Estimates of current livestock numbers owned by refugees in the 12 UNCHR camps in eastern Chad vary widely between 173,000 and 427,000 head, using data gathered by camp authorities. Finding adequate food for these animals is becoming an increasing challenge for their owners and is leading to increased tension between refugees and the host communities as they compete for already limited resources. The confinement of livestock within a relatively short distance from the camps is resulting in long-term environmental degradation resulting from over-exploitation of natural resources. Livestock mortality is very high due to high disease incidence exacerbated by poor nutrition. The application of traditional pastoralist management systems to an intensified livestock population is increasing the attrition of livestock, accelerating environmental degradation, increasing the risk of inter-ethnic conflict and, consequentially, failing to ensure that the most benefits possible in terms of added-value are being derived from the available livestock. Solutions to the problem of feeding the livestock belonging to refugees are made complex by the lack of incentive to invest in a region where camp dwellers have no land tenure rights and a strong desire to return home as soon as possible. In order to reduce conflict between refugees and the host community, solutions need to benefit both sectors.Due to the size of a camp and the concentration of dwellings in a small area, comparisons can be made with livestock keeping in a peri-urban environment. The over-grazing by the large numbers of livestock around the camps will result in degradation of the local environment and ultimately livestock may only be able to be kept by following a programme by refugee livestock owners of cutting and carrying available forage back to the immediate vicinity of the camps. An alternative, is that (as we shall later propose) fodder and crop residues are bought and brought in from outside the camp. However far more benefit would certainly derive from a planned programme of growing forage crops, either by the refugees, or endemic villagers who could then sell them to the refugees and gain a valuable additional income. However a balance has to be struck between what is currently an unsustainable situation, characterised by a excessive livestock population carrying out possibly long-term environmental degradation, versus support for an artificial system of livestock management, which will entail interventionary support and management, the planned and budgeted provision of supplementary feed and the perpetuation of a system which disconnects the refugees from their animal ownership and management traditions and knowledge. A series of recommendations will be made that are designed to reduce the overwhelming demand for forage in the short and medium term. If implemented, they should result in smaller, fitter herds of livestock that in the long term can be both more readily repatriated and readapted to the more favourable grazing conditions found in Western Sudan
