Dynamics of Institutional Arrangements and their Adaptation to Socio-economic and Ecological Challenges in Pastoral Areas of Northern Kenya

Transcription

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 Content Introduction Background, problem statement, objectives Methodology Results (per paper) Conclusions Recommendations Thesis link /90151/Kanyuuru_Dynamics%20of%20institutional%20arrang ements%20and%20their%20adaptation%20to.pdf?sequence= 1

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 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 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 Methodology Study area

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 Paper 1 Existing Pastoralists Institutional Arrangements and their Dynamic State in the Northern Rangelands of Kenya Authors Kanyuuru Caroline, Mburu John, Njoka Jesse

9 Conceptual framework Exogenous factors (i.e. Land tenure) Customary institutions Hybrid institutions

10 Kinna Makurian GR West Gate CC Kinna Makurian GR West Gate CC Kinna Makurian GR West Gate CC Kinna Makurian GR West Gate CC Kinna Makurian GR West Gate CC Institutional arrangements IA managing resources Government &NGOs Conservancy board Group Ranch committee Elders only 0 Forest Mgt Land mgt Livestock & pasture mgt Resource management Water Mgt Wildlife Mgt

11 Kinna Makurian GR West Gate CC Kinna Makurian GR West Gate CC Kinna Makurian GR Wamba West Kinna Makurian GR West Gate CC Kinna Makurian GR West Gate CC Institutional arrangments IA managing resources Government &NGOs Conservancy board Group Ranch committee Elders only 0 Forest Mgt Land Mgt Livestock & pasture Mgt Resource management Water Mgt Wildlife Mgt

12 Cont.. Land tenure influence County Area (Km 2 ) Land tenur e Laikipia 9,500 GR 4 CC (2012) Principle component analysis Resource IA mgt 2012 IA mgt 2002 IA mgt 2002 Forest (2002) Forest (2012) Land tenure (2002) Land tenure (2012) Sambu ru 21,00 0 Isiolo 25,60 5 GR 7 Trust land 3 Livestock&pasture (2002) Livestock&pasture (2012) Water (2002) Water (2012) Wildlife (2002) Wildlife (2012)

13 Active institutional arrangements Perceptions on IA performance 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Elders Group ranch committee Conservancy board 10% 0% Transparency Participatory Equity Market creation Partnership Effectiveness Socio-economic indicators of a robust institutional arrangement

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 Conceptual framework (TEV) Elders Group ranch committee Community conservancy board Direct values Indirect value Aggregate value

16 General sources of household revenue Sources of household revenue Maize flour Tomatoes Sugar Sheep Milk Maize Gum arabica Goat skin No of HH (2002) No of HH (2012) Goats Donkeys Chicken Cattle Camels Proportion of households trading

17 Livestock and livestock product revenues Livestock and livestock products sales (2002, 2012) 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 Livestock & livestock products sales 2012 Livestock & livestock products sales ,000,000 1,000,000 - Kinna Makurian GR West Gate Study sites

18 Permanent and casual employment average revenues Households employment revenue 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 Average revenue (permanent) Average revenue (casual) 15,000 10,000 5,000 - Kinna Division Makurian GR West Gate CC Study sites

19 Aggregate economic values Direct (HH revenue) and indirect (communal revenue) values 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 indirect value Direct value 4,000,000 2,000,000 - Kinna Division Makurian GR West Gate CC Study sites

20 Effect of IA Direct value Coef. Std. Err. t P>t [95% Conf. Interval] Kinna (Elders) Makurian (Group Ranch) Westgate (Community Conservancy) Age Gender hhsize

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 Conceptual framework State and non state actors Customary institutions Hybrid institutions Socioeconomic and ecological factors

23 External actors operating in different study sites Elders only Group ranch committee Community conservancy board External actors present Research institutions Religious organization Private sector Private ranches NGOs Government Research institutions Religious organization Private sector Private ranches NGOs Government Research institutions Religious organization Private sector Private ranches NGOs Government 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Level of engagement

24 Actor addressing challenges Addressing socio-economic and Category of challenges Not important Important Very Important Not important Important Very Important Not important Important Very Important ecological factors Government and NGO support What government should prioritize 40.00% 120% 35.00% 100% 30.00% 80% 60% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% Government NGOs 40% 20% 0% Social Economic Ecological 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Ecological Economic Social Category of challenges Kinna Makurian GR West Gate CC What government should prioritize in the study sites

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 y

26 Conceptual framework Customary institutions Co-management Livelihood diversification Hybrid institutions Resilience

27 IA addressing socio-economic and ecological factors

28 Difference in IA in 2002 and 2012 (Pearson Chi-square) Factors challenging development Social Insecurity, negative politics, cattle rustling, low education levels, land tenure challenges and negative culture practices Economic Low infrastructure, low financial services, low entrepreneurial skills, lack of livestock markets, middlemen and untapped ecotourism Institutional arrangement (IA2002, IA2012) (χ 2 =28.567, p=0.001) (χ 2 = , p=0.001) Ecological droughts, disease, floods, pasture degradation and water degradation. (χ 2 =32.575, p=0.000).

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 Recommendations In drafting the National land policycommunity 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 Acknowledgements This work is financed by The Nature Conservancy It is implemented in a partnership with University of Nairobi, Northern Rangelands Trust

32 better lives through livestock ilri.org The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.