In total, 3,698 individuals living in households owning livestock were identified as part of the survey. Of these, 127 reported that having no permanent dwelling, which weights up to an estimate of 4,701 (95% CI: 94, 9,307), or two percent of the livestock-holding population in Zones 1, 3, 4, and 5. All but five of the individuals without a permanent dwelling lived in households in which all members are completely nomadic. The inclusion of households without permanent addresses in the survey was a main objective of the original research agenda, as this group is traditionally undercovered in dwellingbased surveys. There are, however, very few of them in the study, not enough to perform independent analyses.

# **4.2 Means and Totals**

To assess the RGCS approach, we compare weighted estimates of means and totals from the RGCS survey to estimates from the ERSS, a household survey carried out by CSA during the 2011/2012 agricultural season. The ERSS used the traditional stratified two-stage cluster design to select households and completed interviews with more than 4,500 households throughout Ethiopia. The Afar portion of the survey included 144 households in 12 clusters, ten of which were rural and two of which represented small towns. As discussed above, only two zones were covered in the ERSS survey, Zones 1 and 3, and therefore we limit our comparisons to these two areas. Among the interviewed households, 83 percent (weighted) reported owning livestock, and were administered an additional livestock questionnaire in November and December 2011 (Central Statistics Agency and World Bank, 2012). Thus there is a short time gap between the ERSS livestock survey and our RGCS study for which we compensate in the analysis. Though each survey has its shortcomings, our expectation was that the surveys should agree in the aggregate.

To construct comparable measures, we use retrospective questions about livestock in the RGCS to derive the number of livestock the household owned at the time of the ERSS survey. These questions account for slaughter, loss, death, purchase, and birth over the six months prior to the survey. We calculate two weighted estimates, one using the base weights and the other using the weight which adjusts for the proportion of the selected circle actually observed, as discussed above.

Table 3: Weighted Estimates of Total Livestock in Study Area and Average Livestock Held by Household (Conditional on Ownership), by Animal Type

|||Mean(SE)<br>|||Total(SE)<br>||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||RGCS<br>(unadjusted<br>weights)|RGCS<br>(adjusted<br>weights)|ERSS|RGCS<br>(unadjusted<br>weights)|RGCS (adjusted<br>weights)|ERSS|
|Cattle|10.4<br>(1.5)|10.8<br>(1.8)|15.3<br>(3.3)|153,505<br>(34,384)|186,164<br>(51,283)|1,092,752<br>(367,307)|
|Camels|8.1<br>(1.4)|7.7<br>(1.4)|6.2<br>(1.9)|92,009<br>(25,893)|139,608<br>(37,186)|237,568<br>(116,430)|
|Goats|20.2<br>(3.1)|19.7<br>(3.0)|20.7<br>(3.1)|566,139<br>(146,182)|815,310<br>(222,853)|2,095,876<br>(488,027)|

Compared to the ERSS survey, there are no statistically significant differences in the mean number of animals found per household across the three groups, the RGCS unadjusted and adjusted, 10