1.
IMPACT OF ADOPTION OF CLIMATE-SMART
TECHNOLOGIES ON INCOME AMONG AGRO-
PASTORALISTS COMMUNITIES IN MARSABIT
COUNTY, KENYA
Gudere ,A; Wemali,E
and Ndunda ,E.

2.
Background
• Climate change is a serious phenomenon affecting all communities
calling for interventions to reduce vulnerability
• Climate change negatively affect livestock and crop production
systems
• Marsabit County has experienced drought ,a major threat to
peoples’ livelihoods and socio-economic development.
• This is exemplified in livestock deaths due to pasture scarcity and
crop failures or reduced yields in the arable areas of ASALs.

3.
Cont..
• Agro-pastoralists communities are in critical need of climate smart agricultural
technologies and practices.
• Climate Smart agricultural technologies and practices (CSA) are an intervention to
climate variability and change that is threatening livelihoods.
• Climate Smart Technologies and Adaptation options have been found to sustainably
increase productivity, enhance resilience to climatic stresses, and reduce greenhouse
gases (Lipper et al., 2014,World Bank, 2020).
• Studies show that adopters have experienced increase in yields from the fields and
improved income (Imran et al., (2018); Wekesa et al., (2018); Ogada et al., (2020); Mango
et al. (2020); Musafiri et al., 2022).
• This presentation is based on one of the objectives of the study which was:
• To assess how adaptation of livestock-crop climate smart technologies and practices impacts
on livelihoods of agro-pastoralists of Marsabit County.

4.
Methodology

5.
Study location

6.
Sites visited

7.
Methodology
• Survey research design was adopted for the study.
• Saku Sub-County was purposively selected.
• The sampling frame were households whose social organization is
based on the growing of crops and the raising of livestock as the
primary means of economic activity.
• Agropastoralists were randomly selected from Karare,
Sagante/Jaldesa, Dakabaricha/Marsabit Central wards.
• Saku Sub County, falls in zone IV and zone V. The study sample was
373 households derived from Yamane formula (Yamane, 1967).

8.
Methodology cont.…
• Semi – structured questionnaire was administered through face-face
interviews to the house hold heads
• Six focus Group Discussions were held where each group had each set
of gender, one with male only and one with female only. This was done to
allow free participation to avoid cultural biasness.
• Key informant Interview :relevant livestock, agricultural officers, and
development partners (non-governmental organizations),participants for
this were purposively selected as the tool required people with expert
knowledge on specific aspects
• Data collected was analyzed using propensity score matching(PSM)
using STATA version 15

9.
Cont..
• Sample Size
The study population 373 households derived from Yamane formula 1967)
• Yamane sample size is as given below:
• 𝑛 =
𝑁
1+𝑁(𝑒2)
• Where: n is the sample size; N is the total population of study and e is the
allowable error (%).
• 𝒏 =
𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟕
𝟏+𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟕(𝟎.𝟎𝟓)𝟐
= 373 households

10.
Results &Discussion
Demographic information of respondents Frequency(n) Percentage (%)
Age(number) 48
Household size(number) 7
Average monthly income(ksh) 5204
Gender Female 155 41.6
Male 218 58.4
Marital status Single 73 19.6
Married 300 80.4
Level of education Non-formal Education 243 65.1
Formal Education 130 34.9

11.
Crop-Livestock climate CST&P
adopted
• Improved and traditional crop varieties
• Improved crop varieties was practiced at 92% and growing traditional crops was
15.5%
• Managing diversity on farm
• Crop rotation 56% (n=209) and intercropping 36.5% (n=136).
• Water and water use management
• Grow water efficient crops-36.7%, rainwater harvesting by use of storage tanks was
29.5% and water pans-11.5%, small scale micro irrigation 16.9% , mulching 13.4%

12.
Cont..
Soil fertility management
• Manure application-68.4%,crop retaining residues 31.4%, agroforestry
21.7%, mulching %13.4, fertilizer application 9.1%. The finding agree with
Ouédraogo, et. al., (2019) and Mwaura et al., (2021) who found that
manure application was highest practiced.
Livestock management
• Improved livestock breeds 19.8 %, local breeds 7.2%
Pasture management and conservation
• Fodder conservation and storage 49.6%, supplementary feeding 44.5%,
destocking 24.1%, grassland management 18.8%, rangeland reseeding
1.9%

13.
Effect of adopting CST&P on income
Average monthly income ATE Caliper nn (nearest neighbor)
Coef. Std. Err Sig. Coef. Std. Err Sig. Coef. Std. Err Sig.
Crop farming
(1 vs 0)
-1181.859 407.8588 0.007 -1792.59 670.17 0.004 -931.46 344.73 0.007
Livestock farming
(1 vs 0)
-3120.509 279.7527 0.009 -2881.48 1109.34 0.000 -3156.52 366.95 0.000
Crop and livestock
(1 vs 0)
1895.755 473.3692 0.008 1193.68 447.28 0.000 1704.18 332.84 0.000

14.
Cont..
• Results from propensity score matching shows that the coefficient of
those agro-pastoralists who adopted CST&P for either crop farming or
livestock farming is significantly negative .
• Respondents who had adopted CST&P for both crop growing and
livestock rearing have higher average monthly income than those who
have adopted either crop farming or livestock keeping practices.
• The study showed that the income was highest for those agro-
pastoralists who rely on both crops and livestock smart practices followed
by those who adopted crop smart practices and agro-pastoralists who
had only livestock CST&P earned the least income

15.
Conclusion
• There were negative impact on the income for the agro-pastoralists
whose main source of income is from either crop or livestock
farming
• There was positive impact on adoption of climate smart
technologies on the income of those who practiced both crop and
livestock farming
• The adoption of crop and livestock climate smart technologies and
practice showed that there was higher income for agro-pastoralists
who integrated crop and livestock CST&P thus helps to encourage
promotion and dissemination of multiple and combined packages of
both crop and livestock CST&P.

16.
Recommendations
• The study recommends the integration of crop and livestock
production by agro-pastoralists for increased income and
resilience.
• The ministry of agriculture in county and national government,
research institutions, NGOs, CBOs should promote integration of
crop and livestock farming in dissemination and upscaling of
climate smart technologies and practices,

17.
Thank You