Does forage type matter? Exploring opportunities for improved index- based livestock insurance using browse and grazing forage estimates

Abstract

Abstract African pastoralists suffer recurrent droughts that cause high livestock mortality and vulnerability to climate change. The index-based livestock insurance (IBLI) program offers protection against drought impacts. However, the current IBLI design relying on the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) may pose limitation because it does not consider the mixed composition of rangelands (including herbaceous and woody plants) and the diverse feeding habits of grazers and browsers. To enhance IBLI, we assess the efficacy of utilizing distinct browse and grazing forage estimates from woody LAI (LAIW) and herbaceous LAI (LAIH), respectively, derived from aggregate leaf area index (LAIA), as an alternative to NDVI for refined IBLI design. Using historical livestock mortality data from northern Kenya as reference ground dataset, our analysis compares two competing models for i) aggregate forage estimates including sub-models for NDVI, LAI (LAIA); and ii) partitioned biomass model (LAIP) comprising LAIH and LAIW. By integrating forage estimates with ancillary environmental variables, we find that LAIP, with separate forage estimates, outperforms the aggregate models. For total livestock mortality, LAIP yields the lowest RMSE (5.9 TLUs) and higher R2 (0.83), surpassing NDVI and LAIA models RMSE (9.3 TLUs) and R2 (0.6). A similar pattern is observed for species-specific livestock mortality. The influence of environmental variables across the models varied, depending on level of mortality aggregation or separation. Overall, forage availability was consistently the most influential variable, with species-specific models showing the different forage preferences in various animal types. These results suggest that deriving distinct browse and grazing forage estimates from LAIP has the potential to reduce basis risk by enhancing IBLI index accuracy.