Version 1 enhancing resilience to cc in the horn 11th june 2012 final


Published on

Strategic Analysis to inform Agricultural Policy
ReSAKSS ECA stakeholder workshop, 11th June, 2012

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Version 1 enhancing resilience to cc in the horn 11th june 2012 final

  1. 1. ReSAKSS ECA Stakeholder Workshop 11th June, 2012ENHANCING RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE HORN OF AFRICA By Jesse T. Njoka,Centre for Sustainable Dryland Ecosystems and Societies University of Nairobi Peter Kamande – Associate Consultant Sammy Mutua – Associate Consultant
  3. 3. STUDY METHODOLOGYResearch questionsi. What kinds of humanitarian and development interventions have been implemented in the Horn of Africa and other dry areas of Africa?ii. What are the medium and long-term interventions that have been supported by the host government, development partners, NGOs and communities?iii. What successful interventions (if any) exist that could be scaled up and what are the main inhibiting factors to optimal take-up of these interventions?iv. What have been the main challenges of these interventions?v. What criteria may be used to judge interventions to be successful or not?vi. What short-term and long-term investments are required to increase resilience of the pastoral areas of the Horn of Africa?vii. Given that livestock and livestock products are the main sources of livelihood for most communities in the Horn of Africa, what tangible measures should be taken to strengthen the sector; and by whom?viii. Given that severe drought episodes appear to be occurring more frequently how does that impact or change the effectiveness of what otherwise would have been “good” policies or programs?
  4. 4. STUDY METHODOLOGYSelection of study sites Focus on drylands and pastoral & agropastoral livelihoods Four sites selected based on crossborder nature of drylands in HoA. Sites were: 1) Karamoja (Turkana area), 2) Somali/Mandera ecosystem,3) Maasai ecosystem (Kajiado & Narok) and 4) Lower Eastern (Kitui, Mwingi and Makueni districts)Data collection Review of literature e.g. on past projects, policies Interviews with communities, experienced professionals (NGOs, CBOs) and other stakeholders Focus group discussions at community level
  5. 5. SOME FACTS 70% of the HOA is occupied by Drylands – 95% in Somalia, >80% in Kenya , 60% of Uganda and approximately 50% Tanzania The inhabitants are among the poorest and vulnerable people in the world Droughts are common occurrence for centuries. Increased vulnerability of the communities in the region Conflict/insecurity challenges
  6. 6. FACTS CONTI---Livelihoods in ASALs of the HoA region are atrisk from:  Rising temperatures  More intense and variable rainfalls  frequent and severe droughts  Declining land productivity  political instability and insecurity
  7. 7. 2010/2011 DROUGHT CRISIS IN THE HOA The most serious drought in 60 years 14 million people affected Mass migration and movement of people/ livestock and further complicated by insecurity and terrorism activities in Somalia Serious food deficits and poor distribution system Rising food prices- prices of staple maize have escalated and remain high Devastating effect on GDP growth
  8. 8. Overview of land uses/resource uses in the ASALs ≈livelihoods Livestock Rainfed farmingAlternatives:charcoalburning Wildlife
  9. 9. ECOSYSTEM CHALLEGES IN HOA Deterioration of range condition Land tenure and property rights Conflicts and insecurity issues Demographic trends- Population growth-increased pressure on natural systems Mobility of pastoralists and livestock- mismatch between resource tenure and land tenure Effect of boundaries and borders- Physical vs ecological delineations
  11. 11. IMPACT OF DROUGHT OVER THE YEARS -CASE OF KENYARelationship between drought events and GDP growth in Kenya over two decades11
  12. 12. Examples Past Interventions
  13. 13. 6/20/2012 13
  14. 14. KEY MESSAGES FROM PAST INTERVENTIONS –(EFFECTIVENESS IN ENHANCING RESILIENCE) Emergency interventions are short term in nature  Do not enhance resilience of target communities e.g. free relief food  Most actors do not follow the Drought Management Cycle  Past interventions have enhanced DEW efforts- but limited uptake and late response Poor coordination of key actors Poor exit strategies -linking emergency interventions with long-term development
  15. 15. KEY MESSAGES Limited funding base to upscale successful interventions and best practices High competition for limited funding by agencies  Most interventions are small scale in nature - limited impact  Coordination and supervisory role by responsible Government departments not adequate .  Poor enforcement of Government relevant policies e.g,( NEMA, range water management)
  16. 16. 1. SUCCESS FACTORS: Criteria for Judging Best Practices Taking into account past community experience about what they consider successful- increases ownership and adoption/replication. Practices that have community involvement and ownership Sensitivity to culture of the local communities/ beneficiaries Easy to replicate and build on previous community knowledge and experience
  17. 17. 2. SUCCESS FACTORS: Criteria for Judging Best Practices Good management and good M & E Provide results in– short term, medium and long term timeframe e.g. enhancing long-term productivity of the land and livestock Sustainability of the practice once in operation and longterm cost effectiveness Reduce risks related to drought and climate change events Enhance the ability of the natural ecosystem and communities to cope with and recover from stress
  19. 19. LIVESTOCK MARKETING: CO-MANAGEMENT Livestock marketing associations (LMA) partnership with local authorites e.g. case in Samburu for co-management between LMA and county council
  20. 20. Multiple water solutions- development & management ofdiverse water resources in a landscape boreholes run off harvesting (water ponds and sand dams pans) multiple water solutions shallow wells roof catchment rock catchment
  21. 21. Range rehabilitation-group ranches - Laikipia B) Range rehabilitation in grazing land need to be combined with controlled grazing A) Before rehabilitationA) Range rehabilitation byreseeding grazingdegraded areas B) After rehabilitation
  22. 22. PROMOTION OF WILDLIFE/LIVESTOCKINTERACTIONS- MULTIPLE USE OF RANGELANDSa) Livestock-wildlife shared ecosystems e.g. community conservancies in Northern Rangeland Trustb) Re-introduction of wildlife in historically and ecologically suited areas
  23. 23. ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODSAloe farming e.g. piloted in Turkana Bee keeping e.g. several counties in lower Eastern
  24. 24. COMMUNITY ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICES •Trained pastoralists as paravets with government support •Community drug stores •Link to drug distributors/companies e.g. LMA in Wajir supplies drugsDrug store inNamoruputhTurkana
  25. 25. PAYMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES• Ecotourism facilities e.g. Sasaab lodge -West Gate Conservancy (WGC)in Samburu): community-private sector partnership model• Payments for securing wildlife corridor e.g. Kitengela Wildlife Leaseprogram Sasaab lodge, WGC, Samburu
  26. 26. APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGIES•Solar pump for –boreholes•Solar driers•Wind power• Solar pump in Namoruputh (Turkana) with capacity of 20,000Litres/hour (Practical Action Project)
  28. 28. Interventions that have failed or performed poorlyIntervention Reasons for failure (lessons) Impact of failureLivestock off-take through KMC Insufficient funds Massive livestock losses -64 billion shillings worth of livestock died this year aloneKenya Livestock Development Failure to understand the role ofProject Phase 1 livestock in the pastoral value(Commercialization of pastoral system- e.g. the pastoralist werelivestock production) reluctant to release their young calves for fattening - considered more resilient to droughtWater resources management Poor maintenance of water Stalled water facilities structures e.g. silted dams in dry Range degradation land areas around water points Poor citing of boreholes Sedenterization trend High cost of maintenance of equipment e.g. due to frequent breakdowns especially during water –stress
  29. 29. Interventions that have failed or performed poorlyIntervention Reasons for failure (lessons) Impact of failureContingency funding Untimely disbursement of funds- Contributed to cycle of comes in too late when damage humanitarian crisis has already taken place making it makes it difficulty for more. communities to recoverLivestock Group ranches Mismanagement, Collapse of group land tenure challenges ranches; leading to Inequitable benefits to members- subdivision of group those who held bigger herds ranches; benefited more Threatens extensive nomadic livestock production. Land degradationBee keeping Cultural problem/ issues – Honey production below pastoralist still attached to capacity livestock Technical problems- e.g. design of bee hives, processing
  30. 30. Interventions that have failed or performed poorlyIntervention Reasons for failure (lessons) Impact of failureRange rehabilitation Land Tenure system challenges Pilot basis - No up-scaling e.g. in Baringo districtCommunity Conservancy approach Land tenure /access challenges Exacerbated conflicts/ e.g. access for land at the Pokot- Resource based Samburu border Benefit sharing- lack of clear formulaeIrrigation Wrong technology e.g. Diesel Increased food insecurity pumpsEarly warning system Failure to integrate modern early Poor up-take of EWMs and warning with traditional Information from KMD knowledge (which is trusted) Poor packaging of early warning Massive livestock loses information- Poor mode of dissemination of information e.g. bulletins are not as effective as radio messages
  31. 31. LESSONS LEARNT FROM PAST HUMANITARIAN $ DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS HOA livelihood interventions should be informed by wider cross border ecosystem functions and pastoral identities Building community structures/ institutions -increases the local capacity to manage droughts and respond to emergencies Multi-stakeholder approach to disaster management leads to improved responses through enhanced funding and sharing of experiences and best practices
  32. 32. LESSONS LEARNT CONTI……. Heavy livestock losses- some pastoral families are forced to transit from nomadic life to crop farming Women role in enhancing resilience - by empowerment through credit facility schemes and support for income generating activities Facilitation to access grazing and watering resources through inter and intra community negotiation is an important adaptation strategy Climate change impacts like drought aggravate resource-based conflicts
  33. 33. POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGESFactors undermining effectiveness of climate change resilience•Dis-jointed government policies due to sectoral approach•CCA measures NOT yet mainstreamed in most sectoral policies• Long legislative process for policy enactment and political intrigues e.g. delay inenacting ASAL policy In Kenya•Ignorance and lack of awareness of policy reforms – due to top down approach•Weak policy enforcement by relevant government departments•Cross border sharing of resources for CCA not well understood by policy makers acrossthe HOA region• Biased policies - e.g. policies that favor agric at the expense of pastoralism in ASALs,WTO policies favor comparative advantage agric. at the expense smallscale indigenouscropping•Lack of policies on value of dryland resources and ecosystems in the HOA
  34. 34. POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES CONTI--Factors undermining effectiveness of climate change resilienceWeak government coordination of actors and interventionsWeak pastoral and agro-pastoral institutions e.g. cannoteffectively enforce agreementsLimited capacity (human and financial) and knowledge amongactors in CCA approachesCorruption and weak governance (e.g. recent case of WB-funded ALRMP)Lack of political will and political interference in developmentand humanitarian work
  35. 35. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Responding to CC require long term –approaches Actors must appreciate dynamics /trends in pastoralism Need to distinguish adaptation initiatives that enhance resilience of communities from those that undermine their resilience . Pastoralists must be supported to maintain the extraordinary resilience inherent to their traditional way of life.
  36. 36. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONT’D Government should provide leadership in vetting interventions which may undermine or enhance resilience in the long term Support programs that address conflicts and insecurity in the HOA Build on natural resource management to enhance community resilience to climate change. Strengthen non-livestock based interventions to diversify livelihoods and enhance resilience to CC Future programs and projects should build on past interventions in the ASALs Community participation is key to building their resilience to climate change
  37. 37. CONCLUSION & RECOM CONTI….. Legislation of key policies eg. Disaster management policy , ASAL policy Support community managed disaster risk reduction Support CBEWS- Early warning information dissemination through local media
  38. 38. WAY FORWARD: INVESTMENTS FOR ENHANCING RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGEProposed investments for enhancing resilience to climate change: Strengthen livestock-based livelihoods to improve household food security and incomes Improved water management practices particularly water harvesting technologies Practices that reduce land degradation and increase land productivity and ecosystem resilience Capacity building of local institutions and communities to strengthen local level adaptation/coping mechanisms Infrastructure development: road networks, communication and social amenities Disaster risk management due to increased frequency and magnitude of disasters e.g. community-based disaster risk reduction Supporting and strengthening activities of enterprise-based interventions such as the village cooperative banks and livestock marketing associations
  39. 39. PRINCIPLES FOR RESILIENCE PROGRAMMINGCore principles identified by development specialists (Frankenberger T., Campbell J., Njoka J.T., Spangler T., & S. Nelson, 2012):i. Support a change, over time, in the balance of effort and resources from humanitarian assistance toward disaster risk management, climate change adaptation, livelihood support and social protection;ii. Recognize and respond to the different needs, capabilities and aspirations of different people, especially those of the most vulnerable groups (women, children, orphans, elderly, displaced);iii. Build the capacity of formal and informal institutions for equitable natural resource management, conflict mitigation and social protection;iv. Advocate for and promote improved governance among government institutions and civil society by supporting responsive policies, transparent resource allocation and greater accountability;v. Inform coherent policy formulation and programme design that responds to ongoing change in environmental, social and economic conditions;
  40. 40. PRINCIPLES FOR RESILIENCE PROGRAMMINGvi. Enable community participation by identifying and engaging customary institutions and valuable forms of traditional knowledge for coping with climate variability;vii. Promote empowerment of women by creating greater opportunity for their involvement in key institutions and decision-making processes;viii.Be owned at the country level by linking with national policies and investment plans consistent with the CAADP and the Hyogo Framework for Action;ix. Build effective partnerships that draw on the comparative advantages of a wide range of stakeholders; andx. Do no harm: Ensure that neither humanitarian responses nor development initiatives undermine the ability of vulnerable populations to achieve livelihood security over the long-term.
  41. 41. THANK YOU