Hides and skins aggregation and processing
Hides and skins aggregation and processing
Type 3: Borderland with fragile context and underdeveloped regional integration infrastructure.
White Space Typology
Business White Space: Despite strong demand for quality hides and skins and their inclusion in development plans, the borderland lacks any scalable business model or sustained private investment. Poor preservation, fragmented collection, and weak linkages to tanneries have left this value chain underdeveloped, representing an untapped opportunity to generate income and jobs from livestock by-products through aggregation and processing.
Business Model Description
Establish hides and skins aggregation centers near major livestock markets and slaughter points. Train traders and processors in preservation techniques to improve quality. Supply semi-processed hides to regional tanneries and leather goods producers in Kenya and Uganda. Start with donor-backed grants or concessional capital, then transition to private financing as volumes grow. Engage cooperatives and women’s groups to manage collection and sorting.
How is this information gathered?
Cross-border investment opportunities with potential to contribute to sustainable development are based on Borderlands SDG Investor Maps.
Disclaimer
UNDP, the Private Finance for the SDGs, and their affiliates (collectively “UNDP”) do not seek or solicit investment for programmes, projects, or opportunities described on this site (collectively “Programmes”) or any other Programmes, and nothing on this page should constitute a solicitation for investment. The actors listed on this site are not partners of UNDP, and their inclusion should not be construed as an endorsement or recommendation by UNDP for any relationship or investment.
The descriptions on this page are provided for informational purposes only. Only companies and enterprises that appear under the case study tab have been validated and vetted through UNDP programmes such as the Growth Stage Impact Ventures (GSIV), Business Call to Action (BCtA), or through other UN agencies. Even then, under no circumstances should their appearance on this website be construed as an endorsement for any relationship or investment. UNDP assumes no liability for investment losses directly or indirectly resulting from recommendations made, implied, or inferred by its research. Likewise, UNDP assumes no claim to investment gains directly or indirectly resulting from trading profits, investment management, or advisory fees obtained by following investment recommendations made, implied, or inferred by its research.
Investment involves risk, and all investments should be made with the supervision of a professional investment manager or advisor. The materials on the website are not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any investment, security, or commodity, nor shall any security be offered or sold to any person, in any jurisdiction in which such offer would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction.
Region
Sector Classification
Food and Beverage
Borderland development need
Agriculture is vital to the borderland, where over 80% of the population depends on farming and livestock. Yet, productivity remains low due to erratic rainfall, limited inputs, and poor market access. The region hosts over 5 million livestock, but most is sold raw or transported long distances, missing value-add opportunities. Frequent droughts and post-harvest losses worsen food insecurity, highlighting urgent needs for investment in resilient, market-linked agriculture. (1, 2, 11, 12, 13)
Borderland policy priority
Boosting food security, livestock productivity, and agro-processing is a shared policy priority in West Pokot’s County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP) and Karamoja's Integrated Development Plan 3 (KIDP3). Both strategies emphasize value addition, market access, and climate-smart agriculture to build resilience. These priorities mirror national plans, Kenya’s Agricultural Sector Transformation and Growth Strategy (ASTGS) and Uganda’s National Agriculture Policy (NAP), both of which aim to modernize agriculture and transform smallholder livelihoods. (1, 2, 14, 15)
Gender inequalities and marginalization issues
Agriculture offers inclusive economic opportunities for women and marginalized groups who are heavily engaged in farming, livestock care, and informal trade across the borderland. Expanding access to inputs, training, and markets—especially in value chains like dairy, honey, and poultry—can boost incomes, enhance resilience, and promote gender equity in a region with limited formal employment. (6, 16, 17)
Investment opportunities introduction
The agriculture sector offers significant investment potential in irrigation infrastructure, agro-processing, livestock value chains, and climate-smart farming. Expanding storage facilities, strengthening veterinary services, and establishing market linkages can drive economic transformation and improve livelihoods in the borderland. (1, 2, 18)
Key bottlenecks introduction
Agricultural expansion is constrained by poor infrastructure, weak market access, climate shocks, and low adoption of improved practices. Inadequate processing facilities, limited access to finance, and inconsistent cross-border policies further restrict sectoral growth, requiring targeted interventions to unlock its full potential. (12, 18, 19)
Food and Agriculture
Borderland development need
Livestock is the main source of livelihood in the borderland, with over 5 million head of cattle, goats, sheep, and camels. However, drought, disease, and poor veterinary services lead to high mortality and low productivity. Most animals are sold live, with minimal local processing, limiting income and adding costs. Insecurity and weak infrastructure further disrupt markets. With 45% of the population facing acute food insecurity, improving livestock systems is critical to resilience and economic growth. (11, 20, 21, 22)
Borderland policy priority
Both CIDP and KIDP3 highlight livestock as a driver of resilience, food security, and economic growth. In West Pokot, the County plan focuses on breed improvement, feed reserves, and operationalizing processing facilities such as the Nasukuta abattoir to retain value locally. In Karamoja, the local government prioritises breeding, disease surveillance, and value addition in meat, milk, and hides. Both aim to improve market access, veterinary services, and cross-border trade, especially for youth and women in pastoral systems. (1, 2)
Gender inequalities and marginalization issues
Livestock production and processing offer key entry points for empowering women and marginalized groups, who often manage small ruminants and poultry. These activities generate income, support food security, and are more accessible to those with limited land or capital. Expanding value chains and services tailored to women and youth can drive inclusion and build resilience. (12, 13)
Investment opportunities introduction
The borderland offers high-return investment opportunities in livestock production and processing, from meat and dairy value chains to animal health and feed systems. With strong local demand, large herd sizes, and policy backing, investments in abattoirs, milk processing, vet services, and feed supply can unlock value, boost incomes, and strengthen regional trade. (1, 2)
Key bottlenecks introduction
Recurrent droughts and disease outbreaks weaken productivity, while limited access to quality feed and vet services constrains herd health. Insecurity (driven by cattle raiding, border tensions, and weak enforcement) disrupts markets and discourages investment. Poor infrastructure and low processing capacity further limit value addition. (1, 2, 9, 12)
Meat, Poultry and Dairy
Pipeline Opportunity
Hides and skins aggregation and processing
Establish hides and skins aggregation centers near major livestock markets and slaughter points. Train traders and processors in preservation techniques to improve quality. Supply semi-processed hides to regional tanneries and leather goods producers in Kenya and Uganda. Start with donor-backed grants or concessional capital, then transition to private financing as volumes grow. Engage cooperatives and women’s groups to manage collection and sorting.
Business Case
Market Size and Environment
< USD 50 million
20% - 25%
The borderland generates tens of thousands of hides and skins annually, yet most are discarded or sold raw due to poor handling. Slaughter data from Moroto and West Pokot confirm steady volumes. With improved collection and preservation, this latent supply presents a substantial untapped market. (25, 29, 30, 33)
Indicative Return
20% – 25%
With low-cost inputs and minimal infrastructure, preserved hides can earn 3–5 times the value of raw skins. ROI of 20–30% is achievable within a few years through basic value addition (drying, salting, grading) and off-taker linkages. Comparable figures are seen in COMESA and Kenya Leather Council programs. (24, 30)
Investment Timeframe
Short Term (0–5 years)
Returns begin within 1–2 years, but market uptake, supply chain development, and behavior change require 3–5 years to mature. This timeline reflects the need to build trust with tanneries, train producers, and prove commercial viability in a currently informal, undervalued value chain. (30, 32)
Ticket Size
< USD 500,000
Market Risks and Scale Obstacles
Business - Business Model Unproven
Business - Supply Chain Constraints
Capital - Limited Investor Interest
Expected Financing Model
Blended financing (risk sharing and public support)
EIOA Business Criteria
Strong demand for semi-processed hides in regional tanneries exists; with improved preservation and reliable supply, this by-product can generate income and attract private investment. (25, 29, 33)
Focuses on hides and skins aggregation and preservation near slaughter points, with defined processes, actors, and supply channels. (33)
Scalable through cooperative-run hubs and training programs; can be expanded across livestock markets in Karamoja and West Pokot to supply formal leather industries. (27, 33)
Local and regional demand exists but is unmet due to poor handling; success of similar small-scale leather initiatives in Kenya and Uganda shows feasibility if supported. (25, 29, 33)
Impact Case
Sustainable Development Need
Most hides and skins are discarded or sold at low prices due to poor preservation, missing a major income opportunity for livestock-dependent communities. (25, 33)
Youth unemployment remains high across Karamoja and West Pokot, with few off-farm job prospects linked to the livestock value chain. (25, 33)
Regional leather industries in Uganda and Kenya lack steady supply of quality semi-processed hides, limiting value addition and industrial growth. (24, 33)
Gender & Marginalisation
Women and youth are largely excluded from formal livestock markets but often engage informally in slaughterhouse cleaning or hide collection, with limited earnings or recognition. (33)
Handling and preservation tasks offer an entry point for women’s participation, yet lack of training and tools constrains value capture. (33)
The value chain is dominated by middlemen, leaving small-scale actors (especially women) without bargaining power or stable buyers. (33)
Expected Development Outcome
Converts livestock waste into income, increasing earnings for slaughterhouse workers, collectors, and traders. (24, 31, 33)
Builds micro-enterprises in processing and preservation, creating jobs for women and youth. (26, 27)
Strengthens rural value chains, diversifying income beyond live animal sales. (24, 33)
By reducing waste and adding value to by-products, the model offers income to youth vulnerable to recruitment or theft-related economies, and builds cross-border trade collaboration that can lower tensions. (25)
Gender & Marginalisation
Engages women and youth in aggregation, sorting, and drying, providing low-barrier entry jobs in an accessible value chain. (33)
Supports inclusion of women’s groups and cooperatives in managing collection centers and income-generating activities. (31, 33)
Builds skills through training in preservation and small-scale processing, increasing economic agency among marginalized groups. (33)
Primary SDGs addressed
1.1.1 Proportion of the population living below the international poverty line by sex, age, employment status and geographic location (urban/rural)
In 2020, the poverty rate was 66% in Karamoja and 57% in West Pokot. (1, 2)
The government of Uganda aims to reduce the incidence of poverty in Karamoja to 42.2% over the next five-year period. (1)
8.3.1 Proportion of informal employment in total employment, by sector and sex
In 2023, Kenya's informal sector employed approximately 16.7 million individuals, accounting for about 83.5% of the total employment. The informal sector in Uganda employs about 13.3 million people out of the 15.8 million working population, representing approximately 85% of total employment. (34, 35)
N/A
12.2.1 Material footprint, material footprint per capita, and material footprint per GDP
N/A
N/A
Directly impacted stakeholders
People
Gender inequality and/or marginalization
Planet
Corporates
Public sector
Indirectly impacted stakeholders
People
Gender inequality and/or marginalization
Planet
Corporates
Public sector
Outcome Risks
Environmental Degradation: Poorly managed waste from processing (e.g., chemicals or organic matter) can lead to environmental pollution and public health risks in surrounding communities.
If access to market opportunities is dominated by elites or middlemen, marginalized groups—especially women and youth—may be excluded from benefits.
Competition over raw hides and skins or processing sites could inflame intergroup tensions, especially in areas with weak governance or contested markets.
Overemphasis on commercial hides value may encourage over-slaughtering or unsustainable livestock practices, undermining broader pastoral resilience.
Impact Risks
Poor waste management from processing (e.g., tanning) may contaminate water and soil, harming ecosystems and human health.
Limited access to training and capital may exclude women and marginalized groups, reinforcing existing inequalities.
Weak market linkages and price volatility may limit income gains for local collectors, reducing participation and impact.
IMP Impact Classification
What
Informal trade, weak market linkages, and lack of processing infrastructure may limit scale and sustainability.
Who
Directly benefits pastoralists, traders, and women’s groups in Karamoja and West Pokot; indirectly supports tanneries and leather producers.
Risk
Informal trade, weak market linkages, and lack of processing infrastructure may limit scale and sustainability.
Enabling Environment
White Space Typology
Business White Space: Despite strong demand for quality hides and skins and their inclusion in development plans, the borderland lacks any scalable business model or sustained private investment. Poor preservation, fragmented collection, and weak linkages to tanneries have left this value chain underdeveloped, representing an untapped opportunity to generate income and jobs from livestock by-products through aggregation and processing.
Main Barriers
Poor handling and preservation practices: Most hides and skins are damaged during slaughter or improperly preserved, leading to low-quality output and limited demand from formal tanneries and processors. (25, 29, 33)
Fragmented and informal supply chains: The current value chain is dominated by a small number of informal middlemen, with no structured aggregation system or consistent volume flow, making scale and quality control difficult. (25, 29, 33)
Lack of market linkages and processing infrastructure: There are few functional processing centers or formal buyers in the region; without drying units, storage, or transport networks, most hides are discarded or sold raw at minimal value. (25, 29, 33)
General Policy Environment
Third Karamoja Integrated Development Plan (KIDP3) 2021/22 – 2025/26: Highlights the potential of livestock by-products to enhance household income and prioritizes investments in value addition for hides and skins under agro-industrialization. (1)
West Pokot County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP) 2023 – 2027: Identifies leather value chains as priority for agro-processing and calls for the establishment of value addition infrastructure linked to slaughterhouses and cooperatives. (2)
Kenya Leather Development Policy (2023): Aims to promote investment in the leather value chain, strengthen quality standards, and improve local processing through PPPs and SME support. (34)
Uganda National Leather and Leather Products Policy (2015): Focuses on increasing exports, supporting tanning industries, and enhancing quality control systems for hides and skins at the aggregation level. (35)
Kenya Vision 2030 – Manufacturing Pillar: Promotes the development of the leather industry as one of the key manufacturing value chains with potential for job creation and export earnings. (36)
Policy Recommendations
Improve quality standards and training: Introduce mandatory quality protocols for hides and skins handling at slaughter points and provide training and preservation incentives to cooperatives and traders to reduce post-slaughter losses.
Facilitate access to capital and infrastructure: Offer matching grants and concessional loans for SMEs investing in collection centers, drying units, and transport, prioritizing cooperative-led or women-led models in borderland livestock markets.
Strengthen formal market linkages: Establish regulated trading hubs linked to certified buyers and tanneries across the region, and reduce border tariffs on semi-processed hides to attract investment in regional value addition.
General Regulatory Environment
Kenya Hides, Skins and Leather Trade Act (2012): Governs the collection, preservation, and grading of hides and skins. Enforcement is limited in remote areas, affecting product quality and traceability. (37)
Uganda Hides and Skins (Export Prohibition) Act (1965, revised): Regulates the trade of raw hides and skins to encourage local processing, but enforcement gaps and limited processing facilities hinder impact. (38)
Kenya Meat Control Act (Cap. 356): Sets standards for slaughter facilities and by-product utilization, providing a regulatory entry point to formalize hide collection at abattoirs. (39)
Uganda Public Health Act: Includes animal by-product handling provisions that impact hygiene and environmental compliance of hide processing sites, especially important for market access. (40)
Regulatory Reccomendations
Kenya Hides, Skins and Leather Trade Act (2012): Governs the collection, preservation, and grading of hides and skins. Enforcement is limited in remote areas, affecting product quality and traceability. (37)
Uganda Hides and Skins (Export Prohibition) Act (1965, revised): Regulates the trade of raw hides and skins to encourage local processing, but enforcement gaps and limited processing facilities hinder impact. (38)
Kenya Meat Control Act (Cap. 356): Sets standards for slaughter facilities and by-product utilization, providing a regulatory entry point to formalize hide collection at abattoirs. (39)
Uganda Public Health Act: Includes animal by-product handling provisions that impact hygiene and environmental compliance of hide processing sites, especially important for market access. (40)
General Cross-border Trade Policy and Regulatory environment
East African Standards (EAS) for Hides and Skins: Harmonizes grading and preservation criteria across member states, helping improve regional trade potential but requiring stronger enforcement at border points. (41)
EAC Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Protocol (2020): Establishes harmonized animal health and product safety standards, crucial for improving the quality of hides and skins and enabling cross-border trade with minimal rejection or spoilage risks. (42)
IGAD Protocol on Transhumance (2021): Facilitates legal cross-border movement of livestock, which strengthens upstream supply chains and ensures a more predictable and consistent flow of hides and skins between Uganda and Kenya. (43)
AfCFTA Annex on Trade in Goods (2021): Promotes tariff reduction and improved customs cooperation, enabling hides and skins traders to access larger regional markets, reduce transaction costs, and attract cross-border investment in processing.
General Cross-border Trade Policy and Regulatory Recommendations
Harmonize grading and quality standards regionally: Develop and enforce common EAC/IGAD standards for hides and skins to reduce rejection at borders and ensure compatibility with regional tannery requirements.
Simplify border procedures and reduce export levies: Streamline documentation, remove or reduce informal fees, and enable use of EAC’s Simplified Trade Regime (STR) for hides and skins to lower costs and increase participation by small traders.
Establish cross-border aggregation and inspection hubs: Create jointly managed collection and inspection centers near border markets to certify quality and facilitate pre-clearance, improving transparency and traceability for formal trade.
Capital structure and funding
Source of capital: Existing initiatives are largely donor-driven, with minimal private sector participation. Identified opportunities will require a mix of public subsidies, donor grants (e.g. FAO, COMESA), and private capital to fund aggregation and processing infrastructure. (31, 33)
Average size of capital: Capital needs vary from $50,000 for basic aggregation centers to $300,000 for semi-processing hubs. Existing investment has been ad hoc and small-scale, lacking sustained private investment due to low returns and weak linkages to off-takers. (30)
Trends of capital flows: Capital inflows in the hides and skins space remain irregular, tied to broader livestock support programs. Development partners have prioritized meat and milk over by-product sectors, resulting in limited dedicated funds for leather value chains.
Conflict impact on capital flows: Insecurity deters private investment, especially in remote border areas. Government and donor mitigation efforts—like integrated border stabilization plans—can unlock capital, but risk-averse investors still hesitate without guarantees. (4, 33)
Support from development partners: Most support targets upstream livestock productivity or women’s cooperative development. COMESA and other actors have piloted hides and skins programs in other contexts, but few have scaled. More catalytic capital and technical assistance are needed.
Financial incentives
No specialized or earmarked credit line currently targets the hides and skins sub-sector. Most programs focus on broader livestock or industrial development, limiting access for early-stage businesses in this value chain. Uganda’s Agricultural Credit Facility (ACF) and Kenya’s Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) offer concessional loans, but hides and skins actors rarely qualify unless bundled into broader livestock value chain investments. Export incentives in Kenya—such as duty remission and tax exemptions for leather exporters—exist but remain inaccessible to small-scale processors due to compliance barriers and lack of aggregation capacity. (26, 44, 46)
Financial recommendations
No specialized or earmarked credit line currently targets the hides and skins sub-sector. Most programs focus on broader livestock or industrial development, limiting access for early-stage businesses in this value chain. Uganda’s Agricultural Credit Facility (ACF) and Kenya’s Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) offer concessional loans, but hides and skins actors rarely qualify unless bundled into broader livestock value chain investments. Export incentives in Kenya—such as duty remission and tax exemptions for leather exporters—exist but remain inaccessible to small-scale processors due to compliance barriers and lack of aggregation capacity. (26, 44, 46)
Security Environment
Persistent livestock theft in West Pokot and Karamoja disrupts slaughter volumes, reducing availability of hides and skins. This affects supply reliability for processors and discourages private sector engagement. (47, 48, 50)
Armed ambushes on key trade corridors threaten transport of hides, increasing costs and limiting regional trade flows. Insecure logistics deter investment in aggregation and cross-border commerce. (47, 48, 50)
Tensions between pastoralist groups near livestock markets can shut down trading days, reducing hide collection and impacting incomes for traders and processors. (47, 48, 50)
Limited police presence and poor enforcement near abattoirs and aggregation points lead to theft of skins and equipment. This undermines confidence in long-term capital investments. (47, 48, 50)
Socio-political environment
Weak inter-district and cross-border coordination hampers the formalization of hides and skins trade, leading to fragmented policies and low enforcement of quality standards. (33)
Despite their involvement in processing and handling, women have limited decision-making power and face cultural barriers to accessing capital and market networks, reducing their potential benefits. (6, 50)
Unresolved inter-community conflicts disrupt market access and trade. Without stronger mediation efforts, insecurity will continue to hinder supply chain efficiency and scalability. (6, 45)
Contestation over land near livestock markets or potential processing sites may delay infrastructure development or provoke community resistance to investment initiatives. (49)
Risk mitigation strategies
Support cooperatives and women’s groups to manage hides collection and sales, reducing elite capture and ensuring more inclusive participation in the value chain.
Provide targeted training and concessional finance for women in preservation and sorting, addressing marginalization and enabling entrepreneurship in the hides sector.
Facilitate public-private dialogue platforms to harmonize trade rules, quality standards, and cross-border collaboration between West Pokot and Karamoja authorities.
Support cross-border peace committees and mediation efforts with logistics, training, and secure spaces at livestock markets to proactively manage tensions and trade disputes.
Collaborate with local governments to clarify land rights and zoning regulations for hides processing infrastructure to prevent disputes and enable long-term investment.
Actors in EIOA Space
ABC Hides Company (a Ugandan trader of skins and hides exploring investment opportunities to add value to its exported products) (24)
County Government of West Pokot, Ministry for Karamoja Affairs, Kenya Leather Development Council (KLDC) (1, 2)
Africa Leather and Leather Products Institute (ALLPI)
Uganda Leather and Allied Industries Association (ULAIA)
Uganda Leather and Allied Industries Association (ULAIA): Established with support from UNIDO, Uganda Manufacturers Association (UMA), MAAIF, and MTIC to coordinate and advocate for the leather industry. (51)
References
Sector and Subsector Sources
- (1) Ministry for Karamoja Affairs & Office of the Prime Minister. (2021). The Third Karamoja Integrated Development Plan (KIDP 3) 2021–2025.
- (2) County Government of West Pokot. (2023). Third County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP) 2023–2027.
- (3) Catley, A., et al. (2021). Introducing pathways to resilience in the Karamoja Cluster. Pastoralism, 11(28). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-021-00214-4
- (4) UNDP Africa Borderlands Centre. (2022). The Karamoja Cluster: Rapid Conflict Analysis and Gender Assessment (Kenya and Uganda).
- (5) Kenya High Commission Kampala. (2025). Kenya-Uganda Trade & Investments. Accessed February 2025. https://www.kenyamissionkampala.ug/kenya-uganda-trade-investments
- (6) Columbia SIPA. (2020). Ethical Cross-Border Trading between Kenya and Uganda by Women-led Micro and Small Enterprises.
- (7) Aklilu, Y. (2017). Livestock Trade in Karamoja, Uganda: An Update of Market Dynamics and Trends. USAID. https://karamojaresilience.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/tufts_1803_krsu_livestock_trade_karamoja_v2_online.pdf
- (8) Arasio, R.L., and E. Stites. 2022. “The Return of Conflict in Karamoja, Uganda: Community Perspectives.” Karamoja Resilience Support Unit (KRSU), Feinstein International Center, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Kamp
- (9) Interpeace, IGAD, & FAO. (2023). Conflict, Climate Change, Food Security and Mobility in the Karamoja Cluster. https://www.interpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Conflict-climate-change-food-security-and-mobility-in-the-Karamoja-Cluster.pdf
- (10) Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED). (2025). Regional Overview – Africa, February 2025. https://acleddata.com/2025/02/10/africa-overview-february-2025
- (11) Republic of Uganda. (2009). The National Livestock Census Report 2008. Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry & Fisheries.
- (12) Behnke, R.H. and Arasio, R.L., 2019. The Productivity and Economic Value of Livestock in Karamoja Sub-region, Uganda. Karamoja Resilience Support Unit, USAID/Uganda, UK aid, and Irish Aid, Kampala.
- (13) Auma, S., & Badr, N. (2022). Assessment of the Impacts of Climate Change on Livestock Water Sources and Livestock Production: Case Study, Karamoja Region of Uganda. World Water Policy.
- (14) Republic of Kenya. (n.d.). Agricultural Sector Transformation and Growth Strategy (2019-2029). https://asdsp.kilimo.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ASTGS-Full-Version-1.pdf
- (15) Republic of Uganda. (2013). National Agriculture Policy. https://www.agriculture.go.ug/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/National-Agriculture-Policy.pdf
- (16) Coffey International. (2016). Support for Strategic Review and Planning to Strengthen DFID’s Work on Gender Equality and Women and Girls Empowerment in Karamoja Region, Uganda.
- (17) Czuba, K. (2012). Income Generating Activities and Savings Behaviour of Adolescent Girls and Young Women in Karamoja.
- (18) IMARA Program. (2022). Value Chain Mapping and Analysis: Integrated Management of Natural Resources for Resilience in the ASAL.
- (19) Karamoja Resilience Support Unit (2022). Karamoja Donor Mapping Report—2022. Karamoja Resilience Support Unit II, United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Uganda, Kampala.
- (20) Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). (2023). Karamoja Region IPC Analysis.
- (21) Asiimwe, R., Opolot, G., Ekou, J., & Sserunkuma, D. (2020). The role of camel production on household resilience to droughts in pastoral and agro-pastoral households in Uganda. Pastoralism, 10(6). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-020-0160-x
- (22) Kemboi, M. K., Kiptum, K. V., & Rop, N. (2021). A case study to establish the economic viability of local chicken rearing and processing in West Pokot County, Kenya.
EIOA Sources
- (23) Interview with public district officers in Moroto and West Pokot
- (24) Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). (n.d.). Leather and Leather Products – Investment Promotion and Private Sector Development. Retrieved from: https://www.comesa.int/investment-promotion-and-private-sector-development/leather-and-leather-products/
- (25) Interview with the Moroto livestock market committee
- (26) Interviews with private financial institutions in West Pokot and Karamoja
- (27) Interview with Moroto district veterinary officer
- (28) Interviews with agrovets in West Pokot and Karamoja
- (29) Interview with the Moroto Livestock Traders and Butchery Association
- (30) Estimations based on interview data with district district officials, livestock market associations, slaughterhouse managers, livestock census data, and regional studies.
- (31) Interview with an agribusiness consultant for a large international organisation
- (32) Kenya Leather Development Council. (n.d.). Kenya Leather Value Chain Development Policy and Legal Framework. Retrieved from: https://leathercouncil.go.ke/kenya-leather-value-chain-development-policy-and-legal-framework/
- (33) Interview with the abattoir's manager in Moroto
- (34) Government of Kenya. (2023). Kenya Leather Development Policy. Nairobi: Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries.
- (35) Government of Uganda. (2015). National Leather and Leather Products Policy. Kampala: Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives.
- (36) Government of Kenya. (2007). Kenya Vision 2030: The Manufacturing Sector. Nairobi: Government of Kenya.
- (37) Government of Kenya. (2012). Hides, Skins and Leather Trade Act. Nairobi: Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development.
- (38) Government of Uganda. (1965, revised). Hides and Skins (Export Prohibition) Act. Kampala: Government Printer.
- (39) Government of Kenya. (Revised 2012). Meat Control Act (Cap. 356). Nairobi: National Council for Law Reporting.
- (40) Government of Uganda. (Revised Edition). Public Health Act. Kampala: Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation.
- (41) East African Community. (n.d.). East African Standards (EAS) for Hides and Skins. Arusha: EAC Secretariat.
- (42) East African Community. (2020). Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Protocol. Arusha: EAC Secretariat.
- (43) IGAD. (2021). Protocol on Transhumance. Djibouti: Intergovernmental Authority on Development.
- (44) African Union. (2021). AfCFTA Annex on Trade in Goods. Addis Ababa: African Union Commission.
- (45) Bank of Uganda. (n.d.). Agricultural Credit Facility (ACF). Kampala: Bank of Uganda.
- (46) Agricultural Finance Corporation. (n.d.). Official Website – Loan Products. Nairobi: Government of Kenya. Retrieved from: https://agrifinance.org
- (47) Gray, S., Sundal, M., Wiebusch, B., Little, M. A., Leslie, P. W., & Pike, I. L. (2003). Cattle Raiding, Cultural Survival, and Adaptability of East African Pastoralists. Current Anthropology, 44(S5), S3–S30. https://doi.org/10.1086/377669
- (48) Arasio, R.L., and E. Stites. 2022. “The Return of Conflict in Karamoja, Uganda: Community Perspectives.” Karamoja Resilience Support Unit (KRSU), Feinstein International Center, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Kamp
- (49) USAID. (2023). Applied Political Economy Analysis for the Karamoja Cluster. Washington, D.C.: United States Agency for International Development.
- (50) Interview with cross-border trade associations
- (51) Uganda Leather and Allied Industries Association (ULAIA). (n.d.). Uganda Umbrella Organisation. Retrieved from: https://lin-eastafrica.com/uganda-umbrella-organisation/