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

1. ReSAKSS ECA Stakeholder Workshop
11th June, 2012
ENHANCING 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

2. MAP OF THE HORN OF AFRICA

3. STUDY METHODOLOGY
Research questions
i. 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. STUDY METHODOLOGY
Selection 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. 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. FACTS CONTI---
Livelihoods in ASALs of the HoA region are at
risk from:
 Rising temperatures
 More intense and variable rainfalls
 frequent and severe droughts
 Declining land productivity
 political instability and insecurity

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. Overview of land uses/resource uses in the ASALs
≈livelihoods
Livestock
Rainfed farming
Alternatives:
charcoal
burning Wildlife

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

10. 6/20/2012
IMPACT OF DROUGHT OVER THE YEARS -CASE OF KENYA
10

11. IMPACT OF DROUGHT OVER THE YEARS -CASE OF KENYA
Relationship between drought events and GDP growth in Kenya over two decades11

12. Examples Past
Interventions

13. 6/20/2012
13

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. 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. 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. 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

18. EXAMPLES OF SUCCESS:
CASE STUDIES-

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. Multiple water solutions- development & management of
diverse 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. Range rehabilitation-group ranches -
Laikipia
B) Range rehabilitation
in grazing land need to
be combined with
controlled grazing
A) Before rehabilitation
A) Range rehabilitation by
reseeding grazing
degraded areas
B) After rehabilitation

22. PROMOTION OF WILDLIFE/LIVESTOCK
INTERACTIONS- MULTIPLE USE OF RANGELANDS
a) Livestock-wildlife shared ecosystems e.g. community conservancies
in Northern Rangeland Trust
b) Re-introduction of wildlife in historically and ecologically suited areas

23. ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS
Aloe farming e.g. piloted in Turkana Bee keeping e.g. several counties
in lower Eastern

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 drugs
Drug store in
NamoruputhTurkana

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 Lease
program
Sasaab lodge, WGC, Samburu

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)

27. CASES OF SOME PAST FAILURES

28. Interventions that have failed or performed poorly
Intervention Reasons for failure (lessons) Impact of failure
Livestock off-take through KMC Insufficient funds Massive livestock losses
-64 billion shillings worth
of livestock died this
year alone
Kenya Livestock Development Failure to understand the role of
Project Phase 1 livestock in the pastoral value
(Commercialization of pastoral system- e.g. the pastoralist were
livestock production) reluctant to release their young
calves for fattening - considered
more resilient to drought
Water 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. Interventions that have failed or performed poorly
Intervention Reasons for failure (lessons) Impact of failure
Contingency 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 recover
Livestock 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 degradation
Bee keeping Cultural problem/ issues – Honey production below
pastoralist still attached to capacity
livestock
Technical problems- e.g. design of
bee hives, processing

30. Interventions that have failed or performed poorly
Intervention Reasons for failure (lessons) Impact of failure
Range rehabilitation Land Tenure system challenges Pilot basis - No up-scaling
e.g. in Baringo district
Community 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
formulae
Irrigation Wrong technology e.g. Diesel Increased food insecurity
pumps
Early 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. 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. 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. POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES
Factors 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 in
enacting 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 across
the 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 indigenous
cropping
•Lack of policies on value of dryland resources and ecosystems in the HOA

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. cannot
effectively enforce agreements
Limited capacity (human and financial) and knowledge among
actors in CCA approaches
Corruption and weak governance (e.g. recent case of WB-
funded ALRMP)
Lack of political will and political interference in development
and humanitarian work

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. 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. 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. WAY FORWARD: INVESTMENTS FOR ENHANCING
RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Proposed 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. PRINCIPLES FOR RESILIENCE PROGRAMMING
Core 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. PRINCIPLES FOR RESILIENCE PROGRAMMING
vi. 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; and
x. 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. THANK YOU