriate level to agree
pricing etc., or cancoordination be established?

Is there organisational
capacity to purchaseand distribute stock?

Is there infrastructure andlabour for slaughtering,preparation anddistribution of meat?

Can public health,environmental, andappropriate animal welfare
requirements be met?

Is slaughter andpreparation in line with
cultural norms feasible?

Slaughter
livestock offtake*The result ‘No action’ does not necessarily mean thatno intervention should take place, but rather that further
training or capacity strengthening may be required inorder to be able to answer ‘yes’ to the key questions.

302

No action* (unlessoutstanding questions
can be addressed)

8Technical standards
Livestock offtake

The standards
Livestock offtake enables livestock keepers to salvage some value fromanimals that, without intervention, may have little or no value. Commercial
livestock offtake is only feasible before animals lose condition and market
prices collapse. Beyond this point, slaughter livestock offtake for
consumption may be the only alternative. Preparedness and early analysis of
the situation, with the participation of affected communities, is essential for
deciding whether livestock offtake is a feasible and appropriate response. A
livestock offtake assessment checklist is presented in Appendix 8.1.

Standard 1: Preparedness
The critical time frame for livestock offtake is identiﬁed andpreparedness activities undertaken.

Key actions• Monitor relevant early warning data (see Guidance note 1).
• Understand market processes, and monitor the livestock market closely(see Guidance note 2).
• Monitor livestock condition and welfare closely (see Guidance note 3).
• Implement livestock offtake preparedness activities with key stakeholders(see Guidance note 4).
• Encourage the early marketing of livestock (see Guidance note 5).

Guidance notes
1. Early warning
Most drought-affected areas have some form of early warning indicators that
can alert agencies that they should start to consider livestock offtake.
8

2. Monitoring livestock markets
Increased numbers of animals for sale without a corresponding increase indemand, or falling livestock prices, may indicate the beginning of ‘distresssales’. This is where livestock keepers are trying to salvage some value fromtheir animals through the normal market.

303

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

3. Monitoring livestock condition
Deteriorating livestock condition may be an indicator of impending crisis.
Participatory planning with communities and local knowledge, coupled withsecondary data from early warning monitoring systems, can help determine if
the condition of animals is worse than usual for the time of year.
4. Preparedness activities
Preparedness activities might involve prior listing of potential livestock
traders, value adders, meat processors, ranchers, etc. to initiate commercial
livestock offtake on time. Prior advocacy work on commercial livestock
offtake may be required ahead of an emergency. This is because herders
may be reluctant to part with the stock that is likely to perish.
5. Timing and early action
The options for livestock offtake relate to the phase of the emergency (seeTable 8.2). Encouraging communities to sell stock when prices are still
favourable will ensure the greatest livelihood benefits. Pre-positioning offunding sources as ‘crisis modifiers’ will be needed for early and effective
engagement with market processes.

Standard 2: Assessment and planning
The type of livestock offtake activity selected is appropriate tomarket conditions and the state of the livestock.

Key actions• Undertake commercial livestock offtake only when traders are willing tobuy, and animals are in a suitable condition (see Guidance note 1).
• Ensure livestock offtake involves appropriate species, age and type ofanimal, depending on local circumstances, knowledge and practices (seeGuidance note 2).
• Assess if customary livestock offtake is still practised in somecommunities in order to target less fortunate households (see Guidancenote 3).
• Ensure assessments consider the broader development and institutional
context of the emergency (see Guidance note 4).
• Ensure the affected communities are fully involved in planning andassessing activities (see Guidance note 5).
304

8Technical standards
Livestock offtake• Assess the security situation to ensure the safety of livestock, theirkeepers and agency staff (see Guidance note 6).
• Prepare exit strategies in advance (see Guidance note 7).

Guidance notes
1. Commercial livestock offtake or slaughter livestock offtake for
consumption
A 25 per cent drop in livestock prices or a 25 per cent increase in the
cereal–livestock price ratio is commonly regarded as a trigger point for
initiating livestock offtake. Implementing agencies should assess livestock
condition and market interest to determine whether commercial livestock
offtake is viable.
2. Selection of animals
Removing cattle, camels and yaks has the greatest impact on the immediate
environment and injects the most cash into the local economy. However,with such big animals, there are equity and gender issues to consider, since
at-risk groups or women may be excluded from the benefits. The inclusion of
sheep and goats may allow at-risk groups and women to benefit as well. As
a general principle, young female breeding stock should be excluded as they
are required for rebuilding the herds/flocks of the future. See FAO (2016,
Chapter 4), on ‘Which animals to include?’ as well as LEGS Principles 1:
Livelihoods programming and 6: Gender-sensitive programming.
3. Customary livestock offtake practices
In some communities of Eastern Africa (such as the Gabra, Boran and Gari),customary chiefs give an order for the slaughter of a bull or a camel by eachcapable household in the village in times of emergency. The meat is sharedwith poor households, and is dried and preserved in ghee to be usedsparingly for the lean period. The bones are also kept and cooked repeatedly
to provide some fat (marrow). Although this practice may be in decline forvarious reasons, households that can afford to do so in each community arestill likely to practise this coping strategy. Assessing and identifying thosevillages where such customary livestock offtake practices exist in thecommunity should be undertaken, to promote community-initiated andcommunity-managed coping strategies. This will lessen the involvement of
external agencies where such customs are practised.

305

8

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

4. Development and institutional context
The broader context of the emergency needs to be understood to ensurethat the risks and opportunities associated with livestock offtake are
identified. Relevant information may include:• any restrictions on cross-border trade and the internal movement of
livestock; licensing/tax regimes; existing meat control regulations as
stipulated in the laws of each country; access to credit and moneytransfers; public health and veterinary regulations; and infrastructure;• assistance provided by other agencies to ensure activities arecoordinated and do not overlap with each other;• policies of the implementing agency, which may regulate its involvementwith the private sector or with credit provision, as well as how it canacquire animals or local services.

5. Community involvement
Arrangements for community involvement should be established. This is
usually a coordination group of key partners, people affected (including
women, young people, the elderly and marginalised groups), representativesof the local authorities, and other agencies operating similar schemes.
6. Security
The extent to which livestock offtake may aggravate existing security
problems needs to be assessed. Agencies have a responsibility to protect
and ensure the safety of their staff and contractors. They should explore
alternatives to carrying cash – such as vouchers, mobile money payments or
pre-paid cards.
7. Exit strategies
To ensure livestock offtake has no long-term adverse consequences, it isimportant to plan how and when operations will finish. Flexibility is needed toaccommodate sudden changes in circumstances (market prices, conditionof animals, onset of rain, etc.). These could affect the willingness of livestock
keepers to sell animals, or traders to participate in the market.

306

8Technical standards
Livestock offtake

Standard 3: Commercial livestock offtake
Support is provided for selling marketable animals.

Key actions• Involve the affected communities (see Guidance note 1).
• Assess demand for meat and animals, and identify weaknesses in the
supply chain (see Guidance note 2).
• Identify key partnerships (see Guidance note 3).
• Select areas for intervention, taking account of available animals,
infrastructure, and security (see Guidance note 4).
• Assess the specific categories of livestock buyers and their preferences(see Guidance note 5).
• Agree and publicise criteria for selecting animals and setting pricing
guidelines (see Guidance note 6).
• Assess transaction costs (see Guidance note 7).
• Identify support that is essential for the success of the intervention (seeGuidance notes 8 and 9).
• Provide and monitor essential ongoing support (see Guidance note 10).

Guidance notes
1. Consultations and coordination groups
The aim of a coordination group is to oversee and evaluate activities and toensure that at-risk people are not excluded. The group should also act topre-empt and resolve disputes. Participation of trader representatives isessential (see also Standard 2, Guidance note 5).
2. Livestock market and supply chains assessed
There must be a demand to absorb the extra animals entering the market asa result of a livestock offtake initiative. This may be a terminal (domestic orexport) market, or an intermediate market for holding or fattening weakened
animals. Information may be available from government or parastatal
departments, such as the ministries of agriculture and trade, the statistics
office, etc. This can include information on prices, the number of animals
sold, supply and demand patterns, market facilities, and trade networks.

307

8

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

3. Partnerships
Successful commercial livestock offtake depends on partnerships between
the implementing agency and private livestock traders. Trade associations
may assist in identifying and listing suitable partners. Where possible, a coregroup of committed partners should be identified who have the interest andcapacity to lead the initiative (see Impact case study: Commercial livestock
offtake in Ethiopia).
4. Intervention areas
Selection of appropriate locations for commercial livestock offtake should bebased on assessments of:• the prevailing security situation as it affects traders, livestock keepers andagency staff;• a sufficient supply of animals for sale;• livestock traders willing to buy;
• suitable infrastructure: roads, temporary markets, holding grounds, etc.;• veterinary restrictions on moving animals.

5. Categories of livestock buyers
In general, commercial livestock offtake operations attract livestock buyers
with different interests. Domestic live animal traders, butchers and meat
processors tend to prefer to buy animals in reasonable condition for selling inother profitable markets or for the meat industry. This group of buyers is
likely to offer better prices, as the animals are not yet too weakened.
Exporters and feedlot operators (and ranchers, if present) tend to preferdrought-weakened but large-framed animals. This is so they can recondition
them in a short period and make substantial profits. This group prefers to
conduct transactions during the emergency phase of a drought. Agencies
should take note of this dynamic when partnering with traders.
6. Livestock selection and pricing
Commercial livestock offtake aims to help the normal market to function indifficult circumstances. Ideally, it also establishes new and continuing
relationships between livestock keepers and traders. The species and typesof animals purchased should be more or less like those marketed undernormal conditions – generally surplus males. The prices paid for livestock
supported by commercial offtake should be agreed within the coordinationgroup (see Guidance note 1 above) to ensure transparency and fairness.

308

8

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

7. Transaction costs
Fees for markets, movement permits, abattoirs and meat inspection aretransaction costs usually borne by the trader. If these costs are too high,they may restrict trade from happening in the more remote markets, or tradeof animals in poorer condition. These fees are also important sources ofincome for often cash-strapped local institutions. The use of external
support to pay these fees directly to local institutions may be preferred to thetemporary suspension of trading.
8. Appropriate support
It is important for agencies to understand the critical constraints andweaknesses when markets are under stress, so they can identify appropriate
support. In order not to disrupt the normal market, agencies should provide
the minimum support required to facilitate and overcome the immediate
constraints. Support may include agencies:• bringing interested traders and livestock keepers together. This can bedone by them organising and publicising temporary markets and byproviding holding facilities, additional security arrangements, on-site feed
and water, arbitration services, etc.;• providing credit (or facilitating access to credit) for traders to purchaseanimals;• supporting transport costs to remote areas. Fuel subsidies may benecessary to encourage traders to enter these markets. Backloading
opportunities may also exist for traders to make use of empty trucks
returning from carrying emergency supplies into the affected areas;• compensating local authorities for temporary reductions/suspensions oflocal fees and levies.

9. Ensuring ongoing support
Having identified the support required, it is important that the agency ensures
it has the necessary resources for the duration of the activity. Support should
be flexible enough to respond to changing circumstances, such as when thecondition of the animals deteriorates to a level where they cannot be sold.

309

8Technical standards
Livestock offtake

10. Monitoring
It is important that agencies keep qualitative and quantitative records of theoperation for evaluation, impact assessment, and documentation of bestpractices. See the livestock offtake monitoring and evaluation indicators inAppendix 8.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators for livestock
offtake.

Standard 4: Slaughter livestock offtake for
consumption
The intervention salvages value from crisis-affected livestock toprovide cash, meat and employment to affected communities.

Key actions• Involve the affected communities (see Guidance note 1).
• Determine purchase sites and market dates, and publicise them throughcommunity participation (see Guidance note 2).
• Agree on purchase prices and payment methods for each species andclass of animal (see Guidance notes 3, 4 and 5).
• Assess and agree on opportunities for processing hides and skins (seeGuidance note 6).
• Agree on criteria for selecting those most affected, and in-kind
contributions, and identify the participants (see Guidance notes 6, 7
and 8).
• Agree on criteria for selecting animals for slaughter (see Guidance note 9).
• Agree on criteria for distributing fresh or dried meat (see Guidancenote 10).
• Follow local customs concerning slaughter, butchering and preservation
methods, and observe animal welfare standards (see Guidance note 11).
• Assess and act upon public health risks associated with animal slaughter(see Guidance note 12).
• Safely dispose of carcasses unfit for human consumption (see Guidancenote 13).
• Provide appropriate equipment and resources for livestock offtake
operations (see Guidance note 14).

310

8

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

Guidance notes
1. Community involvement
Coordination arrangements from earlier livestock offtake interventions may
be resurrected or new groups established (see also Standards 1 and 2) toassist in planning and implementation. Details to be determined will include:• selection criteria for different groups of people affected;• selection criteria for animals to be purchased for slaughter;• sites and dates of temporary market;• whether vouchers, mobile money or pre-paid cards should be usedinstead of physical cash (see also Guidance note 4);• suitable slaughter sites;• criteria for when to distribute fresh or dried meat.

2. Purchase sites and dates
Temporary markets should be as close as possible to the affected
communities to avoid excessive trekking of already weakened animals.
Market days should be fixed in advance and well publicised. Markets should
also be scheduled so as to allow adequate time for agency staff to rotate
between the sites. The availability of basic infrastructure (holding areas,water, feed, etc.) and services (veterinary inspectors, agency staff, etc.)
should be ensured.
3. Purchase price
The purchase price for the different species and types of animals needs to beagreed with and publicised in the affected communities. Coordination withother agencies operating similar schemes in adjacent areas is essential to
avoid competition and confusion. Actual market prices, if available, should
be monitored and the intervention price (what the agency pays) reviewed
and, if necessary, adjusted accordingly. The intervention price is often higher
than the actual market price, which may still be too low to benefit prospective
sellers. However, if the intervention price is set too high, it may benefit only asmall number of sellers and destabilise an already fragile market.
4. Mobile money and vouchers
Agencies should consider using mobile money transfers or vouchers rather
than carrying cash in high-risk areas. The spread of mobile technology in thelast decade has made it safer, easier and faster to transfer money even to
remote areas. Vouchers or pre-paid cards that are usually redeemed later are
also preferred to carrying cash.
311

8

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

5. Procurement
Agencies may purchase animals directly or contract out to local groups orindividuals. Contracting out, where possible, is preferable because it issimpler, less costly and supports local institutions. Both the price the agency
pays the contractor and the price the contractor pays the producer must betransparent and agreed (see Process case study: Contract purchase forlivestock offtake for slaughter in Kenya).
6. Selection of recipients
Slaughter livestock offtake for consumption involves different members ofaffected communities, who need to be identified and selected as recipients.
Agreement over who owns and benefits from the hides and skins also needs
to be agreed (see Process case study: Voucher scheme and meat
distribution for livestock offtake in Kenya).
7. Meat distribution
Meat recipients can be individual households, local institutions (schools,
hospitals, prisons), or camps for displaced people. Criteria for distribution
should include at-risk individuals, such as unaccompanied and separated
children, and child-headed households. Meat distributions may be organised
through the coordination group, local leaders or in conjunction with an
ongoing food supply operation. This latter would have its own selection
criteria and distribution networks.
8. In-kind contributions
Most communities benefiting from a slaughter livestock offtake intervention
are expected to make some sort of in-kind contribution. The implementing
agency needs to negotiate and agree these contributions. They could
include taking responsibility for security arrangements and/or contributing
labour or materials.
9. Selection of animals for slaughter
As with commercial livestock offtake, a slaughter livestock offtake
intervention should give priority to older, non-reproductive stock (mainly
surplus males). Young breeding stock should be excluded if possible, tosecure the core breeding herd and therefore livelihoods.

312

8Technical standards
Livestock offtake

10. Fresh versus dried meat
Fresh meat is generally considered preferable by many communities (fresh
meat satiates hunger better than dried meat). It is also the simplest option.
Because fresh meat is perishable, however, the logistics of distribution limit
the number of animals that can be slaughtered at any one time. Drying meat
has the advantage of allowing more animals to be slaughtered and thesurplus meat to be preserved for later use. Preservation also allows for amore staggered and widespread distribution than is possible with fresh meat,
assuming that dried meat is culturally acceptable. It also has the additional
advantage of providing extra employment and the opportunity forcommunities to acquire new skills. Drying meat safely requires additional
preparation, hygienic facilities, clean water and suitable storage facilities.
11. Slaughter methods
Killing and butchering animals should be based on local customs andexpertise, provided that animal welfare standards are not compromised.
Ensuring animals are dispatched humanely and safely requires basic
equipment (ropes, pulleys, captive-bolt stun guns, knives and saws,
buckets/plastic crates, etc.). It also requires simple slaughter slabs withaccess to water, fly protection, and the means to collect and dispose ofblood and waste material. Sufficient labour must be available to carry out thework, with agencies providing training and supervision if required.
12. Public health risks
Certain animal diseases (zoonoses), such as anthrax and Rift Valley fever,and parasites (Echinococcus, hydatid cysts) are transmissible to humans,particularly people already stressed by hunger and malnutrition.
Implementing agencies should conduct an assessment of the potential risks
to public health before proposing slaughter interventions. Ante- andpost-mortem inspection by qualified personnel of all animals and carcasses
is essential. Any animal or carcass that is unfit for human consumption
should be safely disposed of (see Guidance note 13). Rotating slaughtersites can help minimise the risk of spreading disease. Meat is highly
perishable, and good hygiene is essential to reduce the risk of food-borne
disease. Slaughter and butchering in camp settings may require carefulplanning and the construction of temporary facilities to ensure public healthand avoid the spread of disease.

313

8Technical standards
Livestock offtake

13. Disposal of condemned carcasses and slaughter waste
Condemned carcasses and waste water, stomach contents, etc. need to besafely disposed of. This usually involves burying (preferably with lime),burning, or quarantining the carcasses. Waste water and body contents
must not contaminate sources of drinking water (see Chapter 6: Veterinary
support).
14. Providing necessary equipment/resources
Implementing agencies may need to consider supplying necessary items
from outside (such as ropes, knives, buckets, nails, etc.) in areas whereslaughter livestock offtake for consumption operations take place. Suchitems could be crucial to facilitate livestock offtake operations.

8314

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

Appendices
Appendix 8.1: Assessment checklist for livestock offtake
For livestock offtake in general• What phase has the emergency reached?
• What is the condition of the livestock being brought to market?
• Is the number of livestock being brought to market increasing?
• What is happening to the price of livestock?
• Which stakeholders are operating in the area?
• Which are the most at-risk communities, households and individuals
affected by the emergency?
• How is the crisis impacting different groups, including women and people
with disabilities?
• Who could benefit from livestock offtake?
• Can a coordination group be established?
• Have animal welfare standards been considered?
• Is the area secure for the movement of stock and cash?
• What customary and local institutions exist that can facilitate livestock
offtake? What roles do they play?

For commercial livestock offtake• Are traders already operating in the area?
• Is the infrastructure in place to enable livestock offtake?
• Do (temporary) holding grounds exist?
• Is there access for trucks?
• Are feed and water available?
• Are there animal welfare issues regarding trucking livestock?
• Are there any key policy constraints to livestock movement and trade?
• What constraints would hamper access to markets by the most at-risk
people and groups?

For slaughter livestock offtake for human consumption• What slaughter facilities exist?
• What are the local religious and cultural requirements regarding livestockslaughter? Do they compromise accepted animal welfare standards?

3158

Technical standards
Livestock offtake• What are the local gender roles regarding slaughter, meat preparation,
tanning, etc.?
• Which are the most at-risk communities, households and individuals
affected by the emergency who could benefit from the slaughter ofanimals?
• Should temporary market sites be established to reach remote villages?
• Which at-risk groups should be targeted to receive the meat fromlivestock offtake operations?
• Which individuals could benefit from the employment opportunities thatslaughter livestock offtake could provide?
• Can acceptable ante- and post-mortem inspections be undertaken?
• Can a system be established to process hides and skins?

For slaughter for disposal• Can the hides and skins of condemned carcasses be processed?
• What provisions exist for safe disposal of carcasses?

8316Technical standards
Livestock offtake

Appendix 8.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators forlivestock offtake
Process indicators(measure things happening)

Impact indicators (measure theresult of things happening)

Designing theintervention

Number of meetings heldwith government andtraders; range and type of
stakeholders participating inmeetings··········································
Number of community-levelmeetings; number and typeof people participating inmeetings

Meeting minutes with an action
plan and a clear description of
the roles and responsibilities ofthe different actors·················································
Trader preferences for types of
livestock for purchase,
documented against market
demands·················································
Holding areas clearly defined asneeded·················································
Taxes and other administrative
issues agreed with government·················································
Community-level action plansdeveloped, with agreed prices
for livestock, payment
mechanisms, and system andschedule for local collection andpurchase of livestock

Implementation:
livestockpurchases

Number of traders involved··········································
Number and type of
livestock purchased byhousehold and area

Income derived from livestock
sales by household·················································
Uses of income derived fromlivestock sales (e.g. to buy food;buy livestock feed; relocate
animals; buy medicines, pay
school fees)·················································
Influence on policy

Commercial offtake

continued over317

8Technical standards
Livestock offtake

Process indicators(measure things happening)

Impact indicators (measure theresult of things happening)

Slaughter livestock offtake for consumption
Designing theintervention

Number of community-levelmeetings; number, position
and gender representationof people participating inmeetings··········································
Formation ofcommunity-level livestock
offtake coordination groupin each target location

Meeting minutes with clear
description of the roles andresponsibilities of the different
actors·················································
Terms of reference for livestock
offtake coordination groupagreed·················································
Action plans developed withagreement on:
Setting temporary market days,
and frequency/duration ofintervention
Selection criteria for affected
communities
Types of livestock for purchase
together with prices andpayment mechanisms
Amount of meat to be distributed
System for local collection andpurchase of livestock, withtimings
Hire and payment of community
members involved in slaughter,meat preparation, handlingskins, etc.

Implementation:slaughter and meat
distribution

318

Number of participatinghouseholds and people··········································
Number and type of
livestock purchased byhousehold and area··········································
Amount of meat distributed
per household··········································
Number of local people
hired for temporary work

People selling livestock – income
derived from livestock sales byhousehold and uses of income·················································
People hired for temporary work
– income received and uses ofincome·················································
Improved nutritional status ofmeat recipients·················································

8

Technical standards
Livestock offtake

References and further reading
Abebe, D., Cullis, A., Catley, A., Aklilu, Y., Mekonnen, G. and Ghebrechirstos, Y. (2008) ‘Impact of acommercial de-stocking relief intervention in Moyale district, southern Ethiopia’, Disasters 32(2):167–186, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.01034.x
Aklilu, Y. and Wekesa, M. (2002) Drought, Livestock and Livelihoods: Lessons from the 1999–2001
Emergency Response in the Pastoral Sector in Kenya, Humanitarian Practice Network Paper 40,
Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London, https://www.unisdr.org/files/1855_VL102122.pdf
Catley, A. (ed.) (2007) Impact Assessment of Livelihoods-based Drought Interventions in Moyale andDire Woredas, Ethiopia, Pastoralists Livelihoods Initiative, Feinstein International Center, Tufts
University, Medford, MA, together with CARE, Save the Children USA, and USAID-Ethiopia,
https://ﬁc.tufts.edu/assets/IMPACT1-2.pdf
Catley, A. and Cullis, A. (2012) ‘Money to burn? Comparing the costs and benefits of drought
responses in pastoralist areas of Ethiopia’, Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 24 April 2012,https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Catley-and-Cullis-2012.pdf
FAO (2001) Guidelines for humane handling, transport and slaughter of livestock, https://www.fao.org/
documents/card/en/c/466c5e0e-aa6d-5cdb-8476-43245054c3bf/
FAO (2016) Livestock-related interventions during emergencies – The how-to-do-it manual. Edited byPhilippe Ankers, Suzan Bishop, Simon Mack and Klaas Dietze. FAO Animal Production and Health
Manual No. 18. Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/i5904e/i5904e.pdf (See Chapter 4)
FAO (2020) Effective disposal of animal carcasses and contaminated material on small to
medium-sized farms, FAO Animal Production and Health/Guidelines 23, https://www.fao.org/
publications/card/en/c/CB2464EN/
Morton, J. and Barton D. (2002) ‘Destocking as a drought-mitigation strategy: clarifying rationales andanswering critiques’, Disasters 26(3): 213–228, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00201
Toulmin, C. (1994) ‘Tracking through drought: options for destocking and restocking’, in I. Scoones(ed.), Living with Uncertainty: New Directions in Pastoral Development in Africa, pp. 95–115,
Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Turner, M.D. and Williams, T.O. (2002) ‘Livestock market dynamics and local vulnerabilities in the
Sahel’, World Development 30(4): 683–705, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00133-4

See also case studies for livestock offtake in emergencies at: https://www.livestock-emergency.net/
resources/case-studies/8319

Technical standards
Provision of livestock320

Chapter 9: Technicalstandards for theprovision of livestock
323

Introduction

325

Options for the provision of livestock

330

Timing of interventions

331

Links to the other LEGS chapters and other HSP standards

332

LEGS Principles and other issues to consider

338

Decision tree for provision of livestock options

341

The standards

352

Appendix 9.1: Assessment checklist for provision of livestock

354

Appendix 9.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators
for the provision of livestock

358

Appendix 9.3: Discussion on minimum viable herd size

360

References and further reading

Photo © Kertu/iStock321

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Chapter 9: Technicalstandards for theprovision of livestockStandard 1
Assessment andplanning

Option 1
Replacing lost
livestock assets

Option 1.1
Provision of core
breeding animals
for pastoral
households

Option 2
Building livestock
assets

Option 1.2
Provision of key
livestock assets
for smallholder
farmers andincome generation

Standard 2
Deﬁning the intervention
packageStandard 3
Delivery systems
9Standard 4
Additional support
to recipients322

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Introduction
When emergencies result in substantial loss of livestock, the provision of
livestock is a valuable approach to rebuilding people’s financial livelihood
assets and providing high-quality livestock-derived foods.
Different emergencies result in the loss of different numbers of livestock. For
example, a small flood may result in no livestock losses, since animals canbe moved to higher ground (and floodwater may in fact increase theavailability of forage and pasture in the medium term). Large-scale flooding,on the other hand, may result in the loss of thousands of livestock. Similarly,
a severe drought or a strong earthquake may result in the loss of large
numbers of animals. Volcanic ash may cause livestock death throughstarvation if fodder and feed resources are not made available.
Communities that have lost key livestock or a significant number of their core
breeding animals in an emergency will benefit from livestock provided in therecovery phase. This ensures their livelihoods can be supported andpotentially rebuilt. An intervention is regarded as successful when the
animals provided survive, increase in number, are productive and contributeto the livelihoods of the crisis-affected communities. In pastoral andsmallholder farmer contexts, the provision of livestock has an immediate
positive outcome. This is because productive animals provide milk and eggs
and help improve child and household nutrition and health. Transport
animals, meanwhile, facilitate livelihood activities and/or generate income.
This chapter presents information on the provision of livestock as a livestock
emergency response, together with technical options for the provision of
livestock and the associated benefits and challenges of each. Information is
also available in Chapter 9: Provision of Livestock in FAO (2016). For eachtechnical option, LEGS provides information through standards, key actions
and guidance notes. Checklists for assessment, as well as monitoring andevaluation indicators, are presented as appendices at the end of this chapter.
Further reading is also provided. Case studies are presented on the LEGS
website (see https://www.livestock-emergency.net/case-studies).

Links to the LEGS livelihoods objectives
The provision of livestock in the recovery phase of an emergency supports
the third LEGS livelihoods objective: to support crisis-affected
communities to rebuild key livestock-related assets.

323

9

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

The provision of livestock should always meet all five of the animal welfare
domains (see Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS). This is likely to result in
improved survival rates and higher levels of productivity, and therefore
contribute better to positive livelihood outcomes.

The importance of the provision of livestock in emergency response
Replacing livestock after emergencies, such as drought, flood, livestock
disease, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and conflict – including in someareas, militarised livestock theft – helps rebuild the livelihoods of affectedhouseholds. Wherever possible, however, it is preferable to reduce livestock
losses during the emergency phase itself. This can be achieved by using
LEGS technical interventions such as the provision of livestock feed andwater, and veterinary support (see Chapters 4, 5 and 6).
During and immediately after humanitarian emergencies, the focus is on theprovision of food, water, shelter and health for human populations. Done well
to Sphere standards, such assistance reduces the need for crisis-affected
communities to sell remaining livestock to meet basic household needs. As
basic human needs are met, additional important assistance can be provided
to protect their remaining animals by delivering feed, water, animal health,and shelter support (see Chapters 4–7). In contrast, interventions focused on
replacing livestock are typically delayed until the recovery phase of an
emergency. By this phase, both crisis-affected communities and agency
staff have the time and capacity to assess the appropriateness of a provisionof livestock intervention. It is important that these assessments are nothurried and that interventions also fully and appropriately provide for
associated livestock support needs, such as animal health, feed, water andshelter. Agency technical capacity should also not be stretched too thinly.
The provision of livestock is a technically challenging intervention. Tasks
include:• assessing and agreeing the types and numbers of animals involved;• the selection of individual animals;• the choice of recipients (and inevitably the tough decision to exclude
other recipients); and• how to address subsequent issues such as livestock barrenness, loss ortheft.

The provision of livestock is also costly. This is particularly true when an
emergency has resulted in the loss of large numbers of livestock, and local
livestock prices are inflated. Costs are further increased when recipients
324

9

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

continue to need other forms of support for their remaining animals. While
cost concerns are important, the cost of providing ongoing humanitarian
support to crisis-affected communities might be higher in the long term thanthe cost of rebuilding their livelihoods. Providing livestock may therefore
contribute to a reduction in the overall costs of supporting a humanitarian
intervention.
Given the complexities and costs of the provision of livestock, it is essentialthat implementing agencies have the necessary specialist livestock andsocial science staff. If not, it may be better for them to partner with a
specialist livestock agency and, over time, build the necessary skills andcapacities. Whether experienced or not, agencies need to be able todemonstrate that they understand local livestock economies. This isimportant for them if they are to win the confidence of local livestock
keepers, customary institutions (in pastoral areas), local farmer organisations
and the local administration. It is also important that agencies work well withall wealth groups, women, and marginalised groups who might not normally
be integrated in smallholder farmer and pastoral organisations.
Agencies with long-term development experience in an area affected by the
emergency are often well placed to lead an intervention. This is especiallytrue if they are familiar with local livestock production systems and theassociated social systems that underpin them. However, this does notnecessarily avoid basic errors; exotic livestock, for example, are known tohave been distributed in areas of limited agro-ecological potential. The
limited capacity of exotic livestock to adapt to the conditions results in their
low productivity and high mortality rates.
Agencies providing replacement animals may want to consider aligning theintervention with longer-term livestock development initiatives, andinterventions that support market-based approaches. For example, it may bepossible for them to support recipients to explore and use local fodder andlivestock markets. Or they might support recipients’ access to private animal
healthcare services, including through the use of multi-sectoral cash grants.

Options for the provision of livestock
There are two main options for providing livestock. These depend on thenature of the emergency, the local livestock production system, livelihood
strategies and the operational opportunities and challenges. The two optionsare ‘replacing lost livestock’ and ‘building livestock assets’.
325

9Technical standards
Provision of livestock

To be successful, it is important that informed decisions for both technicaloptions are made based on the following:• the selection of livestock, specifically the age, sex, number, and type ofanimals as well as their health status and price;• the number of potential recipients and their required capacities, including
labour, experience, skills and interests; as well as their access to essential
productive resources and services – feed, water, shelter and animal
healthcare.

The standards presented in this chapter offer guidance that is relevant toboth options.

Option 1: Replacing lost livestock assets
Under this technical option, agencies may provide livestock to different
livelihood groups under two different sub-options:Sub-option 1.1: Provision of core breeding animals for pastoral
households
Pastoral (and agro-pastoral) communities inhabit the world’s grasslands,
stretching from China and Mongolia, through Central Asia and the Middle
East, to the Sudano-Sahelian zone and southern Africa. Other pastoralists
live in Central and South America, Europe, North America and Australasia.
All depend heavily on livestock as a source of food and income, andlivestock are typically at the centre of their social networks. Emergencies that
decimate flocks and herds therefore have very damaging impacts on
pastoral livelihoods and may result in psychosocial stress or destitution.
Pastoralism differs from area to area, as some rely on a single animal type(for example, sheep, cattle or reindeer), while others keep mixed herds ofsheep, goats, cattle/yaks and camels. Given this diversity, it is important that
local knowledge drives operational choices and the approaches that inform
interventions. For example, camels may be highly prized by some pastoral
communities, which might suggest that camels should be central to anintervention. However, local knowledge also adds that small ruminants, suchas sheep and goats, are valued because they can be traded up for camels as
they increase in number. Using local knowledge in this way can help reduce
intervention costs. Local informants should play a central role in determining
the number of animals that constitute a minimum ‘core breeding’ flock/herd(see Appendix 9.3: Discussion on minimum viable herd size at the end of thischapter).

326

9Technical standards
Provision of livestock

The redistribution of livestock through marriage, payment of fines andfriendship, and the associated building of social networks, is common inalmost all pastoral societies. It makes good sense for agencies to use thisknowledge, and the mechanisms and institutions that support them. For
example, local knowledge and institutions can help them identify when andto whom livestock should be provided (see also LEGS Principle 2:
Community participation).
It is important to support only those pastoralists who have a real interest in
returning to the pastoral sector and who retain good links with otherpastoralists. This is because pastoral households cannot function in isolationfrom others and need to cooperate in the herding and watering of livestock.
It is for these reasons that pastoralists typically herd communally in groupsof households. Working together they share labour, rotate breeding males,
and can safely access more remote grazing areas. Pastoralists who nolonger have such social links are unlikely to make a sustainable return topastoralism.
Sub-option 1.2: Provision of key livestock assets for smallholder
farmers and for income generation
Poor and smallholder farmers, and people living in peri-urban and urban
areas, may own relatively few animals – certainly compared with pastoral
households. Wealthier smallholder farmers may own several dairy cows, apair of ploughing oxen, sheep and goats, a horse or mule, some pigs, andpoultry flocks (chickens, ducks and turkeys). In contrast, very poor
smallholder farmers may own just a few chickens.
Households who own a small herd of dairy cows, small flocks of poultry orsome working animals will be highly dependent on those animals. They willproduce and sell dairy products and eggs, or hire out their working animals
for the transport of produce and goods. In Ethiopia, donkeys and mules havea long history of use in the transport of coffee, while working animals in
Nepal transport goods to remote mountain communities. Working animals
are also used to deliver food aid and other forms of humanitarian assistancein times of crisis.
Peri-urban and urban livestock, even in these small numbers, represent an
important livelihood source. Their loss in an emergency may result in acutesuffering, including loss of food and income. Over time, such losses may
also result in more limited use, or even complete loss, of valuable knowledge,
skills, and experience. For affected communities, replacing animals lost toan emergency without external support may also contribute further to the327

9Technical standards
Provision of livestock

deepening of the impact of the emergency. This is because they must use
scarce resources and assets to secure the necessary funds for replacement.

Option 2: Building livestock assets
Under this technical option, agencies may provide livestock to help improve
livelihood outcomes after an emergency for people who have not previously
owned livestock before. Livestock may improve livelihoods in the following
ways:• by increasing access to milk and eggs and improving nutritional
outcomes;• as an additional source of income generation;• as a form of saving that can later be mobilised in times of need, including
for the payment of school or medical fees through the sale of animals (ifmore are born than sold).

Through the provision of livestock, including to internally displaced persons(IDPs) and refugees, livelihood diversification is supported. The intervention
may also help make better use of naturally occurring forage and feed
resources. In so doing, it may convert local resources, which cannot be
consumed by human populations, into high-quality animal-source protein.
Livestock may also provide power – through transport and ploughing – andtherefore contribute income and create favourable conditions for planting
crops. Recipients can also use manure from livestock as a source of fertiliser,
as a household fuel, for construction or for sale.
While there are some known successes in the provision of livestock to
people without prior experience of livestock keeping, there are also failures.
This is because keeping livestock has its challenges: time, knowledge,
experience and passion for livestock are all requirements for keeping healthy
and productive animals. Where there is strong interest, however, it may beappropriate for livestock provision interventions to start small, with poultry.
This is because poultry have relatively short production cycles and canalmost immediately contribute to household nutrition and food security, or
provide income through the sale of eggs.
In these cases, to ensure positive outcomes, it is vital to organise appropriate
training in animal nutrition, husbandry, health and breeding. Where possible,
specialist support should also continue to be offered for a minimum of two
years after the intervention. In this way, it may be possible to provide
recipients with the full range of knowledge and skills required to keep
livestock successfully.
328

9

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

The benefits, challenges and implications of these options and sub-options
are summarised in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1: Beneﬁts and challenges of livestock provision options
Beneﬁts

Challenges

Implications

Option 1: Replacing lost livestock assets
Sub-option 1.1: Replacing core breeding animals for pastoralists
Helps replace lost livestock·········································
Contributes to food andnutrition security·········································
Contributes to resiliencestrengthening·········································
Supports customary
livestock exchanges andherd reconstitution·········································May eventually support
other livelihoods (traders,transporters, processors,
etc.)

Unit cost of theintervention is high, andmonitoring, evaluation andimpact assessment
require commitment andresources·······································
Requires considerable
technical and social
science support

Specific to pastoral
communities·······································
Recipients must retainsocial status and accessto pasture and water·······································
Recipients may require
other livelihood support(food and cash) while
livestock multiply·······································
Livestock require otherforms of support(veterinary, feed, shelter,
etc.)

Sub-option 1.2: Provision of key livestock for smallholder farmers and for income
generation
Helps replace lost livestock·········································
Contributes to food andnutrition security·········································
Contributes to income
generation

Unit cost of theintervention is high, andmonitoring, evaluation andimpact assessment
require commitment andresources

Recipients may require
other livelihood support(food and cash) while
livestock multiply·······································
Livestock require otherforms of support(veterinary, feed, shelter,etc.)
continued over9329

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Beneﬁts

Challenges

Implications

Option 2: Building livestock assets
Provides valuable new
assets·········································
Contributes to food andnutrition security·········································
Contributes to income
generation

Unit cost of intervention ishigh, and monitoring,evaluation and impact
assessment requirecommitment andresources·······································
Introduction of livestockneeds to be supported bytraining

Training and mentoring
support should becontinued over two years

Timing of interventions
The costs and challenges associated with the delivery of high-quality
livestock provision interventions require that agencies make every effort toensure the best possible outcomes. This includes delaying interventions until
the recovery phase of the disaster risk management cycle (see Table 9.2). In
this way, they are more likely to ensure minimal competition with theprovision of critical life-saving support in the emergency phase. The
premature sale or consumption of distributed livestock to meet urgent needs
will also be less likely. And support for the livestock sector can focus on theprovision of veterinary support, feed, water and shelter.
Agencies should further delay the timing after a complex emergency, as there
are potential ongoing dangers to both livestock and livestock owners fromarmed groups. This may be the case even after peace agreements havebeen signed.

9330

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Table 9.2: Possible timing of livestock provision

Rapid-onset emergency
Options

Immediately after

Early recovery

Recovery

1. Replacing lost livestock
assets
2. Building livestock
assetsSlow-onset emergency
Options

Alert

Alarm

Emergency

Recovery

1. Replacing lost livestock
assets
2. Building livestock
assetsLinks to the other LEGS chapters andother HSP standards
The provision of livestock should be linked to and coordinated with other
LEGS interventions, including the provision of feed, water, veterinary supportand shelter (see LEGS Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7).
Recipient households are also likely to require other forms of assistance tomeet their basic needs, at least until the livestock provided can make a fullcontribution to livelihoods. For example, a pastoral (or agro-pastoral)
recipient who receives 20 or 30 core breeding animals will not achieve
household food security for several years. They will therefore require foodand income during the flock/herd rebuilding period (see Standard 4:
Additional support below). Without such assistance, they may be forced tosell the animals that they have received to meet their basic food and income
needs. Agencies should consult the ‘Minimum standards in food security
and nutrition’, as well as the ‘Minimum standards for shelter and settlement’in the Sphere Handbook. By doing so, they can ensure that recipient
households receive all forms of necessary support during the recovery
period.

331

9

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

LEGS Principles and other issues toconsiderThe provision of livestock, either by replacing lost livestock assets or building
livestock assets as a new livelihood activity, can play an important role instrengthening and rebuilding livelihoods affected by emergencies. LEGS
Principles can help inform approaches to such interventions, as indicated inTable 9.3.
Table 9.3: LEGS Principles and how they relate to provision of livestock
LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in provisionof livestock interventions

1. Supporting
livelihoods-based
programming

The provision of livestock strengthens and rebuilds
livelihoods. This is either through replacing core breeding
animals in pastoral herds, or replacing the livestock that
smallholder farmers depend on for income generation.
Livestock provision may also be used as a new livelihood
activity.
························································································The use of market approaches also supports the livelihoodsof local service providers – traders, transporters, livestock
input suppliers, animal health providers, etc.

2. Ensuring community
participation

Better outcomes are achieved when affected communities
participate in all aspects of a provision of livestock
intervention: in other words, assessment, design,
implementation, as well as monitoring and evaluation.
Specifically, affected communities should be involved in thefeasibility assessments and selection of type and number oflivestock to be distributed; the selection of recipients; theprocurement and distribution of livestock; and themonitoring and evaluation of the intervention.

3. Responding toclimate change andprotecting theenvironment

Environmental impact assessments prior to providing
livestock should assess current environmental resilienceand the ongoing availability of natural resources (grazing
and water) that will be required for the new livestock.
Issues specific to urban and peri-urban areas (including
animal waste) should be considered where appropriate.
························································································
Livestock selected should ideally be local breeds adapted
to the local agro-ecological conditions and so be able tosurvive and be productive.
continued over332

9

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in provisionof livestock interventions

4. Supporting
preparedness and early
actionCommunities due to receive livestock for the first time need
to be prepared and to undertake appropriate animalhusbandry skills training.
························································································
Detailed preparatory assessments are necessary to ensure
the availability of feed, water and shelter, as well as thecommitment levels of proposed recipients.
························································································
Strategies to ensure preparedness for future emergencies,
such as disaster risk reduction techniques, should be madeavailable to recipients.

5. Ensuring coordinatedresponses

Coordination with other agencies involved in the provisionof livestock is necessary to ensure conflicting approaches
are not used.
························································································
Coordination of transportation arrangements is necessary
to ensure animal welfare requirements are met throughout
their journey.
························································································
Coordinated agency support to recipients for the provisionof ongoing humanitarian assistance – food, income, etc. –may be necessary for several years, until livestock become
productive.
························································································
Coordination with complementary livestock interventions –veterinary support, feed, water, etc. – is also needed toensure the survival of the livestock provided.
continued over

9333

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

LEGS Principle

Examples of how the principles are relevant in provisionof livestock interventions

6. Supporting
gender-sensitive
programming

For the intervention to be effective, men and women ofdifferent wealth categories should be asked to participate
fully in the design, implementation and management of
livestock provision interventions, as well as in themonitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning (MEAL).
Women should be given sufficient opportunity to be able toexpress their particular interest.
························································································
Where women have adequate labour and time, and haveexpressed interest in being recipients, their priorities should
be assessed in terms of species selection.
························································································
Where an intervention can include female-headedhouseholds, agencies should offer additional ongoingtraining and mentoring support as required.

7. Supporting local
ownership

Local customary/administrative leaders (male and female)should play a central leadership role in the intervention.
························································································
Long-standing and customary livestock redistribution
mechanisms should be supported and not undermined by
the intervention.
························································································
Interventions should make use of local skills, knowledge
and livestock management capacities.

8. Committing to MEAL

It is important for agencies to monitor and evaluate theimpact of the provision of livestock. They should focus inparticular on the survival and reproduction rates of livestockthat they have provided in the months and years after the
emergency. This is to determine the ultimate impact of theintervention on livelihoods, and to generate learning andguidance for future interventions.

9334

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Security and conﬂict
It is important to give full consideration to protection issues as, in areas ofconflict, the provision of livestock may attract the interest of armed groups
and criminals. This is a particular problem where interventions are provided
to female-headed households and minority or marginalised groups. In someconflict areas, livestock raiding has become militarised, and groups ofwell-armed men travel long distances to raid livestock. If there is any
concern that livestock, and therefore livestock keepers, are at risk fromraiding, an intervention should not be carried out. In all instances Sphere
Protection Principle 1, ‘Avoid exposing people to further harm’, should beconsidered (see Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS).
Similarly, in areas where pastoral and sedentary smallholder farmers are in
conflict, agencies need to exercise caution before providing one or othergroup with additional livestock. The selection of different species may help
reduce vulnerability to theft. For example, goats may be less attractive toraiders than cattle as they are more difficult to drive away at speed. Agencies
providing livestock also need to ensure that purchased animals, or animals tobe purchased using cash or vouchers they have distributed, are notthemselves stolen. If there is any risk in this regard, the intervention should
be stopped.

Selection of recipients
Reference has been made to the need to select recipients with care. For
example, in pastoral areas it is of critical importance that potential recipients
have some animals or can confirm their recent destitution is the result of an
emergency. They also need to continue to retain strong links with their
pastoral community. Only through such strong links can recipients integrateback into a functional herding unit and become part of the wider pastoral
community. In this way, they can also receive livestock gifts and loans (forexample, for breeding purposes), and ultimately make gifts and loans
themselves as their animal numbers increase. Such transactions may wellprove central to a household’s longer-term viability (see Process case study:
Supporting traditional livestock distribution as a drought-preparedness
strategy in Niger).
In the case of smallholder farmers, it is important that recipient households
have the labour and capacity to manage and provide for the animals theyreceive. This will include them providing appropriate healthcare, suitablegrazing and feed and water, shelter/housing, and healthy stock for breeding.
Where agencies provide animals to households with little or no previous

335

9Technical standards
Provision of livestockhistory of owning and managing livestock, they need to give special care to
the selection of recipients. Only by doing this, will it be possible to screenout those who lack the time, capacity and real interest required to maintainhealthy and productive animals.
Typically, the families that can make the best from the provision of livestock
are neither the poorest nor the most at risk, who often live in roadside
locations or on the peripheries of market towns. To identify the households
that the provision of livestock may best help requires involving customary
and clan leaders. However, care has to be taken to ensure that those whoare screened out are not consistently female-headed households or thosefrom minority groups (see LEGS Principle 6: Gender-sensitive programmingand Principle 7: Local ownership).
Where interventions are making a special effort to benefit very poor ordisabled people, the provision of just two or three hens may be as much as
can be managed. These should be provided together with appropriate
housing and access to feed and healthcare through to the point of laying.
Whenever possible, it is important to complement interventions withgender-sensitive programming that reflects species prioritisation andappropriate technical advice (for example, subsidised poultry healthcare) for
the following 12 months.

Disease transmission
The transmission of disease from livestock to human populations typicallyoccurs in more industrial livestock production systems. However, it canoccur in any setting where livestock and people live close to each other.
Examples include pastoralists and smallholder farmers whose animals may
shelter in part of the home at night. For instance, chickens may roost in theroof, or sheep and goats, cattle, and working animals may be corralled undera sleeping platform for safety. In some towns and cities, and in some
IDP/refugee camps (especially those that include pastoralists andsmallholder farmers), large numbers of livestock may live near humanpopulations (see Chapter 7: Shelter). In each of these settings, interventions
should safeguard animal and human populations through providing accessto healthcare and the regulation of minimum sanitary and hygiene conditions.
9336

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Use of cash and voucher assistance, and livestock fairs
The approaches used to provide livestock have changed over time. In the
1990s, most agencies contracted local traders to purchase breeding animals
that were shared among recipients. In some cases, where several hundred
sheep and goats were purchased and distributed in pastoral settings, each
recipient would pick an animal in turn, until all the animals were distributed.
In this way, it was stated that both better and less good animals were moreequally shared.
Today, cash and voucher assistance (CVA) is generally preferred, as
recipients are afforded better choice, and full use is made of local markets(see Chapter 3 on CVA). Under this approach, following discussions with thelocal market manager, recipient households are given either cash or
vouchers with which to purchase livestock. (See Impact case study: Herd
replacement using cash vouchers in Kenya for an example of cash transfers
used for replacing livestock assets).
Local markets may also agree to hold special livestock fairs where, following
an announcement, local pastoralists or livestock keepers bring surplus
animals of an agreed age, sex, breed and type for sale. On the livestock fairday, agencies provide recipients with cash or vouchers to purchase agreed
types and numbers of animals. For example, an intervention may focus on
the provision of two- to three-year-old heifers or on one-year-old female
sheep and goats. Whichever is chosen, recipients understand the types andnumbers of animals that they can purchase. When the transactions areconcluded, the agencies repay the vouchers in local currency to the sellers.
Livestock fairs can be suitable for all livestock provision options. Markets
and livestock fairs also encourage information and knowledge sharing (seeImpact case study: Livestock fairs in Niger).
While the use of cash and vouchers may help improve choice and support
local market systems, including through hosted fair days, it is important toremember that few livestock keepers sell their best animals. It may therefore
take some years of careful breeding before recipients build back the qualityof genetics that they owned before the onset of the emergency.

Camps
The provision of livestock to people living in IDP and refugee camps can only
be considered after discussion and agreement with the camp management.
This is because there are implications for health and sanitation and,according to the animal type, for the use of local water and grazing
resources. Where camp-based animals compete for resources, there is337

9Technical standards
Provision of livestock

always the potential for conflict with local livestock keepers. It is essential,
therefore, to hold discussions with host community representatives if sheep,goats and particularly cattle, are being considered as part of an intervention.
These discussions are increasingly important, as while camps are temporary
arrangements, many have lasted for years. Poorly planned interventions canbecome the source of long-running friction (see Chapter 7: Shelter).
Poultry are often a first choice for agencies supporting interventions in IDP
and refugee camps, as the impact on other residents is limited. Poultry
scavenge in the area immediately around the recipient’s tent/home, and are
only a problem if people in the area are trying to crop vegetables and flowers.
Where crops are being grown, the intervention should only proceed if poultry
are fenced. Such fencing also offers health benefits for children through the
avoidance of interaction with animal faeces.
Where fencing is problematic, recipients may be moved to the margins of thecamp. This may afford livestock the opportunities to roam and forage morenaturally outside the camp. Whatever compromises are agreed, it isimportant that livestock numbers are not allowed to grow beyond agreed
levels for each household or for each animal type.

Decision tree for provision of livestock
options
The decision tree (Figure 9.1) summarises some of the key questions to
consider in determining which may be the most feasible and appropriate
option for a provision of livestock intervention. The standards, key actions
and guidance notes that follow provide more information for detailed
planning.

9338

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Figure 9.1: Decision tree for the provision of livestock

Is there a need and interestin the provision of livestock,after other response options
have been implemented?

Key:

Yes

No

Actions

Can suitable recipients be identiﬁed
in conjunction with the community?

Is there a supply of appropriate andgood-quality local livestock for purchasein sufﬁcient numbers (without adverse
effect on local residents)?

Have roles and responsibilities regarding
livestock ownership, care and management
been taken into account in planning(e.g. gender, age and other social groupings)?

Are there sufﬁcient natural resources(feed and water), and shelter as appropriate?

Are the environmental implications
positive or at least neutral?

Can the welfare of the livestock be assured?

Can the disease risks be minimised?

Can conﬂict/insecurity associated withlivestock provision be minimised/eliminated?

Continue to next pageNo action* (unlessoutstanding questions
can be addressed)*The result ‘No action’ does not necessarily mean that no intervention
should take place, but rather that further training or capacity strengthening
may be required in order to be able to answer ‘yes’ to the key questions.
339

9Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Continued from ‘yes’ pathon previous pageNo action* (unlessoutstanding questions
can be addressed)

What role do livestock play in livelihoods?
Livelihoods are wholly orlargely dependent on livestock

Have signiﬁcant numbers
been lost in the emergency?

Are there sufﬁcient ﬁnancial
resources to provide a minimum
viable herd/ﬂock for recipients?

Do target recipients havesufﬁcient livelihood assets tosurvive as livestock keepers?

Can additional food and nonfood support be provided asnecessary for sufﬁcient time until
the herd/ﬂock becomes viable?

Livestock contribute to livelihoodsor have the potential to do soDoes the provision of livestock
have the potential to contributeto livelihoods (food, transport,
income or draught power)?

Are there sufﬁcient ﬁnancial
resources to provide adequate
numbers and types of livestock
to make a positive contribution
to recipient’s livelihoods?

Do the target recipients havesufﬁcient knowledge and skills
regarding animal husbandry?

Can training
be provided?

Replacing livestock
assets for pastoralists/
agro-pastoralists

Replacing livestock
assets for farmers/
income generators

Building livestock
assets as a new
livelihood activity

Are local markets functioning and able to supply theintended livestock, or can livestock fairs be organised?
9

Cash/voucher scheme
is possible as a mechanism todeliver the option reached above

340

Only direct provisionof livestock is possible to deliver
the option reached above

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

The standards
Standard 1: Assessment and planning
Assessments for provision of livestock interventions provide acomprehensive analysis of the role livestock play in different
livelihoods, the potential impact, and mitigation measures.

Key actions• Consider the role of livestock in local livelihoods (see Guidance note 1).
• Assess the likely impact of the intervention on the local livestock
economy as well as its animal welfare, environmental and security
impacts (see Guidance note 2).
• Where providing animals is considered for people with nolivestock-keeping experience, carefully assess the planned recipients’
access to key resources. These include feed, water, shelter and animal
health services, including labour and social networks (see Guidance note3).
• Ensure there is a full and detailed assessment of all cost implications (seeGuidance note 4).

Guidance notes
1. Livestock in livelihoods
Provision of livestock interventions should be informed by a thoroughunderstanding of the role livestock currently play in the livelihoods ofintended recipients in ‘normal’ times. Such an assessment should include
details of animal types and numbers, livestock management systems, andlivestock keepers’ skills, experience and knowledge.
Providing livestock to pastoral and smallholder farmers can only succeed
where recipients retain access to productive assets – land, water, shelter,
animal health services, and markets, in other words. They should also still
have access to the labour and social networks they need in order to keep
livestock successfully. The initial assessment checklist for the role oflivestock in livelihoods and livestock management can be found in Chapter
3: Emergency response planning; see also Appendix 9.1: Assessment
checklist for the provision of livestock.

341

9

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

2. Impact and mitigating measures
The purchase of livestock, and even the announcement of a provision of
livestock intervention, may affect market prices. Such increases may
concern traders and wealthier households, who themselves may be engaged
in rebuilding their own livestock assets after an emergency. Yet priceincreases often benefit local producers, who typically sell more animals thanthey buy. Price increases alone should therefore not prevent the intervention
proceeding. To avoid antagonism, however, it may be helpful for agencies tostagger purchases and therefore reduce the impact on the market (see also
FAO (2016, p. 146) on risks and mitigation options in restocking).
The purchase of large numbers of animals from outside the area can havenegative environmental impacts when the numbers of animals exceed the
local environmental limits. Impacts are, however, typically minimal when
implementing agencies are purchasing animals locally or when they distributefewer animals compared with the number lost in an emergency. However, toensure that full consideration is given to environmental protection, it isadvisable to conduct a rapid environmental impact assessment (see also
LEGS Principle 3: Climate change and the environment).
Similar care and thorough assessments are required where households livingin IDP and refugee camps are potential recipients of livestock. This isbecause there are wider health, sanitation and security issues.
Pre-intervention assessments should also analyse animal health, welfare andassociated disease risks. These should be included in particular where it isanticipated that animals will be trekked or transported for long distances
ahead of a market day, held for a day or more in a holding ground or market
and then trekked or transported to the recipient’s homestead. Throughout
this time, it is important that animals have adequate access to water, feed,and shelter (in hot/cold environments), and to adequate periods of rest (seethe ‘five domains’ in Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS).
Finally, the assessment should include the possible security implications ofproviding livestock, including whether recipient households may become atarget for theft or organised raiding. The grazing and watering of livestock
may trigger increased conflict when resources are in short supply or when
animals are distributed when crops are growing. The provision of livestock
should not proceed if there is a reasonable threat that insecurity, theft orconflict will increase.

342

9Technical standards
Provision of livestock

3. The provision of livestock to non-livestock keepers
Where livestock do not form part of a local livelihood strategy, agencies needto complete a detailed assessment before considering an intervention.
Livestock require access to clean water, good food, shelter and protection. If
potential recipients cannot ensure the sustained delivery of these essentials,
then an intervention should not be considered. Even where these essentials
are accessible, the daily workload associated with good livestock husbandryrequires significant amounts of labour, knowledge, skills and commitment.
An assessment should be made of the likely impact of providing livestock on
the men, women, boys and girls in the recipient households, including its
potential impact on child labour. Local markets also need to be assessed forpotential income opportunities from the sale of products and eventually of
livestock. If there is doubt, then an intervention should not be considered.
(See Process case study: Livestock distribution and feed supply following anearthquake in Pakistan. See also FAO (2016, p. 146) on risks and mitigation
options in restocking.) Where these essentials are met, a thorough training
needs assessment should still be carried out to tailor training to the specificneeds of recipients in the planned intervention area.
4. Beneﬁt-cost analysis
Recognising the financial and operational costs involved in a provision of
livestock intervention, agencies should only consider implementing such anintervention after a thorough benefit-cost assessment.
They should also make an assessment of alternatives. For example, in
emergency-affected areas where small numbers of livestock remain, it may
be possible for them to support accelerated flock/herd rebuilding at afraction of the cost of providing livestock. This could be through support toanimal health and the occasional use of high-quality, supplementary feed(see Chapter 6: Veterinary support and Chapter 4: Livestock feed).
Possible policy constraints may also impact the cost of an intervention.
These may be external (concerning the purchase or movement of livestock,
including market, quarantine, and transport taxes) or internal (for example,
the purchasing protocols of the agency involved). These constraints might
delay progress and therefore increase costs.
9343

Technical standards
Provision of livestockStandard 2: Deﬁning the intervention package
Appropriate livestock types and breeds are distributed inadequate numbers and through appropriate mechanisms toprovide viable and sustainable beneﬁts to the selected recipients.

Key actions• Ensure the age, sex, number, breed and animal types provided areappropriate and adapted to local agro-ecological and climatic conditions(see Guidance note 1).
• Ensure that selected animals are healthy and productive (see Guidancenote 2).
• Base selection of recipients on locally agreed criteria (see Guidancenote 3).

Guidance notes
1. Selection of animals
It is important that the age, sex, number, breed and types of the animals thatare provided meet the livelihood needs of the planned recipients. This shouldtake into account the different priorities of men and women. Typically, young
female livestock of breeding age are prioritised, together with single breeding
males. By doing this, recipients are given every opportunity to rebuild theirlivestock assets. However, where the focus is on the provision of animals fortransport or ploughing, then male animals may be selected.
In pastoral areas, it is important that interventions provide adequate numbersof core breeding animals to establish a viable flock or herd over time (seeAppendix 9.3: Discussion on minimum viable herd size; see also Processcase study: Community contributions to herd replacement in Ethiopia).
Ideally, animal numbers should be tailored to individual household size.
However, experience suggests that it is more common for agencies toprovide a standard number of animals to each household irrespective ofhousehold size. In this way, all households are treated equally, and the costs
are similar.
Local breeds with which livestock keepers are familiar are likely, over time, tooutperform imported and exotic animals, which do not thrive under poor
nutrition and management conditions. (See FAO, 2016 pp. 146–151 on
specifications of animals and the inspection criteria). Local purchasesupports local livestock keepers and markets. Local purchase also avoids344

9

Technical standards
Provision of livestockpotentially complex logistical, health-related, environmental, welfare andfinancial issues associated with the movement of animals from distant areasand neighbouring countries.
An emergency that occurs at scale and severely reduces livestock numbers
in an area may make it impossible to source adequate numbers of livestock
locally. In such cases, agencies may need to purchase animals from greater
distances. Here, they should take care to ensure all purchased animals are
adapted to local agro-ecological conditions, including climatic and seasonaldisease patterns. Such animals are more likely to be able to thrive and be
productive.
In conflict situations, or areas of insecurity where looting is common,
agencies should ensure that no looted animals are included in the
distribution. If there is any doubt, the distribution should be delayed.
2. Veterinary inspection
Animals that are selected for the intervention should all be healthy andproductive or, where immature animals are provided, likely to be productivein the future. At the time of purchase, a trained veterinarian or veterinary
paraprofessional should inspect animals. Inspection typically takes place atthe point of purchase, such as a market or at a designated facility such as aquarantine facility or holding ground. The inspector may be a local private
practitioner contracted by the response agency, or a government official.
The inspection should highlight any key disease issues, and any unsuitableanimals should be excluded. Selected animals may be marked for
identification purposes using ear tags, ear notching, or branding. The
identification, handling, and marking of animals should meet high welfare
standards. See Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS on animal welfare, and FAO(2016, pp. 151–152) on livestock identification.
3. Recipient selection
Recipient selection should assess the necessary skills, capacities,
experience and access to productive resources. Those without previous
experience of livestock keeping should demonstrate a real interest, haveaccess to productive resources, and be committed to structured learning.
Where there are questions about a potential recipient’s interest andcommitment, then the household should be deselected. Suchdecision-making processes are generally only effective when fully supported
by customary and other local community leaders. See also FAO (2016,p. 148) on roles and responsibilities of restocking committees.

345

9Technical standards
Provision of livestockStandard 3: Delivery systems
The delivery of livestock to recipients is efﬁcient, cost-effective
and supports the earliest possible return to livestock production
and productivity.

Key actions• Ensure that procurement meets agreed criteria and all legal procurement
procedures are observed (see Guidance note 1).
• Make full use of cash, vouchers and livestock fairs (see Guidance note 2).
• Only provide livestock under a credit system in special circumstances. In
all other cases, provide livestock as a gift (see Guidance note 3).
• Where possible, use customary livestock redistribution mechanisms as a
guide (see Guidance note 4).
• Ensure the timing of animal provision is seasonally appropriate and thatanimals can continue to grow and be productive (see Guidance note 5).
• Plan transport in advance to minimise risk of losses in transit, based on
conditions that ensure the welfare of the stock (see Guidance note 6).

Guidance notes
1. Procurement procedures
It is important that agencies involved in the provision of livestock observe all
regulations concerning the purchase and distribution of livestock, including
taxes, quarantine, cross-border issues, etc. Such regulations may impact theefficiency of the intervention. For example, taxes increase costs, andquarantine requirements (where stringent disease control and certification
measures have been put in place) both delay distribution and increase costs.
See FAO (2016, pp. 141–144) on animal healthcare, quality control and useof holding grounds.
2. Use of cash, vouchers and livestock fairs
Where possible, involve the recipients themselves in the selection of
livestock, through cash, voucher and livestock fair mechanisms. Whether the
livestock are selected by the recipients themselves, or by representatives(local experts, traders or elders), the use of cash, vouchers and livestock
fairs helps ensure that only the right type of animals are selected for theintervention. In recent times, cash, voucher and livestock fair-based
distributions have increasingly been replacing direct distribution.
346

9Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Ahead of such distribution mechanisms, it is necessary for implementing
agencies to assess local market prices and to set livestock values
accordingly. This will ensure that total purchases can be supported byavailable intervention funds.
3. Credit systems that do not jeopardise productivity
During the design stage, the decision should be made as to whether theintervention will be based on credit or on gift distribution. If credit, it should
also be decided what form the repayment should take. This should be donein close consultation with the recipients and based on full understanding andcommitment from all participating households. Where livestock are provided
under a credit system, the loan may either be repaid in the form of offspringof the livestock, or in cash. Cash repayment requires a level of community
integration into a market economy. So, in many cases, repayment in the formof stock will be more appropriate, and more likely to build on customarysystems.
The repayment arrangement (type and condition of animal, timing of
repayment, etc.) must be planned carefully. The aim here is to ensure
repayment does not negatively affect the quality of livelihood support
received from the initial livestock provision. For example, if the animals
provided are not productive, the repayment can burden the recipient with adebt. Selection of secondary recipients (to receive cash or livestock offspringfrom primary recipients) should take place at the time that primary recipientsare identified, and repayment should be carefully monitored. See FAO (2016,p. 136) on the advantages and disadvantages of providing animals as gifts orloans.
4. Customary redistribution systems
Livestock are redistributed in pastoral communities through marriage,
between family members and friends, and as social support – gifts and loans– to households in need of additional productive animals. For example, amilk camel may be loaned to a family with no milking camel for a period ofmonths to help provide that household with adequate milk. Wherever
possible, provision of livestock interventions should support, strengthen andbe aligned with such customary redistribution mechanisms. For example, theselection of appropriate recipients can be done with customary leaders,provided issues of inclusion of women and marginal groups are also agreed.
In such ways, customary redistribution institutions and mechanisms cancontinue to operate after the intervention is complete. Where possible and347

9Technical standards
Provision of livestock

appropriate, the selection of recipients should be integrated into customary
livestock redistribution systems and practices.
5. Timing of distribution
Whichever mechanism is used, local knowledge can be used to ensure thatlivestock are provided at the start of the season when naturally occurring
feed and water is most widely available. In this way, animal growth andproductivity are maximised and any negative environmental impacts
minimised. According to seasonal disease calendars, animals should be
vaccinated against locally occurring seasonal diseases that might affectproduction and productivity.
6. Transport planning
Transport for livestock, including itinerary, duration, likely weather conditions,distances, opening hours of customs, staging points, and sufficient rest
periods to provide water and feed (and for milking if necessary), needs to beplanned well in advance. The equipment and supplies needed to feed, waterand milk the stock as necessary should be planned for as well. The
conditions and length of the journey should ensure the welfare of the
livestock as described under the five domains (see Chapter 1: Introduction toLEGS). It is important for those involved in transport to avoid overloading(and the resultant risk of suffocation) and ensure sufficient space for animals
to stand and lie in their normal position. Animals should at the same time bepacked closely (as appropriate for the species) to avoid falling. The vehicle
should be disinfected before and after loading, and be properly ventilated.
The delivery site should also be properly prepared with sufficient water, feed,
fencing and shelter.

9348

Technical standards
Provision of livestockStandard 4: Additional support to recipients
Additional support is provided to recipients, in the form ofveterinary care, training and other livelihood support, to help
ensure a positive and sustainable impact on livelihoods.

Key actions• Provide preventive veterinary care for the livestock prior to distribution(see Guidance note 1).
• Establish a system for the ongoing provision of veterinary care (seeGuidance note 2).
• Provide training and capacity-building support to recipients based on an
analysis of skills and knowledge of animal husbandry (see Guidancenote 3).
• Ensure that training and capacity building includes preparedness for
future shocks and emergencies (see Guidance note 4).
• Identify and meet food security needs according to the Sphere ‘Minimum
standards in food security and nutrition’ to prevent early offtake of
livestock (see Guidance note 5).
• Identify and meet shelter and non-food needs according to the Spherestandards on ‘Shelter and settlement’ (see Guidance note 6).
• Withdraw food security support only when herd size and/or the
emergence of other economic activities enable independence from suchsupport (see Guidance note 7).

Guidance notes
1. Preventive veterinary care
Prior to distribution, animals should be vaccinated against locally important
infectious diseases, dewormed and receive other preventive animal
healthcare to remain healthy and productive. Typically, this service isprovided as a single, free-of-charge input (See Process case study: Livestock
distribution to at-risk households following an earthquake in Pakistan andImpact case study: Post-earthquake livestock distribution in Iran.) There may
also be government requirements on vaccines, drenching, deworming, etc.
that will need to be checked.

349

9Technical standards
Provision of livestock

2. Long-term veterinary care
Recipient households should have continued access to preventive andcurative animal healthcare services until livestock are contributing fully to
livelihoods. This may take some months or even longer. Delivery of thisservice may be through one of a range of different animal health service
providers. These include private community-based animal health workers,
private veterinarians, private veterinary livestock medicine outlets, or public
government veterinary services. This long-term care system may also
provide an opportunity for implementing agencies to collect monitoring andevaluation data. The provision of animal healthcare services and associatedtraining should meet the standards and guidelines set out in Chapter 6:
Veterinary support.
3. Training and capacity strengthening
Training in animal husbandry may not be necessary for livestock replacement
activities where recipients already have considerable knowledge andexperience in livestock management. However, in other cases, households
are new to livestock keeping; knowledge and skills have been lost; or new
technologies have become available. Here, training is imperative to help
increase survival and productivity levels, and contribute to improved
outcomes. Training and/or the provision of information on livestock sector
markets and value chains may also be useful to secure more viable
livestock-based livelihoods in the longer term.
4. Preparedness for future emergencies
In communities with little livestock management experience, it is helpful foragencies to invest in building emergency preparedness knowledge and skills.
This will minimise the risk of future losses. Training may include improved
forage and feed production, feed storage, animal healthcare, livestock
marketing (including livestock offtake), shelter improvements, and protection
and maintenance of water sources (see Chapters 4–8).
5. Food security support
Households that receive livestock may continue to experience high levels offood shortages until livestock numbers and production, or crop production,
return to pre-emergency levels. Until this happens, recipient households mayneed to consume or sell distributed animals to meet acute household needs.
For this reason, food security needs of recipient households should beassessed, and additional support provided until the livestock become fully
productive. The Sphere Handbook provides ‘Minimum standards for food350

9

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

security and nutrition’. Cash and voucher assistance may be appropriate forproviding this support.
6. Shelter and non-food support
Families receiving livestock may also require shelter, basic household
utensils, bedding, water containers, and livestock-related equipment such as
carts, harnesses and ploughs. Without such support, recipients may either
be forced to sell livestock to meet other needs, or be unable to make full useof distributed livestock. The use of CVA to meet these needs can beappropriate, as this type of assistance allows individuals, households andcommunities to set their own priorities.
7. Withdrawal of food security support
Agencies can withdraw food security assistance once the herd size grows, oronce other livelihood activities provide enough support to recipient
households so they can avoid unnecessary livestock offtake. A
well-designed participatory monitoring system can include measures of herd
growth and other livelihoods-based indicators to determine the best time forthem to withdraw this support.

9351

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Appendices
Appendix 9.1: Assessment checklist for provision of livestock
Options and implications• What role did livestock play in livelihoods before the emergency?

– Main livelihood asset?
– Provision of supplementary food?
– Income generation?
– Transport or draught power?
• Which species and breeds were kept? By whom? And for what
purposes?
• Which species and breeds have been lost and need replacement?
• If livestock did not already form part of livelihood strategies:– Is there potential for the introduction of livestock to meet
supplementary food or income-generation needs?
– Which species and breeds would be most appropriate for distribution?
• Have alternative, more cost-effective options than livestock provision
been considered?
• What customary mechanisms exist for redistributing livestock?
• What numbers of livestock would constitute the minimum viable herd perhousehold in the local context?
• What are the implications of distributing these minimum numbers oflivestock in the area?

– Is there sufficient pasture or feed?
– Is there sufficient water?
– Is there adequate shelter, or can this be constructed?
– Will the livestock be secure, or will the activity increase the risk tolivestock keepers and/or the animals themselves?
– Are animal health services available?
9352

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Recipients• What social, physical and natural livelihood assets do potential recipient
households have to enable them to manage livestock successfully in the
future?
• Can training in livestock management be provided if necessary?
• What roles do women and men play in livestock management and care?
Do women want to take on new roles and responsibilities forlivestock/production? What are the labour implications of livestockprovision?
• What are the particular needs of at-risk groups in relation to livestock
management and access to livestock products?
• Are there sufficient resources to provide livestock-related support torecipient households (for example, veterinary care, feed, shelter) as
required?
• Are there sufficient resources to provide non-livestock support torecipient households as required (for example, food or other livelihood
support while herds rebuild)?

Procurement• What are the implications of the purchase of significant numbers oflivestock on local markets?
• Are livestock available for purchase in sufficient numbers withintransporting distance of recipient communities?
• Is transport available, and can stock be transported safely without risk totheir welfare?
• What are the risks of disease from importing stock from another area?

9353

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Appendix 9.2: Examples of monitoring and evaluation indicators forthe provision of livestock

Designing theintervention

Process indicators(measure things
happening)

Impact indicators (measure theresult of things happening)

Number of meetings with
community representatives
and other stakeholders,
including private sector
suppliers where relevant··········································
Meetings held include theviews of the various
gender-age groups

Meeting reports with analysis ofoptions for livestock provision·················································
Action plan including anddifferentiating the priorities ofvarious gender-age groups:•

roles and responsibilities ofdifferent actors•

community process andcriteria for selecting recipient
households•

community preferences forlivestock species and type•procurement, transportation,and distribution plan, withrecipient households’
involvement•

veterinary inspection andpreventive care
continued over9354

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Replacing lost
livestock assets:
provision of core
breeding animals
for pastoralists andagro-pastoralists

Process indicators(measure things
happening)

Impact indicators (measure theresult of things happening)

Number of livestockprovided per household bylivestock type··········································
Type and value of additional
support to each household(e.g. food aid, utensils, etc.)··········································The participation (voice) ofwomen in theimplementation of theintervention

Mortality in livestock provided
versus mortality in pre-existing
livestock·················································
Number of offspring fromlivestock provided, and uses ofoffspring (e.g. sales and use ofincome)·················································
Human nutrition – consumptionof milk by children in households
receiving livestock·················································
Herd growth and levels of
reliance on external assistanceover time·················································
Changes in women’s andchildren’s roles andresponsibilities in livestock
management (comparison of
before and after livestockprovision)·················································
Changes in the workload ofwomen (e.g. after provision ofworking animals)·················································
Note: compare impacts between
livestock recipients andnon-recipients
continued over9355

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Replacing lost
livestock assets:
smallholder
farmers and otherincome generation

Process indicators(measure things
happening)

Impact indicators (measure theresult of things happening)

Number of livestockprovided per household bylivestock type··········································
Type and value of additional
support to each household(e.g. food aid, utensils, etc.)··········································
Training, where appropriate,
on livestock production andmanagement··········································The participation (voice) ofwomen in theimplementation of theintervention

Mortality in livestock provided
versus mortality in pre-existing
livestock·················································
Number of offspring fromlivestock provided, and uses ofoffspring (e.g. sales and use ofincome)·················································
Human nutrition – consumptionof milk by children in households
receiving livestock·················································
Changes in women’s andchildren’s roles andresponsibilities in livestock
management (a comparison of
before and after livestockprovision)·················································
Changes in the workload ofwomen (e.g. after provision ofworking animals)·················································
Note: compare impacts between
livestock recipients andnon-recipients
continued over9356

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Building livestock
assetsProcess indicators(measure things
happening)

Impact indicators (measure theresult of things happening)

Number of livestockprovided per household bylivestock type··········································
Training on livestock
production, management
and marketing··········································The participation (voice) ofwomen in theimplementation of theintervention

Mortality in livestock provided
versus mortality in pre-existing
livestock·················································
Number of offspring fromlivestock provided, and uses ofoffspring (e.g. sales and use ofincome)·················································
Human nutrition – consumptionof milk by children in households
receiving livestock·················································
Changes in women’s andchildren’s roles andresponsibilities in livestock
management (a comparison of
before and after livestockprovision)·················································
Changes in the workload ofwomen (e.g. after provision ofworking animals)·················································
Note: compare impacts between
livestock recipients andnon-recipients

9357

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Appendix 9.3: Discussion on minimum viable herd size
Herd replacement interventions in pastoralist areas often use the concept of‘minimum viable herd size’. This is to determine the minimum number andtypes of animals required to allow pastoralists to maintain a pastoralismbased livelihood. It might be convenient for standards and guidelines suchas LEGS to indicate a specific number and type of animals to be provided.
Yet this differs significantly between pastoralist groups, and there are nostandard numbers of livestock that should be given. Similarly, in mixed
farming communities, it is difficult to determine a global figure for livestockprovision.
If pastoralists completely depend on livestock, then a minimum herd size
would need to be around 2.5 to 3 Tropical Livestock Units (TLUs)/adultequivalent, according to the role played by livestock. (1 camel = 1TLU;
1 head of cattle = 0.7 TLUs; 1 sheep or goat = 0.1 TLUs). Talks with local
pastoralists confirm this. If this level of transfer is not achieved, thenimplementing agencies would need to support the household by cash/foodtransfers. Otherwise, they may be forced to a) sell animals periodically; or b)
send members of the family to live with relatives; or c) require remittances ona regular basis.
The best way to determine how many and which types of livestock to provide
is by undertaking participatory analysis and discussion with the communities
concerned. This process may include a description of the benefits andproblems of different livestock species and breeds for the different wealth,gender and age groups within the community. It would also include ananalysis of any customary restocking systems. A further consideration is that
although a ‘minimum herd size’ may be defined with communities throughsuch analysis/discussion, many agencies are faced with limited budgets forproviding livestock. So, the more animals provided per household, the fewer
the total number of households that will benefit from the initiative.
Save the Children UK implemented a restocking project between 2002 and2003 for 500 internally displaced families in eastern Ethiopia as a
post-drought response. It provided each pastoral household with 30
breeding sheep or goats. The project was implemented in collaboration with
the Ethiopian government’s Disaster Preparedness and Prevention
Committee and the Somali region livestock bureau. The total budget wasaround US$244,500 – equivalent to $489 per household. This budget
excluded the cost of food aid and household items, which were provided byother agencies such as the Christian Relief and Development Associationand UNICEF.
358

9

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

An evaluation concluded that the project had provided substantial benefits
through the restocking process. However, it observed that the package
should have included at least 50 sheep and goats per household in order for
the families to have a viable source of livelihood. This would have increased
the project budget by 41 per cent if 500 households were still to be targeted.
Alternatively, the original budget could have covered 300 households with 50
animals each. The evaluation indicated that a budget of around $690 per
household was needed to restock the target communities in a viable way(Wekesa, 2005). This example illustrates the challenge faced by aid agencies
when deciding how many households to restock and how many animals toprovide. It also shows the importance of determining the appropriate
definition of ‘minimum viable herd’ in each specific context.

9359

Technical standards
Provision of livestock

References and further reading
General
FAO (2016) Livestock-related interventions during emergencies – The how-to-do-it manual. Edited byPhilippe Ankers, Suzan Bishop, Simon Mack and Klaas Dietze. FAO Animal Production and Health
Manual No. 18. Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/i5904e/i5904e.pdf (See Chapter 9)
Heffernan, C., Misturelli, F. and Nielsen, L. (2004) Restocking Pastoralists: A Manual of Best Practiceand Decision Support Tools, Practical Action Publishing, Rugby, https://practicalactionpublishing.
com/book/1789/restocking-pastoralists
Knight-Jones, T. (2012) Restocking in the former Yugoslavia: post-war restocking projects in
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), London,
https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Balkans_Restocking_
Final2.pdf
Toulmin, C. (1995) ‘Tracking through drought: options for destocking and restocking’, in I. Scoones(ed.), Living with Uncertainty: New Directions in Pastoral Development in Africa, pp. 95–115,
Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Traditional livestock redistribution
Lotira, R. (2004) Rebuilding Herds by Reinforcing Gargar/Irb among the Somali Pastoralists of Kenya:
Evaluation of Experimental Restocking Program in Wajir and Mandera Districts of Kenya, African
Union/Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources, Nairobi, https://ﬁc.tufts.edu/wp-content/uploads/
Lotira-Restocking-evaluation.pdf

Cash transfers for herd replacement
O’Donnell, M. (2007) Cash-based emergency livelihood recovery programme, Isiolo District, Kenya,project evaluation draft report, Save the Children, Nairobi, https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/ODonnell-2007.pdf
FAO (2011) The use of cash transfers in livestock emergencies and their incorporation into Livestock
Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS), Animal Production and Health Working Paper No. 1,
FAO, Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/i2256e/i2256e00.pdf

Impact of herd replacement
Budisatria, I.G.S. and Udo, H.M.J. (2013) Goat-based aid programme in Central Java: an effective
intervention for the poor and vulnerable? Small Ruminant Research 109: 76-83, https://www.livestock-emergency.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Budisatria-and-Udo-2013.pdf
Croucher, M., Karanja, V., Wako, R., Dokata, A. and Dima, J. (2006) Initial impact assessment of thelivelihoods programme in Merti and Sericho, Save the Children Canada, Nairobi.
Heffernan, C. and Rushton, J. (2000) ‘Restocking: A critical evaluation’, Nomadic Peoples
4(1):110–124, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237632191_Restocking_A_Critical_
Evaluation
Leguene, P. (2004) Evaluation report: restoration of the livelihood and longer-term food security for theearthquake-affected farmers and agricultural labourers in Bam, south-sast Iran, project implemented
by ACF-Spain &, ACF-UK London.

360

9Technical standards
Provision of livestock

Sadler, K., Mitchard, E., Abdulahi, A., Shiferaw, Y., Bekele, G. and Catley, A. (2012) Milk Matters: The
Impact of Dry Season Livestock Support on Milk Supply and Child Nutrition in Somali Region,
Ethiopia, Feinstein International Center, Tufts University and Save the Children, Addis Ababa,
http://fic.tufts.edu/publication-item/milk-matters/
Save the Children International (2013) Drought Early Warning and FSL Needs Assessment in Hiran andPuntland; Livestock Baseline for Hiran, DFID Project; Evaluation of Livelihoods/Resilience Activities,
Hiran; and Livestock and Cash Grants Project Baseline for Hiran, Save the Children International,
Nairobi.
Wekesa, M. (2005) Terminal Evaluation of the Restocking/Rehabilitation Programme for the InternallyDisplaced Persons in Fik Zone of the Somali Region of Ethiopia, Save the Children UK, Addis Ababa
and Acacia Consultants, Nairobi.

Animal diseases and restocking
Knight-Jones, T. (2012) Restocking and Animal Health: A Review of Livestock Disease and Mortality in
Post-Disaster and Development Restocking Programmes, World Society for the Protection of Animals(WSPA), London, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261511178_Restocking_and_animal_
health_A_review_of_livestock_disease_and_mortality_in_post-disaster_and_development_
restocking_programmes_WSPA

Restocking with exotics
Heffernan. C (2009) ‘Biodiversity versus emergencies: the impact of restocking on animal genetic
resources after disaster’, Disasters 2009, 33(2): 239-252 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.
2008.01072.x

Donkeys and the provision of livestock
Catley, A. and Blakeway, S. (2004) ‘Donkeys and the provision of livestock to returnees: lessons from
Eritrea’, in P. Starkey and D. Fielding (eds), Donkeys, People and Development: A Resource Book of
the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA), pp. 86–92, Technical Centre
for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation, Wageningen, The Netherlands, http://www.atnesa.org/
donkeys/donkeys-catley-returnees-ER.pdf

See also case studies for provision of livestock in emergencies at: https://www.livestock-emergency.
net/resources/case-studies/

9361

Annexes

362

Annexes
364

Annex A: Glossary374

Annex B: Abbreviations and acronyms

375

Annex C: Combined timing table

376

Annex D: Acknowledgements and contributors

379

Index

Photo © Jess Kraft/Shutterstock363

Annexes

Annex A: Glossary
AcaricideA chemical used to kill ticks, for example, in a spray, pour-on, or as a dip
solution.

Accountability‘Accountability towards affected people is the process of using power
responsibly. (It is) taking account of, and being held accountable by, different
stakeholders, primarily those who are affected by the exercise of such
power.’ (CHS Alliance)

Affected communities
Communities who are affected, either directly or indirectly, by a hazardous
event. Directly affected are those who have suffered injury, illness or other
health effects; who were evacuated, displaced or relocated; or who havesuffered direct damage to their livelihoods or their economic, physical,
social, cultural or environmental assets. (Based on UNDRR)

Agencies
LEGS uses this term to refer to all who respond to an emergency. It includes
government agencies; local, national and international organisations; andcommunity groups.

Agro-pastoralists
Agro-pastoralists integrate seasonal crop production with pastoralist
livestock rearing.

Alarm phase
The second phase of a slow-onset emergency.

Alert phase
The first phase of a slow-onset emergency.

Anthelmintic
A veterinary drug used to kill parasitic worms.

At risk, at-risk
Likely to be in danger of serious harm (loss of life, livelihood, assets, orservices) because of a combination of external threats (natural hazards,
gender-based violence, etc.) and individual vulnerabilities (poverty,
membership of a marginalised group etc.). (Drawn from Sphere)
364

AAnnexes

Beneﬁt-cost analysis‘A technique used to compare the costs of an intervention with its benefits,using a common metric (usually a monetary unit) to calculate its net cost or
benefit.’ (CALP Network)

Cash and voucher assistance (CVA)‘Cash and voucher assistance (CVA) refers to the direct provision of cashtransfers and/or vouchers for goods or services to individuals, households orgroup/community recipients. In the context of humanitarian response, CVA
excludes payments to governments or other state actors, remittances,service provider stipends, microfinance and other forms of savings andloans.’ (CALP Network)

Cash for work (CFW)‘Cash payments provided on the condition of undertaking designated work.
This is generally paid according to time worked (e.g. number of days, dailyrate), but may also be quantified in terms of outputs (e.g. number of items
produced, cubic metres dug). CFW interventions are usually in public orcommunity work programmes but can also include home-based and otherforms of work.’ (CALP Network)

Chronic/recurring emergency
A slow-onset emergency in which the phases (alert, alarm, emergency,
recovery) keep repeating themselves without returning to ‘normal’.

Cold chain
A system whereby veterinary or human medicines are kept at the required
low temperature during storage and transportation using refrigerators andmobile cold boxes.

Complex emergency‘A humanitarian crisis in a country or region in which authority has totally or
substantially broken down due to multiple causes and where people’s lives,
wellbeing and dignity are affected. The crisis may have been caused byhuman activity (i.e., conflict or civil unrest) and/or by natural factors (e.g.,drought, flood, hurricanes).’ (Sphere)

Conditions/conditional/conditionality‘Conditionality refers to prerequisite activities or obligations that a recipient
must fulfil to receive assistance. Conditions can be used with any kind ofA

365

Annexes

transfer (cash, vouchers, in-kind, service delivery) depending on theintervention design and objectives.’ (CALP Network)

Core breeding animals
Those animals within the herd/flock that livestock owners identify as
essential for rebuilding their stock. They are likely to include the most fertileand productive animals, as well as those with desirable traits such as a goodtemperament. The core breeding herd will be age-structured to include
animals of different maturity levels.

Crisis modiﬁers
Financial mechanisms built into multi-year grants that are designed to bereleased when agreed early warning emergency triggers are met, enabling
rapid response.

DisasterSee ‘Emergency’.

Disaster risk management (DRM)
The actions needed to achieve the objective of reducing risk. The DRM cycle
incorporates risk identification, mitigation, prevention and preparedness, aswell as the response, recovery and reconstruction activities that areundertaken following the disaster [emergency].

Disaster risk reduction (DRR)‘Reducing the risk of disaster [emergency] through systematic efforts toanalyse and manage causal factors: […] reducing exposure to hazards,
lessening the vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land
and the environment, and improving preparedness for adverse events.’(Sphere)Drought cycle management model
A model for drought response that divides drought into four phases (alert,
alarm, emergency and recovery). These terms are used by LEGS as the fourphases of a slow-onset emergency.

Dzud
Severe climatic conditions in Mongolia (summer drought followed by asevere winter) in which large numbers of livestock die due to lack of grazing.
A366

Annexes

Early action‘Early action, also known as anticipatory action or forecast-based action,means taking steps to protect people before a disaster [emergency] strikes,
based on early warning or forecasts. To be effective, it must involve
meaningful engagement with at-risk communities.’ (IFRC)

Emergency‘A calamitous event that seriously disrupts the functioning of a community orsociety and causes human, material, and economic or environmental losses
that exceed the community’s or society’s ability to cope using its own
resources.’ (IFRC)

Emergency phase
The third phase of a slow-onset emergency.

Early recovery phase
The second phase of a rapid-onset emergency.

Evaluation
A periodic/planned assessment of an intervention to review its effectiveness,relevance, efficiency, impact and sustainability. Evaluations may focus onwhether the intervention’s objectives have been achieved and the factorsthat influenced the results, or may assess its livelihood impacts using impact
indicators.

Gender‘The roles, responsibilities and identities of women and men and how theseare valued in society. These vary in different cultures and change over time.
Gender identities define how society expects women and men to think andact. Gender roles, responsibilities and identities can be changed because
they are socially learned.’ (Sphere)

Guidance notes
To be read in conjunction with the key actions. They explain particular issues
and how to address any practical difficulties when applying the LEGSStandards.

Hazard‘A process, phenomenon or human activity that may cause loss of life, injury
or other health impacts, property damage, social and economic disruption orenvironmental degradation.’ (UNDRR)

367

AAnnexes

Humanitarian crisis
A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving
widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses andimpacts. These losses/impacts exceed the ability of the affected community
or society to cope using its own resources, and therefore require urgent
action. Related terms are disaster and emergency.

Immediate aftermath phase
The first phase of a rapid-onset emergency: the period just after the
emergency has struck, when the impact is greatest.

Impact indicator
Point of reference for measuring the result of actions taken in terms of theireffect on recipients.

Inclusion‘A rights-based approach to community programming, aiming to ensure all
people who may be at risk of being excluded have equal access to basic
services and a voice in the development and implementation of thoseservices. At the same time, it requires that organisations make dedicatedefforts to address and remove barriers to access services.’ (Sphere)
The LEGS Handbook highlights that those at risk of exclusion may include
children (in particular separated, unaccompanied or orphaned children),women, older people, people with disabilities, or groups marginalised
because of religion, ethnic group, caste or gender identity.

Indicators
Measurements (either qualitative or quantitative) of the progress of anintervention. LEGS divides them into process indicators and impact
indicators.

Internally displaced person
Someone who is forced to leave their home but who remains within theircountry’s borders.

Intervention
The package of activities designed to contribute to an outcome. In LEGS,
the interventions cover the specific technical areas selected as the best
response to an emergency situation (feed, water, veterinary support, shelter,
livestock offtake and provision of livestock). Each intervention is broken
down into different options.
368

AAnnexes

Key actions
Practical steps or actions for achieving the LEGS Standards, not all of which
may be relevant to all situations.

Learning
Gathering, analysing and disseminating information from monitoring,evaluation and accountability processes, and ensuring this is proactively
applied to current and future planning.

Livelihoods
The capabilities, assets and activities required to make a living.

Livelihood assets
The resources, equipment, skills, strengths and relationships that are usedby individuals and households to pursue their livelihoods. They are
categorised as social, human, natural, financial and physical.

Livestock offtake
Animals sold to traders or otherwise removed from the herd/flock.

Livestock settlement
The term used to refer to the wider context of livestock shelters, including
land rights, environmental implications of shelter provision, and access tofeed and water.

Livestock shelters
The physical structures that, in some environments, animals need to survive.
Shelters can be either temporary or longer-lasting.

Lower- and middle-income countries
The World Bank classifies economies for analytical purposes into fourincome groups: low, lower-middle, upper-middle and high-income.
Countries are classified each year based on gross national income per capita
in US dollars (see World Bank). Based on this, LEGS uses the term ‘lowerand middle-income countries’.

Monitoring
A continuous/systematic process for keeping interventions on track, using
the intervention’s process indicators to provide timely information for
decision-making.
A369

Annexes

One Health‘An integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance andoptimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems.’ (WHO, FAO, UNEP
and WOAH)

Options
Each LEGS technical intervention is divided into different options, which
present different ways of delivering a technical response (e.g. water trucking
versus borehole construction).

Participatory methods and approaches
Techniques which, based on a defined methodology and systematic learning
process, focus on cumulative learning by all participants, draw on multiple
perspectives, and involve group learning processes. (Drawn from IIED)
See Appendix 3.1 for more details.

Participatory epidemiology
The use of participatory approaches to work with communities to study
specific disease problems and solutions.

Participatory targeting
The use of participatory approaches to help ensure that interventions focus
on those who, as the community has agreed, need them most. LEGS
commitment to the Core Humanitarian Standard requires that affected
communities must participate in decisions about emergency responses.

Pastoralists
Pastoralists are largely dependent for their food and income on extensive
livestock rearing.

Peri-urban
The area surrounding a city or town that forms the interface between urban
and rural land usage and is dependent on both – for example, it may have amarket selling rural products to urban consumers.

Phytosanitary
Relating to plant health and biosecurity; the WTO ‘Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures’ sets out the basic rules
for food safety and animal and plant health standards.
A370

Annexes

Process indicator
Point of reference for measuring the implementation of an intervention over adefined timeframe. Process indicators are usually quantitative (also called
progress indicators).

Prophylactic drugs
A medicine or treatment designed and used to prevent disease.

Protracted emergency‘Protracted emergencies are situations where a significant part of the
population is acutely vulnerable and dependent on humanitarian assistanceover a prolonged period of time. In many cases, this period becomes so longthat the emergency has become the normal situation.’ (Danish RefugeeCouncil)Purposive samples
The selection of a ‘typically’ representative group based on particularcharacteristics (for example, livestock owners affected by drought; women
livestock keepers; inhabitants of a flood- affected village).

Rapid-onset emergency
An emergency such as an earthquake, flood, or tsunami that occurs very
suddenly and sometimes without warning. LEGS divides rapid-onset
emergencies into three phases – immediate aftermath, early recovery andrecovery.

Recovery phase
The third phase of a rapid-onset emergency or the fourth phase of aslow-onset emergency.

Resilience‘The ability of an individual, community, society or country to anticipate,
withstand and recover from adversity – be it a natural hazard or otheremergency. Resilience depends on the diversity of livelihoods, coping
mechanisms and life skills such as problem-solving, the ability to seek
support, motivation, optimism, faith, perseverance and resourcefulness.’(Sphere)Response‘The provision of services and assistance during or immediately after adisaster [emergency] in order to save lives, reduce health impacts, ensure

371

AAnnexes

public safety, maintain human dignity and meet the basic subsistence needsof the people affected.’ (Sphere)

Restrictions‘Restriction refers to limits on the use of assistance by recipients.
Restrictions apply to the range of goods and services that the assistance canbe used to purchase, and the places where it can be used. Vouchers are
restricted transfers by default, since they are inherently limited in where,
when and how they can be used.’ (CALP Network)

SMART objectives
Response plan objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable,
relevant, and time-bound (SMART), so that they quantify the intended
livelihood impacts within a specific time frame.

Slow-onset emergency
An emergency, such as a drought or extreme cold season, whose effects arefelt gradually. LEGS divides these into four key phases – alert, alarm,
emergency and recovery.

Standards
Qualitative statements of the minimum to be achieved in any emergency inany context.

Theory of change
A description or illustration that explains how an intervention is expected toachieve its intended final outcome. It draws on causal analysis andunderlying assumptions to show how a series of results will contribute to the
proposed change.

Veterinary paraprofessionals
Any veterinary worker who works under the supervision of a veterinarian,performs designated professional tasks and receives training accordingly.
Some countries categorise community-based animal health workers(CAHWs) as veterinary paraprofessionals, and some do not. The term
‘veterinary paraprofessionals’ in LEGS includes CAHWs.

Zoonosis
A disease that can be transmitted from animals to humans. Related terms:
zoonotic disease, zoonoses (pl)A

372

Annexes

Sources
CALP Network – https://www.calpnetwork.org/resources/glossary-of-terms/
CHS Alliance – https://www.chsalliance.org/accountability-to-affected-people/
Danish Refugee Council – https://emergency.drc.ngo/crisis/emergency-typologies/
IFRC – https://www.ifrc.org/early-warning-early-action
IIED – https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/6021IIED.pdf
Sphere – https://spherestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Sphere-Glossary-2018.pdf
UNDESA – https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/full-report.pdf
UNDRR – https://www.undrr.org/terminology
WHO, FAO, UNEP and WOAH – https://www.who.int/news/item/01-12-2021-tripartite-and-unepsupport-ohhlep-s-definition-of-one-healthWorld Bank – https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-byincome-and-region.html

A373

Annexes

Annex B: Abbreviations and acronyms
AMR

antimicrobial resistance

CAHW

community-based animal health worker

CCCM

Camp Coordination and Camp Management

CFW

cash for work

CHS

Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability

CPMS

Child Protection Minimum Standards

CVA

cash and voucher assistanceDRM

disaster risk management

DRR

disaster risk reduction

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GIS

geographic information systems

HIS

Humanitarian Inclusion Standards

HSP

Humanitarian Standards Partnership

HLP

housing, land and property rights

ID

identity document

IDP

internally displaced person/people

INEE

Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies

LEGS

Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards

MEAL

monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning

MERS

Minimum Economic Recovery Standards

MISMA

Minimum Standards for Market Analysis

MNB

multi-nutrient blockOECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PRIM

LEGS Participatory Response Identification Matrix

SEADS

Standards for supporting crop-related livelihoods inemergencies

SMART

specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound(indicators)

ToC

theory of change

WASH

water supply, sanitation and hygiene

WHO

World Health Organization

WOAH

World Organisation for Animal Health (formerly OIE)

374

A

Annexes

Annex C: Combined timing table
Figure A.1: Combined timing table

RecoveryEmergency

Alarm

Alert

Slow-onset
emergency
Recovery

Early
recoveryTechnical interventions
and options

Immediately
after

Rapid-onset
emergency

Feed
Home-based
Feed camp
Water
Water points: changing management
Water points: rehabilitating
Water points: establishing
Water trucking
Veterinary support
Clinical veterinary services
Public sector veterinary functions
Shelter
Temporary shelter interventions
Longer-lasting shelter interventions
Settlement interventions
Livestock offtake
Commercial livestock offtake
Slaughter livestock offtakefor consumption
Provision of livestock
Replacing lost livestock assets
Building livestock assets
A375

Annexes

Annex D: Acknowledgements andcontributors
Editorial Committee (LEGS Technical Advisory Group)
Andy Catley (Feinstein International Center, Friedman School of Nutrition
Science and Policy, Tufts University)
Wendy Fenton (Humanitarian Policy Group, ODI)
Guido Govoni (International Committee of the Red Cross)
David Hadrill, Chair (Independent)
Vikrant Mahajan (Sphere India)
Rosanne Marchesich (FAO)
Emmanuella Olesambu (FAO)
Piers Simpkin (Independent)

Handbook revision team
Helen de Jode (Handbook revision editor)
Cathy Watson (LEGS Coordinator)

Chapter revision authors
How to Use this Handbook – Helen de Jode
Chapter 1: Introduction to LEGS – David Hadrill
Chapter 2: LEGS Principles – Andy Catley
Chapter 3: Emergency Response Planning – Cathy Watson, Polly Bodgener,
David Hadrill and Andy Catley
Chapter 4: Livestock Feed – Adrian Cullis
Chapter 5: Water – Mathias Frese
Chapter 6: Veterinary Support – Andy Catley
Chapter 7: Shelter and settlement – James Kennedy
Chapter 8: Livestock offtake – Yacob Aklilu
Chapter 9: Provision of livestock – Raphael Lotira and Adrian Cullis

376AAnnexes

Consultation process
A wide range of people, too many to be named here, provided their expertisein the production of the third edition of the LEGS Handbook. LEGS gratefully
acknowledges all contributors for their valuable inputs including, among
others:• all who reviewed the online consultation version of the revised Handbook
and provided detailed comments in 2022
• participants in an online survey on the 2nd edition in 2021
• the convenors and participants in five consultation workshops in India,
Kenya, Mali, Nicaragua, and the Philippines on the 2nd edition of LEGS in
2020/2021• the authors of seven discussion papers in 2020 (gender, nutrition,
resilience, livestock insurance, Covid-19, institutionalisation andlocalisation, and the quality of veterinary pharmaceuticals) and theparticipants in the related webinars

Technical advice
Xavier Argoud – Emergency response
Julia Ashmore – Shelter and settlement
Suzan Bishop – Emergency response
Pauline Gitonga – Veterinary support
Kate Hart – Cash and voucher assistance
Racey Henderson – SEADS
Diane Hiscock – Inclusion
Karin de Jonge – Gender
Emma Jowett – Cash and voucher assistance
Simon Kihu – Veterinary support
Tanya Lutvey – Gender
Lucy Maarse – Gender
Genene Regassa – Feed
Abdirashid Saleh – Peri-urban responseA

Kebadu Simachew Belay – Feed377

Annexes

Editorial support
Plain English edit: Jane Lanigan/Editors4Change Ltd
Copy editing: Cordelia Lily
Indexing: Pierke Bosschieter

Designwww.truedesign.co.uk

Typesetting
River Valley Technology

LEGS Secretariat
Cathy Watson (LEGS Coordinator)
Suzan Bishop (LEGS Technical and Project Manager)
Lucy Margetts (LEGS Administration and Finance Manager)
Brianne Miers (LEGS Communications Officer)

DonorsLEGS gratefully acknowledges the US Agency for International Development
Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance for financial support to revise andproduce the LEGS Handbook 3rd Edition. LEGS also acknowledges the
support (cash and in-kind) from the following organisations over the last four
years: FAO, ICRC, ODI, PRODEL, Sphere, Sphere India, The Brooke, Tufts
University, and VSF-Belgium.

A

378

Index

Index
Page numbers in bold refer to figures. Entries in bold are LEGS technicalinterventions. Entries underlined are LEGS Principles.

Aaccountability
in emergency response planning 103
and MEAL 66
see also Monitoring, evaluation,accountability and learning
administrative systems 154
advocacy see policy/advocacy context
affordability, of veterinary support 222–223
AMR (antimicrobal resistance) 35
animal husbandry, training in 350
animal welfare 22, 40
animals see breeding animals, companion
animals, livestock working
animals
antibiotics 35
antimicrobial resistance (AMR) 35, 41
apiculture 43
aquaculture 43
assessment methods 80
assessment teams 80–81
assessments
participatory 229
of risks 268
see also initial assessments
assessments/planningof continuity of water trucking 195
of demand for water 190
of disposal needs 238
of livestock diseases 228
of livestock feed 154–155
of livestock offtake 315
of livestock provision 352–353
of livestock shelter/settlement 270–272, 282
of local markets 272
of veterinary support 241
of water points 199
of zoonotic diseases 236
at-risk groups
climate change 56
and community participation 53
and livestock shelter/settlement 271
targeting of, for livestock feed 145
and veterinary support 231–232

Bbank accounts 121
benefit-cost analysis 103, 134–135, 343–344

379

benefits/challenges
in general 92
of feed camp emergency feeding 140–141
of feed supply options 140–141
of home-based emergency feeding 140
of livelihoods-based livestock programming48
of livestock feed 137
of livestock offtake 295
of livestock provision 329
of livestock shelter/settlement 258–259
of MEAL 66
of veterinary support 214–216
of water provision 175–177
boys 62
breeding animals 135–136, 142, 323, 326–327,
329, 355
budgets 157–158, 358

C
CAHWs (community-based animal healthworkers) 209, 230, 232–234
calendars, seasonal 105
camps
livestock provision to people living in
337–338
and veterinary support 223
see also feed camps
carcasses, condemned 314
cash and voucher assistance (CVA)in general 25, 119–120
context of 86
decision tree for 122
delivery mechanisms for 120
further reading on 127
in livestock feed 156
in livestock offtake 311
in livestock provision 337, 346–347
and livestock shelters 265
and response modalities 94
in veterinary support 223, 244
in water provision 173
cash money 120
checklists
for feed provision 161–162
for initial assessments 81, 81–86, 106–107,
109
for livestock offtake 315–316

Indexfor livestock provision 352
for livestock shelter/settlement 282–283
for nature and impact of the emergency
83–85
for role of livestock in livelihoods 82
for situation analysis 85–86
for veterinary support 241
for water points 199
chronic/recurring emergencies 28
CHS (Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality
and Accountability) 37, 39, 70–72
climate change 55–57
further reading on 73
impacts of 56
and livestock 35, 55–56
and livestock feed 144
and livestock offtake 299
and livestock provision 332
and livestock shelter/settlement 262
and veterinary support 219
and water provision 180
clinical veterinary services
in general 208–210
benefits/challenges of 214–215
design of 230–234
examination/treatment of animals in 210
mass medication/vaccination programmes
210
payments options for 222–223, 233–234
roles and responsibilities in 235
cohabitation, of livestock and humans 253, 277
community leadershipand water provision
see also local ownershipcommunity participation 52–55
active 53–55, 59
and CHS 70
and direct communication 54
emergency livestock projects 52–53
further reading on 73
in livestock feed 143
and livestock offtake 299, 306, 311
and livestock provision 332
and livestock shelter/settlement 262,
271–273
types of 54–55
and veterinary support 218
and water provision 179–180
and wider stakeholders 272–273
community shelters 275
community-based animal health workers(CAHWs) 209–210, 230, 232–234
community-based approaches 232
companion animals 44
companion standards 37

380

complementary programming, and livestock
feed interventions 156
complex emergencies 28, 30–32, 36, 117,
211–212
content, of LEGS Handbook 15
contingency planningand DRR 58–59
for veterinary support 226
controlof livestock diseases 240
over livestock 62–63
of quality 159
of zoonotic diseases 236–237
coordinated responses 59–61
between different interventions 61
between livestock interventions 60
and CHS 71–72
further reading on 74
in livestock feed 144
and livestock offtake 300
and livestock provision 333
and livestock shelter/settlement 262
and veterinary support 219
and water provision 180
coordination groups
between groups, for livestock offtake 307
coping strategies 108, 151–152
Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality andAccountability (CHS) 37, 39, 70–72
cost recovery 193, 203, 222
cost-effectiveness 212
Covid-19 pandemic 34
CPMS (Minimum Standards for Child
Protection) 61
credit systems 347
crisis modifiers 58, 227, 304
CVA see cash and voucher assistance (CVA)
cyclone resistance 269

Ddata see information
dead livestock 238
decision trees
for CVA 122
for livestock feed 148, 149
for livestock offtake 301, 302
for livestock provision 339
for livestock shelter/settlement 265, 266
for veterinary support 224, 225
for water provision 183, 184delivery mechanisms, for CVA 94–95, 120–121
designof livestock provision 354
of livestock shelters 275
of veterinary support 230, 243

Indexdisabled persons 277
disaggregating, of information 102
disaster risk management (DRM) cycle 28–29
disaster risk reduction (DRR) 58
disposal, of dead livestock 238, 314
distributionof livestock feed 154, 161
timing of, in livestock provision 348
and water trucking 198
donkeys 361
DRR (disaster risk reduction) 58
due diligence approach 264

Eearly actions
in livestock offtake 304
see also preparedness/early actions
early warning systems 59, 303
earthquake resistance 268
the elderly 54
emergencies
impact of 32
phases in 31, 30–31
see also under specific emergencies
Emergency Market Mapping Analysis (EMMA)
298
emergency response planningin general 78–79
accountablility in 103
analysis of technical interventions 90–95
and CHS 70
impact evaluation 103
initial assessments in 79–86, 105–111
monitoring in 103
response identification 87–90
response plans 96–98
sharing of learning in 104
emergency types 28–30
EMMA (Emergency Market Mapping Analysis)298
environmental health 35
environmental impact
assessment of 108
of livestock in settlements 278
and livestock shelter/settlement 271–272
of use of water sources 187
environmental protection 55–57
equipment, livestock related 351
equipment, livestock-related 314
euthanasia 235
evacuation 269, 278
evaluationin general 66
see also Monitoring, evaluation,accountability and learning381

in emergency response planning 103
of livestock feed 163
of livestock offtake 317
of livestock provision 354–357
of livestock shelter/settlement 284
prioritising impact 67
of veterinary support 243
evidence-based, good practice 21
existing users of water sources 195
exit strategies, in lifestock offtake 306

F
feed see livestock feed
feed camps 91, 139, 156, 162
fire safety 278
flood impact mitigation 268
focus group discussions 105, 109, 110
food hygiene 237
food security 350–351
funding 58–59, 227
further readingon initial assessments 126
on LEGS Principles 73
on livestock feed 165–166
on livestock offtake 319
on livestock provision 360–361
on livestock shelter/settlement 287
on participatory methodologies 128
on veterinary support 245–247
on water provision 203

Ggender, and power dynamics 107
gender-based violence 277
gender-sensitive programmingin general 62
and CHS 71
further reading on 74–75
and livestock feed 145
and livestock offtake 300
and livestock provision 334
and livestock shelter/settlement 262
and MEAL 68
and technical interventions 62–63
and veterinary support 220
and water provision 181
good practice, evidence based 21
greenhouse gas emissions 35

H
herd size 358–359
housing, land and property rights (HLP) 264
HSP (Humanitarian Standards Partnership) 37,
42
human health 35–36

Indexhuman rights 21
Humanitarian Charter 37–38
Humanitarian Standards Partnership (HSP) 37,
42
humanitarian-development-peace nexus 36

feed safety 158–159
feeding levels 157
preparedness 151
in livestock offtake
assessment/planning 304–305
commercial livestock offtake 307
preparedness 303
slaughter for consumption 310
in livestock provisionassesment/planning 344
defining the intervention package
344–345delivery systems 346
recipient support 349
in livestock shelter/settlement
assessment/planning 270
durable shelter solutions 280
preparedness 268
settlement 276
shelter 273
in veterinary support
assessment/planning 228–229
clinical services 230–231
disease surveillance 239
disposal of dead animals 238
examination and treatment 234
preparedness 226
sanitation and food hygiene 237
zoonotic diseases 236
in water provisionassessment/planning 188
preparedness 186
water points 190–192
water trucking 194–196

I
immediate benefits, by using existing animals
26, 133, 171, 291
impact assessments 66–67
impact evaluation 67, 103
impact indicators 98
impactsof climate change 56
of emergencies 32
and mitigation measures 342
of pandemics 33, 34
see also environmental impact
in-kind contributions 312
INEE (Minimum Standards for Education) 61
information
on aquaculture 43
on companion animals 44
disaggregating of 102
on livestock diseases/pests 43
on livestock insurance 44
numerical 102
participatory methods and other 101–102
recording and analysing of 86
review of existing 80
on sustainable livelihoods 40
on technical response interventions 39
on veterinary medicine 41
initial assessments
additional methodologies to support
107–108
checklists for 81, 81–86, 106, 107, 109–110
further reading on 126
gender-sensitive programming and 63
overview 79
participatory methods for 105
preparation for 80–81
recording and analysing information 86
recording template 111
insurance, of livestock 36
Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) 147
interview methods 105, 241–242
invasive species 56
investment, in MEAL 67

K
key actions
in general 93
in livestock feedassessment /planning 154–155

382

L
land access 278–279
land tenure 57, 264
learning, of sharing 66–67, 104
see also Monitoring, evaluation,accountability and learning
legal factors, and veterinary support 226–227
LEGS Principles 49
in general 22–23, 48–49
and CHS commitments 70–72
climate change see climate change
community participation see community
participation
coordinated responses see coordinatedresponses
gender-sensitive programming 62
livelihoods-based programming see
livelihoods-based programming
local ownership see local ownershipIndexMEAL see Monitoring, evaluation,accountability and learning
preparedness/early action see
preparedness/early action
LEGS/LEGS Handbook
and CHS 39
differences effected by 16
evidence-based good practice 21
and HSP 37
human rights basis of 38
and Humanitarian Charter 38
and livelihood support 20
other resources in 16
purpose of 14
rights-based approach in 21
and Sphere Handbook 37
who should use 14–15
livelihood assets
definition of 25
livestock as 25
see also livestock assets
livelihoods
climate change impacts on 56
definition for 20
role of livestock in 341
support for 20–21
sustainable 40
of women 23
livelihoods objectives
in general 51
protect key livestock assets 26, 27, 133,
171, 207, 251, 291
rebuild key livestock assets 26, 27, 133,
171, 207, 323
SMART objectives and 97
use of existing livestock assets 26, 133,
171, 291
livelihoods-based programming 48–52
benefits of 48–51
and CSH 70
further reading on 73
humanitarian versus development support
51–52
and livestock feed 143
and livestock offtake 298
and livestock provision 332
and livestock shelter/settlement 261
local services and markets 51
and MEAL 67
and veterinary support 218
and water provision 179
livestockaffected communities continue to keep 155
as livelihood assets 25
see also livestock assets

383

buyers of 308
and climate change 35, 55–56
dead, disposal of 238, 314
definition of 23
euthanasia of 235
evacuation of 269, 278
examination and treatment of 214
and financial capital 50
and fire safety 278
and human capital 50–51
impact of emergencies on 32
insurance of 36
loss of 268
mass medication programmes for 210, 215
mass vaccination programmes for 211, 215
and minimum viable herd size 358
mobility of 146
mortality of 107
movement of 57
prices paid for 308, 311
procurement of 346, 353
provision of see livestock provision
removal of see livestock offtakerole in livelihoods of 341
security of 263, 276
selection of 308, 312, 344–345
settlement of see livestock settlement,
livestock shelter/settlement
shelters for see livestock shelter/settlement,
livestock shelterand social capital 50
sustainable settlement of 279
targeting of 155–156
transport of 348
untethering of 269–270
waste of 57
and water quality 189
livestock assets
benefits of using existing 26, 133, 171, 291
building of 328, 330, 357
protection of 26–27, 207, 251, 291
rebuilding of 26–27, 133, 207, 323
replacing lost 326–329, 355
livestock buyers 308
livestock diseases/pests
assessment of 228
emergency guides 43
epidemic 208
and livestock provision 361
minimising 147
surveillance of 213–214, 216, 239–240transmission of 336
livestock fairs 346–347
see also livestock markets
livestock feedIndexin general 87, 91, 133
administrative systems in 154
assessment/planning of 154
at-risk groups in 145
benefits/challenges of 137–138, 140, 141
budgeting of 157–158
in camps 147–148
checklist for 161–162
decision tree for 148–149
external procurement of feed 153
and feed camps 139, 156
home-based 138–139
importance of 27, 134–135
and LEGS Principles 143–145
and livelihoods objectives 133
and local capacities/coping strategies 146
and local markets 147
monitoring/evaluation in 163–164
nutritional quality of 157
options for ensuring supply of 136–137
and other HSP standards 142–143
and other LEGS chapters 142–143
and pests/diseases 147
and PRIM 114, 116, 118
provision of, CVA schemes in 156
replenishment of stores of 158
safety of 158
and security 153
sourcing/distribution of 161–162
timing of 141–142
livestock insurance 44
livestock interventions
coordination between 60
other interventions and 61
see also specific interventions
livestock keepers
and alternative livelihoods 25
displaced 147–148
HLP rights for 264
impact of emergencies on 32
local environmental management 56–57
nomadic see pastoralists
and provision of livestock shelters 253
security of 277
sustainable settlement of 279
types of 24
see also at-risk groups, smallholder
farmers
livestock markets
monitoring of 303
support for 309
understanding of 301, 307
see also livestock fairs, purchase sites
livestock offtakein general 87, 91, 290–291

384

assessment/planning of 304–306
benefits/challenges of 295–296
checklists for 315–316
choice between types of 305
commercial 292–293, 307–310, 315, 317
coordination groups in 307
customary practices in 305
decision tree for 301, 302
early actions in 304
example of 125
and feed supply 136–137, 142
further reading on 319
importance of 291–292
institutional context of 306
intervention areas in 308
and LEGS Principles 298
and livelihood objectives 291
monitoring and evaluation of 317–318
and other HSP standards 298
and other LEGS chapters 298
and PRIM 115–118
procurement in 312
purchase sites 311
recipients of materials of 312
selection of animals in 305
slaughter for consumption 293–294,
310–316, 318
slaughter for disposal 294–295, 316
technical standards for 290
timing of 296, 304
transaction costs for 309
livestock production systems, large-scale 35,
56
livestock settlementin general 257–258
assessment of 283
benefits/challenges of 259
changing needs for spaces in 281
definition of 251
overview 276–280
see also livestock shelter/settlement
livestock shelter 273–276
in general 255–256
assessment of 282
benefits/challenges of 258
and climate 255, 274, 285–286
community 256
design of 274
disaster safe 273
and environmental degradation 274
and local markets 264
and security 263
transition to durable 275, 280–281
see also livestock shelter/settlement
livestock shelter/settlement

Indexin general 27, 87, 115, 118, 251
assessment/planning of 270–272
benefits/challenges of 258–259
checklists 282–283
decision tree for 265, 266
for displaced and non-displaced
populations 254–255
further reading 287
importance of 252
and LEGS Principles 261–263
livelihoods objectives 252
and livestock loss 268–269
monitoring and evaluation of 284
options for 254
and other HSP standards 261
and other LEGS chapters 260–261
and preparedness 268–270
PRIM 115, 118
technical options for 91
timing of 259–260
see also livestock settlement, livestock
shelter
livestock, provision ofin general 87, 91, 323
assessment/planning of 341–343
benefits/challenges of 329–330
checklists for 352–353
decision tree for 338–339
defining the intervention package 344–345
delivery systems in 346
examples of 27
further reading on 360
impact and mitigating measures in 342
importance of 324–325
and LEGS Principles 332
and livelihood objectives 323–324
and minimum viable herd size 358–359
monitoring and evaluation of 354–357
to non-livestock keepers 343
and other HSP standards 331
and other LEGS chapters 331
and PRIM 115, 117
recipients of 335, 345–346
timing of 330–331, 348
livestock-based responses
complementary 24, 25
see also under specific livestock-based
responses
livestock-keeping communities
impact of emergencies on 32
resilience 33
support for 20
local capacities 70, 88, 146, 152
local markets
in general 51

385

disruptions of 147
and livestock shelters 264, 272
see also livestock markets
local ownershipin general 64
and CHS 70
further reading on 75
LEGS approach for supporting 65
and livestock feed 145
and livestock offtake 301
and livestock provision 334
and livestock shelter/settlement 263
and MEAL 68
past experiences with 64
and veterinary support 220–221
and water provision 181
local services 51
localisation concept 64
logistics
of coordination with other sectors 61
of feed camps 162
of water trucking 196

Mmanagement systems, for water sources 189,
194
mapping 105
market analysis 126–127
mass medication programmes 210–211
mass vaccination programmes 211
matrix scoring 106
MEAL see Monitoring, evaluation,accountability and learning
meat
distribution of 312
fresh vs dried 313
inspections of 237
Minimum Standard for Market Analysis(MISMA) 297, 298
Minimum Standards for Child Protection(CPMS) 61
Minimum Standards for Education (INEE) 61
MISMA (Minimum Standard for Market
Analysis) 297, 298
MNBs (multi-nutrient blocks) 136, 153
mobile money 121, 311
modalities 94
monitoringin general 66–67
in emergency response planning 103
of livestock condition 304
of livestock feed 163
of livestock markets 303
of livestock offtake 310, 317
of livestock provision 354–357

Indexof livestock shelter/settlement 284
of veterinary support 243
of water provision 201
see also Monitoring, evaluation,accountability and learning
Monitoring, evaluation, accountability andlearning 66–68
in general 99
benefits of 66
and CHS 71
and community participation 67
in emergency response planning 99–104
further reading on 75, 127
and gender-sensitive programming 68
impact indicators in 100
implementing of 67
and livestock feed 145
and livestock offtake 301
and livestock provision 334
and livestock shelter/settlement 263
and local ownership 68
and other LEGS Principles 67–68
participatory methods in 101–102
process indicators in 100
SMART objectives in 99–100
and veterinary support 221
and water provision 182
multi-nutrient blocks (MNBs) 136, 153N
norms social/cultural 233
nutrition 107
nutritional quality 157, 161Oolder people 54
One Health approach 35–36

Ppandemics 33–34, 41
participatory assessments, in veterinary
support 229
participatory mapping 241
participatory methods
alternative approaches to 102
further reading on 128
for initial assessments 105–107
and other data 101–102
Participatory Response Identification Matrix(PRIM) 70, 88, 89, 112–118
participatory targeting 98
partnerships, in livestock offtake 308
pastoralists
in general 24
and CVA 95

386

and livestock mobility 146
and livestock provision 326–327, 329, 355
vs. smallholder famers 335
pathway encroachment 278
personal security
in livestock feed 153
of livestock keepers 277
and livestock offtake 306
and livestock provision 335
in livestock shelter and settlement 263
and Sphere Protection Principles 69
of veterinary personnel 221, 233
and water provision 182, 191, 198
pests see livestock diseases/pests
piling, proportional 106, 110
policy/advocacy context 154, 226
pre-paid cards 120
preparedness/early action
in general 58–59
and CHS 70–71
in disaster risk management cycle 28
further reading on 74
for future emergencies 350
in livestock feed 144, 151–154
in livestock offtake 300, 303–304
in livestock provision 333
in livestock shelter/settlement 262, 268–270
in livestock shelter/settlements 262
in veterinary support 212, 219, 226–228
in water provision 180
prices, of livestock 308, 311
PRIM (Participatory Response Identification
Matrix) 70, 88, 89, 112–118
process indicators 100
procurement, of livestock 312, 346, 353
Protection Principles 37–38
protracted emergencies 28, 31
provisionof livestock see livestock provisionof water see under water
public awareness, of food safety 237–238
public health impact, of livestock in settlement279–280
public health risks, of livestock offtake 313–314
public sector veterinary functions
in general 208–209, 211–212
benefits/challenges of 216
purchase sites, for livestock offtake 311
see also livestock markets

Q
quality control, of feed 159
quality criteria 70–72
quality, of water 189, 196
quantitative surveys 102

IndexRranking methods 106
rapid-onset emergencies 28, 30–32, 112, 114,
269
recipientsof livestock
additional support to 349–351
checklist 353
selection of 335–336, 336
of meat from livestock offtake 312
redistribution systems 347–348
reporting, in disease surveillance 240
resilience 33
resilience analysis 33
resources, in LEGS Handbook 16
response identification
overview 87
and PRIM 88–90
response modalities, and CVA 119
response plans
contents of 98
example of livestock offtake 125
overview 96
SMART objecties of 97
template for 124
theory of change for 96–97
restocking see livestock provisionrights-based approaches 21
risk assessments 268

S
safetyof livestock feedchecklist for 161
and quality control 159
and risk assessments 159
and sanitary procedures 159–160
see also personal security, security
samples, of PRIM 114–118
sampling 102
sanitary procedures 159, 237
scoring methods 106
SEADS (Standards for Supporting Crop-related
Livelihoods in Emergencies) 24, 61
securityof livestock 263, 276
see also personal security, safety
selectionof livestock 308, 344
of recipients of livestock 345–346
of recipients of meat from livestock offtake312
self-mobilisation 55
shelterfor humans 351

387

for livestock see livestock
shelter/settlement
slaughterfor consumption 293, 310, 315–316, 318
for disposal 316
equipment 314
facilities 237
methods 313
waste 314
slow-onset emergencies 28, 29, 31–32, 113,
116
smallholder farmers 24, 327–329, 335, 356
smart cards 120
SMART objectives 97, 99, 125
sourcing, of livestock feed 161
Sphere foundations 37, 49, 69–72
Sphere Handbook 37
standards see technical standards
Standards for Supporting Crop-related
Livelihoods in Emergencies(SEADS) 24, 61
stockpiling 153
supply route, for water trucking 197
sustainable livelihoods 40, 272

Ttankers 196
technical interventions 49, 90
decision trees in 93
gender-sensitive programming and 62–63
options in, outline of 92
overview 90–91
practical advice 39–40
standards and guidelines in 93
summary of 91
timing tables in 92–93
technical standards
for livestock provision 322
for livestock feed 132
for livestock shelter/settlement 250
overview 129
for veterinary support 206
for water 170
see also under specific subjects ofstandards
templates, for PRIM 112–113
theory of change 96–97
timelines, historical 105
timingin general 92
of combined interventions 375
in livestock feed 141
of livestock offtake 296–297, 304
of livestock provision 330–331, 348
of livestock shelter/settlement 259

Indexof mass vacination programmes 211
of veterinary support 216–217
of water provision 177
training, in animal husbandry 350
transaction costs, for livestock offtake 309
transport planning, in livestock provision
348–349
tsunami impact mitigation 269

Uurban and peri-urban 257–258

Vvaccines 211
Venn diagrams 105
veterinarians 234–235
veterinary investigations 239
veterinary medicines
information on 41
procurement and storage of 232
protection of 233
provision of 244
supply, quality and storage 228
veterinary paraprofessionals 209, 222, 230, 234
veterinary personnel 221, 232–233
veterinary public health 36, 212–213, 216
veterinary service providers 227, 229–230
veterinary support
in general 27, 57, 87, 91, 114–115, 206–207,
345
and access to communities 221
assessment/planning in 228–230
benefits/challenges of 214–216
checklist for 241–242
clinical veterinary services 209–211
decision tree for 224–225
design of 227, 243
examination and treatment in 210, 234–235
flexible funding in 227
further reading 245–247
importance of 208
and LEGS Principles 218–221
and livelihoods objectives 207–208
long-term 350
monitoring and evaluation of 243–244
and other HSP standards 217
and other LEGS chapters 217–218
and preparedness 212, 226preventive 349
prioritising of 212
public sector veterinary functions 211–214
service providers 227
timing of 216–217
and veterinary public health 212
veterinary training 244

388

visualisation methods 105
volcano impact 269
vouchers
see also CVA

W
water
assessment of demand for 190
conflicts over 182
further reading 203
and livelihoods objectives 171
and personal security 182, 191
provision ofin general 27, 87, 91, 170–171, 173
adequacy of 190–191
assessment/planning in 188–189
benefits/challenges of 175–177
decision tree for 183, 184
environmental impact of 187
importance of 172–173
and LEGS Principles 179–182
monitoring/evaluation of 201
and other HSP standards 178–179
and other LEGS chapters 178
and preparedness 186–187
and PRIM 114, 116, 118
timing of 177–178
through water trucking see water
trucking
quality of 189, 196
sources ofanalysis of options using existing 188
contamination of 189
development of 187
for human consumption 189, 195–196
management systems for 186–187, 189
mapping of existing 186
water points 190–191, 194
water points
checklists for 199–200
and cost recovery 193, 203
location of 190
management structures for 194, 202
rehabilitation/establishment of 191–194
in general 173–174
benefits/challenges 175–176
need for 192–193
suitability for 192
technical feasibility of 193
responsibilities for 193–194
water trucking
in general 174–175
as short-term measure 194–195
assessment of the continuity of 195
benefits/challenges of 177

Index

distribution points 198
logistics and distribution for 196–198
maintenance and fuel supplies 197
to mobile livestock 198
sources and quality 194–196
sources used for 195
and staffing 197
subsidising of 198

389

and supply routes 197
working animals 23–24
see also livestockZ
zoonotic diseases 33–34, 208, 212–213,
236–237, 277

Livestock Emergency
Guidelines and Standards
The Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS) Handbook is centredon livestock-keeping communities affected by humanitarian crises. Drawing on
evidence-based best practice, the handbook helps practitioners to design
and implement emergency responses that protect and rebuild livestock-based
livelihoods.
In emergency contexts, feed, water, veterinary support, shelter, livestock offtake,and the provision of livestock are the six critical interventions for saving livestock
assets. To protect livelihoods, these interventions need to be feasible, appropriate
and timely. The LEGS Handbook has contributed to improving the quality
and impact of livestock emergency response since the ﬁrst edition in 2009.
An extensive public consultation process helped update the LEGS Standards,
Key Actions and Guidance Notes in this third edition. There is a clear focus on
the eight LEGS Principles that underpin the handbook, and explanations of how
LEGS approaches issues that have emerged since the second edition in 2014.
Step-by-step guidance demonstrates how to use the LEGS tools to develop
an emergency response plan. The LEGS Handbook is an indispensable guide forall livestock specialists and humanitarians involved in emergency preparedness,
response and recovery.
The Humanitarian Standards Partnershipis a collaboration between standards
initiatives to harness evidence, expert
opinion and best practices and to use
this knowledge to improve quality andaccountability in humanitarian response.