Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Dynamics of Institutional Arrangements and
their Adaptation to Socio-economic and
Ecological Challenges in Pastoral Areas ...
Content
• Introduction – Background, problem statement, objectives
• Methodology
• Results – (per paper)
• Conclusions
• R...
Introduction
Background
• Kenyas’ drylands make up 84% of Kenya’s total
terrestrial land surface (Barrow and Mogaka, 2007)...
Problem statement
• Customary institutions have weakened (group
ranch sub-division, change from community
to private) a si...
Objectives
• Overall objective
 To understand dynamics of pastoral IA and how this is
influencing value of ecosystem serv...
Methodology
Study area
Cont..
• Purposive (IA) and random sampling (Village,
HH)
• Sample size 150 HH- (Israel 2009)
• Data collection - Qualitat...
Paper 1
Existing Pastoralists’ Institutional
Arrangements and their Dynamic State in
the Northern Rangelands of Kenya
• Au...
Conceptual framework
Exogenous factors
(i.e. Land tenure)
Hybrid institutions
Customary
institutions
IA managing resources 2002
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Kinna
MakurianGR
WestGateCC
Kinna
MakurianGR
WestGateCC
Kinna
Ma...
IA managing resources 2012
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Kinna
MakurianGR
WestGateCC
Kinna
MakurianGR
WestGateCC
Kinna
Ma...
Cont..
Land tenure influence
County Area
(Km2)
Land
tenur
e
CC
(2012)
Laikipia 9,500 GR 4
Sambu
ru
21,00
0
GR 7
Isiolo 25,...
Perceptions on IA performance
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Transparency Participatory Equity Market creation Partnership Eff...
Paper 2
Economic Value of Ecosystem Services
Benefits across Different Pastoralist
Institutional Arrangements in the
North...
Conceptual framework (TEV)
Elders
Group ranch committee
Community conservancy board
Indirect
value
Direct
values
Aggregate...
Sources of household revenue
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Camels
Cattle
Chicken
Donkeys
Goats
Goat skin
Gum arabica
Maize
...
Livestock and livestock products sales
(2002, 2012)
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,00...
Households employment revenue
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Kinna Division Makurian GR West Gat...
Direct (HH revenue) and indirect
(communal revenue) values
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000...
Effect of IA
Direct value Coef. Std. Err. t P>t [95% Conf. Interval]
Kinna (Elders)
Makurian (Group Ranch) -24095 48252.39...
Paper 3
Assessing External Actors Roles in Facilitating
Institutional Dynamism and Socio- economic
and Ecological Developm...
Conceptual framework
State and non state actors
Socioeconomic and ecological
factors
Customary
institutions
Hybrid
institu...
External actors present
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Government
NGOs
Private ranches
Private sector
Religious or...
Addressing socio-economic and
ecological factors
Government and NGO support
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%...
Paper 4
Adaptation of Institutional Arrangements
to Management of Northern Rangelands
of Kenya
• Author – Kanyuuru Carolin...
Conceptual framework
Customary
institutions
Hybrid
institutions
• Co-management
• Livelihood
diversification
Resilience
IA addressing socio-economic and
ecological factors
2002 2012
Difference in IA in 2002 and 2012
(Pearson Chi-square)
Factors challenging development Institutional arrangement
(IA2002, ...
Conclusion
• IAs managing resources in NK are changing and
existing land tenure may have an influence on the
change
• IAs ...
Recommendations
• In drafting the National land policy-
community land aspect, the government
should consider a co-managem...
This work is financed by The Nature Conservancy
It is implemented in a partnership with University of Nairobi,
Northern Ra...
The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Dynamics of institutional arrangements and their adaptation to socio-economic and ecological challenges in pastoral areas of northern Kenya

981 views

Published on

Presented by Caroline Kanyuuru at the Livelihood, Gender and Impact Meeting, Nairobi, 1 October 2015

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

Dynamics of institutional arrangements and their adaptation to socio-economic and ecological challenges in pastoral areas of northern Kenya

  1. 1. Dynamics of Institutional Arrangements and their Adaptation to Socio-economic and Ecological Challenges in Pastoral Areas of Northern Kenya Caroline Kanyuuru Livelihood, Gender and Impact Meeting Nairobi, 1 October 2015
  2. 2. Content • Introduction – Background, problem statement, objectives • Methodology • Results – (per paper) • Conclusions • Recommendations Thesis link http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11295 /90151/Kanyuuru_Dynamics%20of%20institutional%20arrang ements%20and%20their%20adaptation%20to.pdf?sequence= 1
  3. 3. Introduction Background • Kenyas’ drylands make up 84% of Kenya’s total terrestrial land surface (Barrow and Mogaka, 2007) • 80% of the country’s eco-tourism interests, 60% of the nation’s livestock (Barrow and Mogaka, 2007) and support about 10million people (CBD/UNEP/IUCN, 2007). • Management of the environment has rested on customary institutions to make and uphold rules and sanction breach of those rules • The governance approach needs to be flexible and have the capacity to respond to environmental feedback (Resilience)
  4. 4. Problem statement • Customary institutions have weakened (group ranch sub-division, change from community to private) a significant threat to sustainable natural resource management (IUCN, 2011). • A general lack of understanding of the value of the rangelands in entirety (Oba and Kotile, 2001).
  5. 5. Objectives • Overall objective  To understand dynamics of pastoral IA and how this is influencing value of ecosystem services benefits • Specific objective  Identify existing IA and their change over time  Measure direct and indirect values of pastoral ecosystem services benefits in different IA (ESVA)  Assess how external actors are facilitating IA dynamism  Assess how IA are adapting to socio-economic and ecological factors challenging development.
  6. 6. Methodology Study area
  7. 7. Cont.. • Purposive (IA) and random sampling (Village, HH) • Sample size 150 HH- (Israel 2009) • Data collection - Qualitative (FGDs and KI) and quantitative (HH survey) • Data mgt & analysis (MS Access, MS excel, SNA, STATA, SPSS,) • Economic valuation (TEV framework)
  8. 8. Paper 1 Existing Pastoralists’ Institutional Arrangements and their Dynamic State in the Northern Rangelands of Kenya • Authors – Kanyuuru Caroline, Mburu John, Njoka Jesse
  9. 9. Conceptual framework Exogenous factors (i.e. Land tenure) Hybrid institutions Customary institutions
  10. 10. IA managing resources 2002 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Kinna MakurianGR WestGateCC Kinna MakurianGR WestGateCC Kinna MakurianGR WestGateCC Kinna MakurianGR WestGateCC Kinna MakurianGR WestGateCC Forest Mgt Land mgt Livestock & pasture mgt Water Mgt Wildlife Mgt Institutionalarrangements Resource management Government &NGOs Conservancy board Group Ranch committee Elders only
  11. 11. IA managing resources 2012 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Kinna MakurianGR WestGateCC Kinna MakurianGR WestGateCC Kinna MakurianGR WambaWest Kinna MakurianGR WestGateCC Kinna MakurianGR WestGateCC Forest Mgt Land Mgt Livestock & pasture Mgt Water Mgt Wildlife Mgt Institutionalarrangments Resource management Government &NGOs Conservancy board Group Ranch committee Elders only
  12. 12. Cont.. Land tenure influence County Area (Km2) Land tenur e CC (2012) Laikipia 9,500 GR 4 Sambu ru 21,00 0 GR 7 Isiolo 25,60 5 Trust land 3 Principle component analysis Resource IA mgt 2012 IA mgt 2002 IA mgt 2002 Forest (2002) -0.16 0.398 0.080 Forest (2012) 0.198 0.080 -0.040 Land tenure (2002) 0.137 -0.101 -0.011 Land tenure (2012) 0.219 -0.020 -0.018 Livestock&pasture (2002) -0.17 -0.011 0.845 Livestock&pasture (2012) 0.211 -0.084 0.041 Water (2002) -0.006 0.413 -0.428 Water (2012) 0.212 0.023 -0.030 Wildlife (2002) -0.011 0.397 0.164 Wildlife (2012) 0.182 0.061 0.021
  13. 13. Perceptions on IA performance 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Transparency Participatory Equity Market creation Partnership Effectiveness Activeinstitutionalarrangements Socio-economic indicators of a robust institutional arrangement Elders Group ranch committee Conservancy board
  14. 14. Paper 2 Economic Value of Ecosystem Services Benefits across Different Pastoralist Institutional Arrangements in the Northern Rangelands of Kenya • Authors - Kanyuuru Caroline, Mburu John, Njoka Jesse
  15. 15. Conceptual framework (TEV) Elders Group ranch committee Community conservancy board Indirect value Direct values Aggregate value
  16. 16. Sources of household revenue 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Camels Cattle Chicken Donkeys Goats Goat skin Gum arabica Maize Milk Sheep Sugar Tomatoes Maize flour Proportion of households trading Generalsourcesofhouseholdrevenue No of HH (2002) No of HH (2012)
  17. 17. Livestock and livestock products sales (2002, 2012) - 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 Kinna Makurian GR West Gate Livestockandlivestockproductrevenues Study sites Livestock & livestock products sales 2012 Livestock & livestock products sales 2002
  18. 18. Households employment revenue - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Kinna Division Makurian GR West Gate CC Permanentandcasualemploymentaveragerevenues Study sites Average revenue (permanent) Average revenue (casual)
  19. 19. Direct (HH revenue) and indirect (communal revenue) values - 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 Kinna Division Makurian GR West Gate CC Aggregateeconomicvalues Study sites indirect value Direct value
  20. 20. Effect of IA Direct value Coef. Std. Err. t P>t [95% Conf. Interval] Kinna (Elders) Makurian (Group Ranch) -24095 48252.39 -0.5 0.618 -119640 71449.52 Westgate (Community Conservancy) -150558 41182.37 -3.66 0.000 -232104 -69013.2 Age -240.857 749.0791 -0.32 0.748 -1724.11 1242.395 Gender -66874.8 28443.76 -2.35 0.0200 -123196 -10553.3 hhsize 8914.272 30191.65 0.3 0.768 -50868.2 68696.76
  21. 21. Paper 3 Assessing External Actors Roles in Facilitating Institutional Dynamism and Socio- economic and Ecological Development in the Northern Rangelands of Kenya • Author – Kanyuuru Caroline, Mburu John, Njoka Jesse
  22. 22. Conceptual framework State and non state actors Socioeconomic and ecological factors Customary institutions Hybrid institutions
  23. 23. External actors present 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Government NGOs Private ranches Private sector Religious organization Research institutions Government NGOs Private ranches Private sector Religious organization Research institutions Government NGOs Private ranches Private sector Religious organization Research institutions EldersonlyGroupranchcommittee Community conservancyboard Level of engagement Externalactorsoperatingindifferentstudysites
  24. 24. Addressing socio-economic and ecological factors Government and NGO support 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% Ecological Economic Social Actoraddressingchallenges Category of challenges Government NGOs What government should prioritize 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Notimportant Important VeryImportant Notimportant Important VeryImportant Notimportant Important VeryImportant Kinna Makurian GR West Gate CC Categoryofchallenges What government should prioritize in the study sites Social Economic Ecological
  25. 25. Paper 4 Adaptation of Institutional Arrangements to Management of Northern Rangelands of Kenya • Author – Kanyuuru Caroline, Mburu John, Njoka Jesse • Published – Environment, Development and Sustainability http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-015- 9718-y
  26. 26. Conceptual framework Customary institutions Hybrid institutions • Co-management • Livelihood diversification Resilience
  27. 27. IA addressing socio-economic and ecological factors 2002 2012
  28. 28. Difference in IA in 2002 and 2012 (Pearson Chi-square) Factors challenging development Institutional arrangement (IA2002, IA2012) Social Insecurity, negative politics, cattle rustling, low education levels, land tenure challenges and negative culture practices (χ2=28.567, p=0.001) Economic Low infrastructure, low financial services, low entrepreneurial skills, lack of livestock markets, middlemen and untapped ecotourism (χ2=27.6159, p=0.001) Ecological droughts, disease, floods, pasture degradation and water degradation. (χ2=32.575, p=0.000).
  29. 29. Conclusion • IAs managing resources in NK are changing and existing land tenure may have an influence on the change • IAs are embracing a co-management approach overtime • Number of external actors present were higher where IA had a semi formal structure (GR&CC) • Co-management offers pastoralist more opportunity to diversify livelihood
  30. 30. Recommendations • In drafting the National land policy- community land aspect, the government should consider a co-management approach • It offers rangeland management capacity • Provides opportunity for livelihood diversification • These are two features of resilient ecosystems.
  31. 31. This work is financed by The Nature Conservancy It is implemented in a partnership with University of Nairobi, Northern Rangelands Trust Acknowledgements
  32. 32. The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI. better lives through livestock ilri.org

×