Study report on strengthening rangeland management in wajir county by Oxfam Kenya

STUDY REPORT ON STRENGTHENING RANGELAND MANAGEMENT UK AID FUNDED STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY RESILIENCE PROJECT IN WAJIR

Funding provided by UK aid from the UK government.

Report written by: Dr. Moses Nyangito, Mr. Yazan Elhadi & Mr. Oscar Koech from SEDPA Limited

May 2014 Cover Photo: Jane Beesley/Oxfam

STUDY REPORT ON STRENGTHENING RANGELAND MANAGEMENT UK AID FUNDED STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY RESILIENCE PROJECT IN WAJIR

Table of Contents List of Tables ...........................................................................................................................5 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 6! ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...............................................................................................7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 8! CHAPTER ONE........................................................................................................................... 12! 1.

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 12! 1.1.! Background .................................................................................................................... 12! 1.2.! Location and Administrative arrangements in Wajir County ..................................... 13! 1.3.! Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 16!

CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................... 17! 2.! PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................................................ 17! 2.1.! Purpose of the study..................................................................................................... 17! 2.2.! Study Objectives ............................................................................................................ 17! CHAPTER THREE ....................................................................................................................... 19! 3.! METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................ 19! 3.1 Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 19! 3.1.1 Literature review ............................................................................................................ 19! 3.1.2. Household/individual questionnaire .......................................................................... 19! 3.2.3. Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) ................................................................................... 20! 3.2.4 Key informant interviews ............................................................................................... 21! 3.2.5 Guided transect walks ................................................................................................... 21! 3.2 Data analysis ..................................................................................................................... 21! CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................................................ 22! 4. RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE STUDY................................................................... 22! 4.1! Pastoral Household Characteristics ............................................................................. 22! 4.2! Land Use and Tenure...................................................................................................... 25! 4.3! Rangeland Management Practices ............................................................................... 31! 4.4! Issues Related to rangeland Management .................................................................. 40! 4.5! Rangeland Management Policy and Institutional Support ......................................... 44! CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................... 50! 5! KEY FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD................................................................. 50! 5.1 Key Findings ....................................................................................................................... 50! !

5.2! Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 55! 5.3! Way Forward ................................................................................................................... 55! APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 58! 6.1! References ...................................................................................................................... 58! 6.2! Pictures ........................................................................................................................... 59! 6.3! Household/individual questionnaire ............................................................................ 60! 6.4! Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) Guide .......................................................................... 66! 6.5! Key informant question guide ....................................................................................... 67! 6.6! List of key informants..................................................................................................... 69!

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Administrative arrangements in Wajir County ............................................................. 14 Table 2: Household sources of Income rank and average monthly amount ........................... 25 Table 3: Land type and nature of ownership ............................................................................. 26 Table 4: Conflict resolution at various levels............................................................................. 30 Table 5: Willingness to donate land for development and conditions for donation .............. 30 Table 6: Livestock numbers during wet and dry seasons......................................................... 33 Table 7: Coping strategies used to alleviate livestock feed shortage .................................... 34 Table 8: Grazing strategies dynamics ........................................................................................ 35 Table 9: Challenges to grazing management for various seasons .......................................... 38 Table 10: Water sources and their reliability in Wajir County ................................................... 38 Table 11: Positive and negative impacts of urbanization/settlements in Wajir County ........ 42 Table 12: Gander role in rangeland production, marketing and management ........................ 44 Table 13: Community awareness on rangeland related policies.............................................. 44 Table 14: Measures to protect rangeland by communities ...................................................... 47

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location of Wajir County Kenya ................................................................................... 14 Figure 2: Sex of the household head .......................................................................................... 22 Figure 3: Education level of the household head ...................................................................... 23 Figure 4: Main occupation of household heads ........................................................................ 24 Figure 5: Communities access to grazing land during different seasons ............................... 26 Figure 6: Awareness and experience of land related conflict .................................................. 28 Figure 7: Source of conflicts experienced in the area .............................................................. 29 Figure 8: Challenges in land management................................................................................. 32 Figure 9: Best grazing strategies used in Wajir County ............................................................ 36 Figure 10: Decision on grazing management ............................................................................ 37 Figure 11: Decisions on water management in Wajir County ................................................... 39 Figure 12: Types of Pastoralism practiced in Wajir County....................................................... 41 Figure 13: Institution support in Wajir County ........................................................................... 47 Figure 14: Measures to improve the rangeland by communities ............................................. 48

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ALDEF

Arid Land Development Focus

ASALs

Arid and Semi-Arid Lands

ASARECA

Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa

FGDs

Focus Group Discussions

HSNP

Hunger Safety Net Programme

IIED

International Institute for Environment and Development

KES

Kenya Shilling

KPHC

Kenya Population and Housing Census

MDG

Millennium Development Goals

MODP

Ministry of Devolution and Planning

NDMA

National Disaster Management Authority

RoK

Republic of Kenya

SPSS

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

WASDA

Wajir South Development Agency

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to conduct an analysis of current practices, policies, emerging cultural trends so as to strengthen rangeland management in Wajir County. The study collected community knowledge as a basis of analyzing emerging trends, to inform the development of a county rangeland management plan. The study used a combination of methods; literature review, questionnaires applied to individual households, focus group and key informant interviews, and field observations to collect the required data for the analyses. Findings of this study revealed that pastoralism continues to be the main livelihood strategy in Wajir County. This will continue to be so in the foreseeable future until other viable alternative livelihood strategies are developed. However, at this point in time, pastoralism in the county is undermined by a number of factors but in particular indiscriminate water developments and settlements that have destroyed the traditional system based on wet and dry season grazing areas and grazing reserves. To enhance pastoral resilience, the county government in support with development partners will have to implement strategies and regulations supporting rangeland and grazing management, livestock production and marketing that are contextual in the prevailing pastoral situation as expressed in following key results: 66.8% of the household heads are male, controlling major resources and making important decisions in households. The County has a large household size averaging 8.7 family members. This implies that men and their families will continue to play a central role in implementing rangeland and grazing management plans. Also, the main source of income under pastoralism is milk sales whose income drops by about 50% in the dry season because of feed scarcity. This requires that prevailing stocking rates must match available feed, if not, commensurate seasonal destocking and restocking levels must be implemented or concerted feed conservation efforts must be put in place to bridge the seasonal feed gaps. Access to grazing resources declines critically during drought seasons partly due to reduced mobility coupled with increased conflicts over grazing resources at this period. Reduced mobility was mainly attributed to lack of adequate herding labour as young men are increasingly abandoning pastoralism, neighbouring communities guarding their dry season grazing resources seriously, frequent droughts reducing feed resources and issues related to insecurity. Most of the land in the County is under communal ownership with76.9% of the households laying permanent claims to ownership based on individual, family and community rights as recognized in their traditional system. This implies that land management decisions on these communal land still relies on community agreements, which from the FGDs and KII, the enforcement of some laws !

governing access and use has been weakened by politicization that has diluted the chiefs power that worked in the past. A fairly high percentage of 23.1% of households owning land under temporary rights in the county may be precipitating overexploitation of rangeland resources and consequently leading to rangeland degradation in the County. This is likely creating the tragedy of the commons in the County. This argument may be used to condemn herders’ traditional tenure systems as inefficient, requiring drastic and fast reforms to reverse negative trends in resource use. Reforming the traditional tenure to internalizing the costs of resource exploitation to bear directly on users should be done with care to gain support from the community and should be approved by the community. Therefore, such reforms will require a critical threshold of approval by the peoples’ representatives (MCAs) to succeed. That land ownership conflicts are not a major issue in the County. However, grazing resource conflicts are common (64%) between clans and aggravated by local politics. These conflicts intensify when migrant communities fail to adherence to the local institutions governing grazing resources and water use. The highest proportion of conflicts at community levels is solved by Chiefs (90%). However, ‘politisation’ of the Chiefs office continues to erode their authority and respect in conflict arbitration, leading to recurrent resource use conflicts. Conflict resolutions mechanisms modeled along customary respected institutions of elders and religious leaders enforced within a legal framework may provide the opportunity of meeting the challenges of resource management and sustainable pastoral production in these areas. Improper rangeland management practices and expertise was rated the highest (57%) cause of loss of pastoral livelihoods. This is exacerbated by lack of appropriate land use mapping and indiscriminate water developments and settlements. This was highly reported to be the reasons behind increased land degradation, reduced feed resources and breakdown of past sustainable strategies for grazing. Supplementary feeding (80%) and migration (69.7%) were the preferred coping strategies for livestock feed scarcity during the dry and drought periods by the households respectively. This will require the county to implement a feed conservation strategy in form of grazing reserves to meet feed scarcity in the dry periods and enter into bilateral arrangements with neighboring counties and countries to secure grazing rights access to their grazing resources during droughts. In the County, 72% of the pastoralists have changed their traditional grazing strategies to mainly supplementary feeding and keeping small herds in quest to provide adequate animal feed and reduce deaths from starvation precipitated by recurrent droughts, reduce over grazing and adapt to climate change. However, pastoral mobility, proper stocking/restocking, and leasing grazing areas were identified as the best grazing management strategies. The best grazing management strategies are faced by a number of risks particularly increased incidences of disease outbreaks, increased !

insecurity, lack of adequate financial support, and fire outbreaks. These are the limitations to livelihoods under pastoralism that the County can help address and strengthen the identified strategies. This study revealed that the current rangeland management practice is dominated individual decision making (82.4%) on grazing management. The grazing committees that were formed between 2001 and 2014 have been weakened by the new county administrative systems and their authority further has been reduced by dilution of powers held by chiefs in reinforcing critical decisions made on grazing plans for the communities. This has contributed to overgrazing that was identified as a major challenge (65.6%) on grazing management during wet and dry seasons, contributing much to rangeland degradation. Borehole, wells and surface dams are the most reliable water sources during wet and dry seasons. These are the widely distributed water sources in the County and are focused on by the County for development. The major challenges facing the management of water points are pollution from livestock mainly for surface dams and water pans, increasing demand during dry seasons, inadequate recharge from poor rainfalls, and low managerial capacity of the water. In Wajir County, indiscriminate permanent water developments are preceding planning. These developments have intensified sedentarisation in the rangeland and disarrayed seasonal grazing that is central to sustainable utilization of rangeland. However, transhumance is the dominant form of pastoralism in Wajir County with 41.7% of the respondent practicing. It is considered as a strategic move by pastoralist to cope with the ever-decreasing family income levels and changing land use patterns and weather conditions. The system is characterized by herd splitting, in which lactating stock are left behind. Sedentarisation represents a response to complex and interrelated factors, including increased competition for rangeland resources, land privatization and as security against increasing ethnic conflict over resources. Politics has exacerbated settlements in the county, as politicians/leaders see it as means of delivering services to their people. Positive impacts sedentarisation include; accessibility education, health services and markets, availability of water for domestic use, increased security and opportunities for livelihood diversification. Negative impacts sedentarisation include; reduced labour for herding and other livestock related activities, increased disease both for humans and livestock, negative cultural influence and change, environmental pollution and excessive pressure on available water sources. Solutions to the negative impacts of settlements include, investing in proper livestock grazing systems are less labour intensive, linking pastoralists to reliable livestock markets and changing their systems of production to be commercially oriented, strengthening the cultural systems and values of the communities and planning the settlements to minimize their interference with available grazing areas. Settled pastoralists in villages !

10!

and trading centres do not directly participate in pastoral livestock keeping as most of them are engaged in non-pastoral livelihood activities such petty trade and wage employment. However, they indirectly support pastoralism through remittances for meeting livestock husbandry and veterinary services among other provisions. Gender roles in the pastoral system in the county were based on rangeland and grazing management, livestock production and marketing, and dry land farming. Men carried greater workload on range based activities such as herding and security, while women engaged in home-based activities such milking. These results point to important strategies for revitalizing the pastoral system in Wajir County that among others include; immediate cessation of indiscriminate water developments and settlements into grazing areas, enforced seasonal grazing patterns, strengthened early warning and dissemination of climate information. This is for pastoral production, enforced customary natural resource governance rules, organized mobility of pastoralist into drought reserves with bilateral arrangements with neighboring communities, enforced restocking and destocking strategies to match available feed to stocking rates, enforced feed bulking strategies and rangeland restoration and improvement. This responsive marketing strategy spurs commercialization of subsistence pastoralism and capacity building of pastoral herder to fully participate in a market-oriented pastoral system.

11!

CHAPTER ONE 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1.

Background

The arid and semi-arid lands (ASAL) comprise approximately 43% of Africa’s land surface and support about 268 million people, 40% of the continent’s population (IIED and SOS Sahel, 2010), majority of them nomadic and sedentary pastoralists. The latter largely comprise agro-pastoralist communities, which combine livestock herding and crop production. ASAL occupy a very large extent of Eastern Africa: 88% (Kenya), 83% (Tanzania), 56% (Ethiopia), 40% (Uganda) and almost 100% of Somalia, Eriteria and Djibouti (Herlocker, 1999). With approximately 40% of the continent’s land dedicated to pastoralism (IRIN, 2007), it is the main source of livelihood for the rural populace living in the vast ASAL of Africa. Kenya’s arid and semiarid areas account for over 83% of the country’s land mass and support over 70% of the country's livestock and wildlife populations (Orindi et. al., 2008; RoK, 2005). Unfortunately, the integrity of these critical ecosystems is under threat from climate variability and change, particularly recurrent droughts. Kenya has been experiencing minor droughts every five years and major ones every decade (ASARECA, 2007). This is with the exception to the arid northern parts of the country where drought is experienced yearly (UNEP/RoK, 2000). These droughts usually result in immense losses in resources and affect the livelihoods of many pastoralists. The impacts of these droughts on the population have been increasing exponentially from 1970s to date. Drought intensity coupled with climate change, have adversely affected the livelihood of many pastoral and non-pastoral communities in the ASAL areas of Kenya. As a result, many communities are below the poverty line and vulnerable to natural and manmade disasters. This however, put pressure on the current resource governance system to come up with suitable plans to alleviate poverty and build as well as enhance the resilience of these communities It is from the above background that that Oxfam, an International Organization is working with other partners in the drylands of Kenya towards overcoming the many challenges in the drylands. Oxfam has been working in Kenya since 1963 in long-term development and humanitarian response in collaboration with various local and international organizations. Oxfam and partners (WASDA and ALDEF) are working in Wajir implementing various projects including the DFID funded programme, strengthening community resilience. The programme is anchored on Vision 2030, the county’s development blue print particularly the third foundation of enhancing equity and wealth creation opportunities for the poor. This is in response to the emphasize that no society !

12!

can gain the social cohesion if significant sections of the populations live in absolute poverty, therefore the immediate need for prioritization of investment in the arid and semiarid Counties that are greatly affected by high poverty levels. The programme aims at contributing to MDG 1: Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger and MDG 3: Promoting gender equality and empowering women. The programme builds on going National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA, HSNP and an ECHO Consortium resilience project led by Oxfam in various wards in Wajir County). 1.2.

Location and Administrative arrangements in Wajir County

Wajir County is located in North Eastern part of Kenya. The county lies between latitudes 3o N 60â&#x20AC;&#x2122;N and 0o 20â&#x20AC;&#x2122; N and between Longitudes 39o E and 41o E and covers an area of 56,685.9 Km2. It borders Somali Republic to the East, republic of Ethiopia to the north, Mandera County to the Northeast, Isiolo County to the South West, Marsabit County to the West and Garissa County to the South (Figure 1). The county has six constituencies namely Wajir East, Tarbaj, Wajir West, Eldas, Wajir South and Wajir North. The county has 30 electoral wards. Wajir North and Wajir South Constituency have the largest number of wards at 7, and the rest have 4 wards each. Wajir County has a population of 727,966 people projected at an annual growth rate of 3.22 per cent from the 661,941 enumerated in 2009 during the KPHC (MODP 2013). This is further projected to increase to, 800,576 and 852,963 in 2015 and 2017 respectively. Much of this population is increasingly concentrated in urban settlements. The urban settlements in the county are found in the sub-county and divisional headquarters, which serve as market centres.

13!

Figure 1: Location of Wajir County Kenya

Table 1: Administrative arrangements in Wajir County

14!

Sub – County

Division

Wajir East

Central

Tarbaj

Eldas

Wajir West

Habaswein

Wajir South

Wajir North

Buna

Area(Km2)

No. of Locations

No. of Sub-locations

139.3

Wajir-Bor

2,043.4

Khorof-Harar

1,825.1

Total

4,007.8

Tarbaj

1,175.1

Sarman

1,561

Kotulo

3,389.7

Mansa

3,313.6

Total

9,439.4

Della Eldas Elnur Anole Total Griftu Arbajahan Lagbogol Hadado Ademasajida Wagalla Total Habaswein Sebule Banane Dadajabulla Total Diif Wajir-Bor Kulaaley Total Gurar Bute Total Buna Korondille Buna County Total

413.9 2,059.4 277.6 294.1 3,045 3,336.4 2,345.3 373.3 2,480.1 1,017.3 491.2 10,043.6 4,351.5 2,680.2 4,534.9 1,064.2 12,630.8 5,446.8 1,224.4 2,293.7 8,964.9 2,797.9 791.8 3,589.7 3,764.7 1,200.1 4,964.8 56,685.9

2 8 3 5 18 11 2 2 4 6 5 30 14 5 4 5 28 5 3 4 12 4 4 8 4 3 7 128

3 6 4 4 17 10 4 3 4 3 8 32 14 10 3 2 29 7 4 6 17 8 7 15 4 3 7 159

Source: County Commissioner’s Office, Wajir, 2013

The county comprises of eight sub-counties namely Wajir East, Tarbaj, Wajir West, Eldas, Wajir North, Buna, Habaswein and Wajir South. It’s further divided into 28 divisions, 128 locations and 159 sub-locations as indicated in Table 1.

15!

Wajir County is a semi-arid area falling in the ecological zone V-VI. Zone V receives rainfall between 300-600mm annually, has low trees, grass and shrubs. On the other hand zone VI receives an annual rainfall of 200-400mm. On average, the county receives 240 mm of precipitation annually or 20 mm each month. There are 24 days annually in which greater than 0.1 mm of precipitation (rain, sleet, snow or hail). June is the driest month with an average of 1 mm of rain across zero days while April is the wettest month with an average of 68 mm of rain, sleet, hail or snow across 6 days. The higher areas of Bute and Gurar receive higher rainfall of between 500mm and 700mm. In terms of topography, generally the County is a featureless plain. The plain rises gently from the south and east towards the north rising to 200 metres at Buna and 460 metres at Bute and Gurar at the foothills of Ethiopian highlands. There is the highly seasonal Ewaso Nyiro River and Lake Yahud. The county is prone to seasonal flooding during the rainy seasons which makes roads impassable, and has seasonal swamps which together with drainage lines serve as grazing zones during dry season and for cultivation during the rainy seasons. The seasonal swamps are in Lagboghol area and in the western and southern part of Habaswein area. The county is largely covered with young sedimentary rocks with loamy soils in the north bordering the Ethiopian highlands. It has considerable deposits of Limestone and sand. 1.3.

Land Use

The mean land holding size for the county is 7.8 Ha. Majority of the people practice nomadic pastoralism where the large portion of the land is used as grazing zones. Therefore, livestock production is the key economic activity that provides a livelihood for majority of the county residents. In the pastoral areas, there is a significant population of wildlife and dry forestry. Few farmers in depressions and along drainage lines practice agriculture where there is more moisture due to seasonal flooding. Irrigation using underground water is limited in areas with permanent shallow wells. Due to the aridity of the county, food production is limited and contributes little to food security. The main livestock species kept include camels, shoats, cattle and donkeys, while crops grown include sorghum, drought resistant maize, beans, melons, cowpeas, green grams and horticultural crops like kales, spinach, tomatoes, sweet and hot peppers.

16!

CHAPTER TWO 2. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 2.1.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this consultancy was to conduct a study on risk analysis to current practices, policies, emerging cultural trends so as to strengthen rangeland management in Wajir County. The study collected community knowledge as a basis of analysing emerging trends, to inform the development of a county rangeland management plan. 2.2.

Study Objectives

The objectives of this study were to: a) Identify the impact of unplanned settlement as a result to changes taking place in the ASALâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (i.e.)- increasing urbanization b) Analyze the impact of new and emerging national policies such as (land administration, dispute resolution, group ranches, with regards to special planning and land procurement (If applicable to the context). c) Identify best practice(s) that can be promoted in the ASALs and thus, i. Inform the adoption of new rangeland management practices ii. Map wet and dry grazing areas and identify factors that negatively or positively impact on rangeland management in Wajir iii. Analyze the current governance and management structures of decision making as well information management and communication strategies and practices in the management of the rangelands d) Analyze the role of the Government in establishing the regulatory and legal frameworks directly influencing rangeland management and practice, particularly in regard to administration of grazing permits, mapping seasonal grazing areas, etc. in the rangeland management e) Analyze the gender and power dynamics in the management of rangelands and advice on strategies in maximizing benefits to women, and f) Advice on persons/ institutions / that will provide support towards the development of Wajir county rangeland management bill which may potentially be adopted by other ASAL counties. The above specific objectives were addressed against formulated study deliverables below; a. Desk review of relevant documents during the study b. Develop relevant data collection instruments to be used to address the objectives c. Quality data collection, entry, analysis and reporting !

17!

d. Write and submit report providing information showing trends and clear gender issues and recommendations on important aspects pertaining to effective rangeland management.

18!

CHAPTER THREE 3. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY The study used quantitative and qualitative data collection tools to capture information related to rangeland managements at both community and governments level. The study analyzed the collected quantitative information using standard statistical packages software, while the qualitative information were subjected to content and thematic analysis 3.1 Data Collection This study used a combination of methods, this were; literature review, questionnaires applied to individual households, focused group and key informant interviews, and field observations. 3.1.1 Literature review In carrying out the study, a detailed review of literature was undertaken from diverse documents that included but not limited to the following: 1. Pastoralists under pressure: The politics of sedentarisation and marginalization in north-eastern Kenya 2. Wajir County 2013: First county integrated development plan 2013-2017 3. Ministry of Devolution and Planning 2013: Wajir County development profile The review was undertaken in order to gain an understanding of the study area and establish important considerations for the study. This review of study documents further complemented the design of data collection and analysis tools, particularly, individual household questionnaires, focused group interviews and key informant discussions. 3.1.2. Household/individual questionnaire Questionnaire was designed to capture key information related to the study. The questionnaire contained detailed questions covering all aspects of the study objectives (appendix 1). The questionnaire was reviewed by the Oxfam project team and data collectors led by the lead consultant at the OXFAM office in Wajir. The questionnaire was applied to a representative sample from the different regions in the County. A third of the primary members of the communities were interviewed in line with the general consensus among scientists that any sample size larger than 30 sampling units is sufficient for statistical analysis. !

19!

The county had six constituencies with eight sub-counties namely Wajir East, Tarbaj, Wajir West, Eldas, Wajir North, Buna, Habaswein and Wajir South. A total of six sub counties were selected to be the representative of the entire County. The choice of the six wards was done with the consultations of Oxfam, ALDEF and WASDA staffs that are conversant with the study area and are directly involved in project implementations in the area. The six wards were chosen in consideration of distribution across all the constituencies within the programme areas, five were from rural and one urban ward to ensure representativeness. These wards were; Habaswein in Wajir South, which represented urban ward; Arbajan ward in Wajir west; Dela ward in Eldas, Danaba ward in Wajir North; Sarman ward in Tarbaj; and Korof Harar ward in Wajir east. To achieve a representative sample, simple random sampling of the beneficiary households in the areas were selected along a road transect in the villages. A willing household was then picked outwards from a main road as transect for the interview until the desired number was reached. 3.2.3. Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) Focused group interviews with communities in the selected six wards were carried out. 12 FGDS were done in villages within the six wards visited. The village where FGDs were done are; Dunto, Jai Jai, Qudama, danaba, Khorof Harar, albagarenzo, Kilkiley, Arbajahan, Adan Awale, Dela, Habaswein and Abakore. These were aimed at generating information to complement the questionnaire interviews, and verify the information presented in literature review. For each FGD, an effort was made to achieve 50/50 representation of both genders. The focus group checklist of issues is given in (Appendix 2).

Group discussion in Jai Jai village

Group discussion Kilkiley village

20!

3.2.4 Key informant interviews Key informant discussions with stakeholders directly or indirectly involved with the project were held. Those interviewed included senior County Government representatives from line ministries (Ministry of water, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Physical Planning and Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Energy), Community leaders (Members of the County Assembly and Community elders), Community Based Organization committee members, and other development partners -WASDA and ALDEF. Issues relevant to the study were addressed in these discussions. Members who participated in the key informant sessions are listed in appendix 3.

3.2.5 Guided transect walks In addition to FGDs, guided field walks to enable direct observations of current rangeland management and practices were also conducted. This is a very popular method of capturing information because it allows the researcher to note important details, and quantify the reported information. The consultants guided by key informants identified during the FGDs made observations on grazing areas, the health of the rangeland, as well as drought response strategies employed by the beneficiaries and ask questions to obtain further clarification from the key informants. The process was used to verify information from FGDs. 3.2 Data analysis Standard statistical software, namely, SPSS and Microsoft Excel were used to analyze the collected data. The output were summarised inform of means, frequencies, etc. and the results are presented in tables and figures to establish important trends in resource use in the rangeland environment and attendant management strategies. The results are discussed supported by information gathered during the literature search, FGDs, guided field walks and observations to address the various issues of the study and key conclusions, and recommendations drawn.

21!

CHAPTER FOUR 4. RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 4.1 Pastoral Household Characteristics A household was defined as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;all people who live under one roof and are subject to decisions made by the household head.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; A household head was defined as one who owns and controls the major resources in a household, makes important decisions in a household and provides the basic needs for the household members. The average age of the respondents was 42 years with age among the interviewed household stretching between 20 and 80 years. The average household size was 8.7 while the average number of male was 4.7 and female was 3.9. Figure 2 shows the household heads gender distribution among the interviewed pastoral household.

Figure 2: Sex of the household head

Like other dryland counties in Kenya, male are found to be more than female with male representing 66.8% of the respondents while female were 33.2%. The education level attained by the head of a household is critical in access to information, decision making, income and consequently sound management. Education provides an opportunity for pastoral households to diversify their livelihood portfolios especially through employment as a source of wage and remittances and thus easing the pressure on rangeland based livelihoods. The education level of the interviewed household heads is presented in Figure 3. !

22!

Figure 3: Education level of the household head

The majority of the respondents (91.5%) were found to have not passed through formal education. The second major category was those who attained primary education (3.8%) and secondary education (2.8). Those who have attained a level higher than secondary education were found to be 1.9% of the total interviewed household heads. This education level is closely linked to the type of livelihood that the pastoral household head pursue. As shown in Figure 4, those employed by formal institutions, which include government and non- governmental organization, constitute 4% of the sampled population with casual labour having the same percentage. Trade and business as livelihood sources were at 6%. The major source of livelihood however, was pastoralism. This constituted major income source for about 86% of the interviewed household heads. Pastoralism as a livelihood options include selling of milk and live animals as well as other related livestock activities such as herding.

23!

Figure 4: Main occupation of household heads

Table 2 present household sources of income in terms of rank and the average monthly amount. During wet season livestock herding was ranked as the most reliable source of income by 79.3% of the respondents. Livestock herding pays around KES 11,737.7 per month. This was followed by business which was ranked first by 13.8% and the average monthly amount generated was KES 5,860.2 per month. Casual labour and formal employment was considered reliable by 5.1% and 4.1 respectively. However, selling of live animals was not considered a main source of livelihood during wet season. Selling of live animals contributed an average of KES 1,000 of the total household income during the wet season. The average monthly income generated from livestock herding decreased during the dry season to KES 9,402.9. Business and trade which include trading consumable household goods contributed KES 5,770.1 per month of the total pastoral household income. Casual labour and formal employment contributed KES 3,891.2 and 17,235.0 to the total household monthly income respectively. Sale of live animals however, changed drastically. This livelihood activity contributed 5,000.0 of the total household income. Almost 50% reduction in the monthly income from selling milk can be explained by the fact that dry season is usually associated with water stress which leads to a decrease in milk productivity. Therefore, to avoid this income fluctuation with respect to seasonality, pastoral household may need to destock during such period.

24!

Table 2: Household sources of Income rank and average monthly amount Activity

Business Livestock Herding Casual labour Selling milk Selling live animals Formal employment

Wet season %Rank as main Amount per source of income month 13.8 5,860.2 79.3 11,737.7 5.1 3,798.6 1 10,000.0 1,000.0 4.1 17,421.4

Dry season %Rank as main Amount per source of income month 14.3 5,770.1 71.9 9,402.9 5.5 3,891.2 1 6,000.0 5,000.0 4.6 17,235.0

Source: Survey data

4.2 Land Use and Tenure Figure 4 presents the communities access to grazing land during wet, dry and drought periods for grazing. The findings reveal greater access to grazing resources during wet seasons (83.3%) of the respondents, and this declines during dry and drought seasons. Generally, access to grazing resources was reportedly conditioned on availability of forage and was not limiting during wet seasons for all livestock species kept (camels, cattle, sheep, goats and donkeys). During wet seasons, the communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; access pastures within their own locality at village level. However, the pastoralists are forced to migrate when dry seasons and droughts approach in search of the same. From the focus group discussions with the community and key informants, access declines critically during drought seasons partly due to reduced mobility coupled with increased conflicts over grazing resources at this period. The worst scenario is when the areas to migrate to during droughts are adversely affected by the droughts, hence no reason to move to a place faced with similar challenges. Reduced mobility was mainly attributed to lack of adequate herding labour as young men are increasingly abandoning pastoralism, neighbouring communities guarding their dry season grazing resources seriously, and insecurity.

25!

Figure 5: Communities access to grazing land during different seasons

Table 2 presents the land types and ownership category within Wajir County. Among the different land types, community land is the largest (49.8%), followed by individual ownership and family owned land with 26.4 and 22.8%, respectively. However, from the focus group and key informant discussions, the individual ownership reported are just by the community own agreements with no legal documents for ownership. Most of them are individual allocations by village elders within the household settlement areas. Family land was basically the common grazing areas around the settlements with equally no legal ownership documents. From the above observations, most of the land is therefore under communal ownership and is supported by the fact that there were no legal documents of land ownership. 76.9% of the communities own the land permanently, and this represents the people residing on family, individual and community lands whose rights are permanent based on their traditional system. However, 23.1 reported to be temporary and from the FGDs these were the immigrants who were absorbed with the villages. Table 3: Land type and nature of ownership Variable Land type

Nature of ownership

Category Family Individual ownership Trust land Community land Permanent Temporary

Percentage 22.8 26.4 1 49.8 76.9 23.1

Source: Survey data

26!

The fairly high percentage of 23.1% of households owning land under temporary rights may be precipitating overexploitation of rangeland resources and consequently leading to rangeland degradation in the County. This is a likely case of the tragedy of the commons in the County. This theory assumes that restraint by temporary herders does not dissuade the others from exploiting the rangeland resources. As a consequence, all the herders pursue the same strategy, of investing in more animals that with time overgraze and degrade the range. Hence, a tragedy occurs. This argument derives from the game theory, which advances that if two competing users of a public good have a choice between conserving or depleting a resource, they will both choose to deplete the resource as ones restraint will be exploited by the other. Thus, this concept depicts traditional herders to be incapable of collectively undertaking sustainable range use, and have no adequate institutions to regulate the use of grazing resources. This argument may be used to condemn herdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; traditional tenure systems as inefficient, requiring drastic and fast reforms to reverse negative trends in resource use. Reforming the traditional tenure to enhance efficiency of resource use by internalizing the costs of resource exploitation to bear directly on users should be done with care to gain support from the community and should be approved by the community. Figure 6 presents the communities awareness and experience of land related conflicts in Wajir County. The findings shows that most of the community members are not aware and have never experienced land related conflicts, represented by 74 and 74.9%, of the respondents respectively. The FGDs and the key informants that land conflicts are not a major issue in the County confirmed this observation. However, there are always some conflicts but not related to land, most are clan conflicts driven by political related interests and grazing resources but not land. The respondents who reported land related conflicts confirmed their concerns over need to access grazing outside Wajir County, which sometimes results to conflicts from claims of boundaries by the parties involved. This scenario was mainly from the communities living near the borders with other Counties (Mandera and Isiolo) and neighbouring countries (Ethiopia and Somalia).

27!

Figure 6: Awareness and experience of land related conflict

The main causes of conflicts in Wajir County are presented in Figure 7. This study revealed that grazing related conflicts as the main challenge in Wajir County with64% of the respondents attesting to this. Land related conflicts and political boundaries were represented by 27 and 9% respectively. The conflicts over grazing were mainly from access to grazing resources including water points for livestock. The communities reported grazing conflicts to increase during dry and drought periods because of the influx of other communities during migrations and hence causing tensions. One of the major challenges that predispose the community to conflicts was lack of adherence to the local institutions governing grazing resources and water by migrating communities in search of the same. Land related conflicts were reported to be a result of illegal settlements by some people within the community land, followed by fencing and claim of ownership by individuals or families. This leads to conflicts over illegal exclusion of the community from accessing these areas, which were previously used for grazing. This challenge was identified by the communities during FGDs and key informants as the main driver of land degradation as the pastoralists are constrained within a small range from the resulting effects of reduced mobility.

28!

Figure 7: Source of conflicts experienced in the area

Table 3 presents the mechanisms of conflicts resolution at family, community, and County government and National government levels. From the study, conflict resolution at family level is mainly achieved by community elders (72%) of the respondents, and religious leaders (Sheikhs) making up 26.8% of the resolutions, while the chief only accounting for 1.2%. From the discussions with the communities and key informants, most of the family conflicts are social related issues and easily solved by village elders and religious leaders. The highest proportion of conflicts at community levels is solved by Chiefs (90% of the respondents), with peace committee and Elders solving 8.5 and 0.6%respectively. The communities reported conflicts at community levels to be more of inter clan or tribal conflicts or conflicts related to different settlement communities over resource use. The chiefs were more appropriate in solving these conflicts from the power and authority they have and easy consultations and understanding with their counter-part colleagues of rivaling communities. However, from the FGDs and key informant interviews it was clear that politization of the Chiefs office continues to erode their authority and respect in conflict arbitration, leading to recurrent resource use conflicts. Conflict resolutions mechanisms modeled along customary respected institutions of elders and religious leaders enforced within a legal framework may provide the opportunity of meeting the challenges of resource management and sustainable pastoral production in these areas The bigger conflicts like land ownership, boundaries and major resource use conflicts in the wider community are solved by county government officials and area MPs. The communities reported this nature of conflicts to require wider consultations, legal framework and resources and they had entrusted it with their leaders. !

29!

Table 4: Conflict resolution at various levels Levels

Category

Percentage

Family

Chief Community Elders Religious leaders Chief Elders Peace committee County Government officials Chief County Government officials Area MP and County senators

1.2 72.0 26.8 90.9 0.6 8.5 48.6 51.5 60.0 40.0

Community

County government National government Source: Survey data

The communities willingness to donate part of their land for settlement was represented by 59.6% of the respondents and 40.4% were not willing Table 4). During the discussions at FGDs and key informants, it was noted that land allocation within the community land was of great concern and has precipitated resistance from suspicion of loss of use or benefits and mistrust among the communities. It emerged that the greatest fear was loss of grazing land to other activities that may leave them without livelihood options especially for projects that require large tracts of land. Interestingly, the communities were more willing to give part of their land to projects supporting livestock production such as pasture growing and storage as reported during FGDs in Khoroof Harar village. Also, land for animal dips, and livestock marketing centres can be provided without much struggle or need for compensation. Surprisingly, the communities reported they can donate land for other uses only if compensation to cater for loss can be given or other incentives. The projects requiring land allocation should show the real benefits the community will receive such us money from gas and oil explorations directly being given to families or used to support community projects. The positive drives for land donations were compensation for 42.5% of the respondents, and 57.5% can give land as long as it is used for community development projects. Table 5: Willingness to donate land for development and conditions for donation Variable Willingness to donate land for development Conditions for donation

Category Willing Not willing Compensation

Percentage 59.6 40.4 42.5

If it is for community projects

57.5

Source: Survey data

30!

4.3 Rangeland Management Practices The main land use in Wajir County is pastoralism accounting for over 80% of livelihood options. This livelihood option has been facing great challenges in terms of sustainability. The communities reported challenges to their main livelihood option to be on the increase and the conditions are moving from bad to worse. During the FGDs and key informant interviews, the losses to pastoralism as a main livelihood were attributed to a number of factors including; lack of support for pastoralist as a way of life, lack of industries supporting this livelihood option, highly constrained past practices that supported this livelihood system particularly curtailed mobility due to increased sedenterization, and permanent water development, and increasing rangeland degradation. Figure 7 presents some of the challenges to rangeland management that has affected pastoralism as a way of life. Lack of proper rangeland management practices and expertise was rated the highest (57%) cause of loss of livelihoods. The communities agree that poor use of the range resources due to lack of knowledge and skills to implement better range use practices has led to massive environmental degradation. Poor decisions on grazing systems, where animal numbers are not matched with available resources, community unawareness to effects of some of the decisions they make like settlements, deforestation, and uncontrolled water developments among others have reduced grazing resources resulting to absolute poverty. Scarcity of grazing land which was reported by 21.8%of respondents is a result of poor rangeland management decisions such as settlements, illegal fencing and uncontrolled water development, which reduces grazing fields. The communities are also aware that lack of appropriate land use mapping/survey has contributed to the challenges they are facing. This has led to lack of appropriate land use policies that could have guided the community land use allocations. From the FGDs and key informant interviews, indiscriminate water developments and settlements has exacerbated and threatened the long term survival of pastoralism as a livelihood option. Therefore, the communities believe if there were policies to control settlements and water development to protect grazing fields; their livelihood options, pastoralism could have been better or improved. An example given was development of water sources in the County that are not informed by the needs of the communities ends up causing more damage to the environment. The communities believe there should be policy developed in consultation with them to guide water resource development if sustainability of their rangeland is to be achieved. Respondents regarding their rangeland management did not view climate change and insecurity as bigger challenges. This could be because at household level, climate change is beyond their control and most observed insecurity and conflicts in the county were reported to be unrelated to land.

31!

Figure 8: Challenges in land management

Some of the communities are aware of the importance of land and vegetation management in the County. During discussions, most of the villages had banned the burning of charcoal and was completely unacceptable. The communities collectively campaign against charcoal burning and anyone found is arrested and taken to the chief for legal process. This is one of the strongest land management measures in the county. The collection and use of fuel wood is also controlled and the people are only allowed to use dead and dry trees. No one is allowed to fell live tree for fuel wood. The materials used for fencing are also specific with community only allowing use of trees that can re-sprout when used for fencing. During harvesting of fencing materials also, they only use branches from trees allowing the main tree to continue surviving. The communities also manage land by grazing herds of different species differently to reduce pressure on vegetation. Table 5 presents the households average total livestock numbers and the numbers during wet and dry seasons in Wajir County. The study shows households keep more goats throughout the seasons, followed by camels, sheep, cattle and donkeys in that order. From the discussions the communities preferred goats for reasons of being fast growing, having high reproduction rates, and hardy amongst the shoats during droughts. The goats are also easily acquired by poor families as gifts, mode of payment for work done and also cheaper to buy from market compared to camels and cattle. The goats were also reported to be good in milk production for households. Camels were second, with households owning an average total of 18 to 22 across the wet and dry seasons. However, poor households was reported to have more goats and sheep and less camels since the camels are expensive to buy with adult one selling at over KES 50,000 per head, while shoats going for less than KES 5,000 per head. Notably, the !

32!

communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; total livestock numbers closely matched the wet season numbers; this is the season when there is no stress in grazing their livestock, but the livestock numbers declined during dry seasons due to grazing resource limitations. These herd dynamics should be considered in designing rangeland management interventions. Therefore, consideration of herd dynamics with seasonality is a key determinant in the grazing plans. The decisions on livestock population management should also be based on seasonality and species requirements to ensure rangeland sustainability. The preference for goats and camels here is attributed to their feed resource availability, being browsers; their key vegetation forages vary little during dry seasons compared to cattle that require grass like vegetation which have great variability with seasonality. The communities keep very few donkeys due to their roles of only providing transport of water, fuel wood and during migration, hence households keep between 1 and 3 animals only. Table 6: Livestock numbers during wet and dry seasons Livestock species

Total number Average S. Dev.

No. wet season Average S. Dev.

No dry season Average S. Dev.

Camel Cattle Goats Sheep Donkeys

22.5 13.0 29.5 14.8 2.5

22.8 12.1 29.3 15.6 2.4

18.0 9.1 22.7 10.9 2.1

15.93 12.53 24.31 10.28 1.83

16.48 12.03 26.00 14.82 1.89

14.93 10.48 24.27 9.34 1.62

Source: Survey data

The communities in Wajir have been pastoralist since time immemorial and this has enabled them to develop mechanism of adapting to the challenges affecting their main livelihood option. This study found out that the past strategy used by the communities by having grazing reserves in the 1970s and 1980s is no longer the situation. This has worsened their dry season grazing resources and most of the times the communities have no option other than waiting for nature to take its course, resulting to frequent deaths and loss of livelihoods and increasing dependence on relief aid. The current situation is that communities graze freely without proper grazing plans and no grazing permits issued to control access and use of resources. Also, uncontrolled settlements have reduced grazing lands and hence overgrazing in the few remaining areas. Other challenges facing pastoralism as reported by the communities are wild animalsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; predation on livestock. This has been causing serious losses to the communities where Hyenas, Cheetahs, Lions, Jackal among others predate on animals even during the day. Some families have been left poor from predation and the current situation is that there is no compensation from KWS. The communities also do not benefit from wildlife in any way compared to other counties with large wildlife population such as Narok and TaitaTavea, hence increasing human wildlife conflicts. Cross infections of animal diseases !

33!

from wildlife have also reduced livestock populations during outbreaks, threatening the livelihood base of the people. The coping strategies used by the communities at the moment during dry and drought to try address feed scarcity challenges are presented in Table 7 below. During dry seasons, the communities rely on supplemental feeding (80% of the respondents), with 16% reducing their livestock numbers. This observation is contrary to expectation. It is common knowledge that during dry seasons animal feed for supplementation is expensive and that destocking would be cheaper if well planned than supplementing. From the FGDs and key informant interviews, the pastoralists are not willing to destock during dry seasons and that’s why supplemental feeding is given a priority from the communities’ tradition of having livestock as wealth and social status. This observation forms a critical entry point for interventions in trying to provide information that may lead to change of mind sets and approach to pastoralism in a modern way, if livestock keeping as to be done as a business and if deaths during droughts are to be avoided. It is evident that the environment can only support a few during droughts and if proper mechanisms for destocking are put in place with communities’ acceptability, then wealth can be saved. The study also reveals that migration as a coping strategy that worked in the past as reported by the community no longer applies with only 2.6%of respondents identifying it as a strategy. Land leasing for grazing was also very low during dry seasons. The communities reported that of the dry seasons affects almost all the grazing areas and there are no ‘safe heavens’ that will have pastures for leasing. During droughts, migration is the preferred coping strategy (69.7%) with supplemental feeding reducing in importance among the households to 29.2% from 80% during dry seasons. The communities noted that droughts are a major challenge to their livestock and sometimes need for transboundary migration to Ethiopia and Somalia is the only option. The communities reported severe droughts that affect all the neighbouring countries to be the critical periods with no option other than wait for both livestock and human deaths to occur. Table 7: Coping strategies used to alleviate livestock feed shortage Season Dry season

Droughts

Category Reduce no. of animals Supplementary feeding Migration Leasing land Reduce no. of animals Supplementary feeding Migration

Percentage 16.4 80.0 2.6 1.0 1.0 29.2 69.7

Source: Survey data

34!

This study also explored the challenges in grazing strategies for the last 20-30 years in Wajir County. 72% of the respondents reported to have changed their grazing strategies (Table 8). The old strategies were high mobility/migration, free grazing with no supplementation and they kept large herds of animals. But with the new challenges, the communities have reduced their migration with only 3.1% still migrating widely from the past where 60.9% were migrating frequently. The new practice has also seen 50% of the respondents supplementing their animals unlike in the old practice where only 2.3 supplemented. 43.0% also keep small herds. The changes of grazing strategies were also supported by the increasing insecurity that has reduced migration. From the FGD and Key informant interviews, many of the pastoralists used to migrate to Somalia, but since the fall of Somali government, insecurity in the area has reduced their mobility to Somalia. The shift in pastoral strategies is in quest to provide adequate animal feed (73.6%) and reduce deaths from starvation precipitated by recurrent droughts, reduce over grazing and adapt to climate change. Table 8: Grazing strategies dynamics Variables Change of grazing strategies Old Grazing practices

New Grazing practices

Reasons for changing grazing practice

Category Changed Not changed Migration/ mobility Supplementary feeding keeping large herds of cattle Migration/ mobility Supplementary feeding Leasing keeping small herds Insecurity Provision of more fodder Infrastructure Reduce overgrazing Climate change

Percentage 72.1 27.9 60.9 2.3 36.7 3.1 50.0 3.9 43.0 2.7 73.6 18.2 3.6 1.8

Source: Survey data

The best grazing strategies as identified by the communities in Wajir are presented in Figure 8 below. The communities still recognize mobility to be the most suited grazing strategy (68.2% of the respondents) that worked in the past and if conditions are reversed, can still work at the present. This give the County government of Wajir an entry point of looking for ways in which mobility can be enhanced if pastoralism is to be sustained for the benefit of County residents. The communities reported increased settlements and unplanned water developments to be the main challenges that have reduced mobility. Restocking and proper stocking was also reported by respondents !

35!

(16.1%) as the second best grazing strategy. This is because it helps reduce over grazing and reduce pressure over limited water resource available. Other strategies identified included lease of grazing areas, rotation grazing/grazing management, supplemental feeding and mixed farming which were identified by less than10% of the respondents. Supplemental feeding and leasing of grazing area have high potential in Wajir County if pasture production during good seasons for strategic feed reserves is going to be embraced and if the large areas of the county are appropriately planned and improved for leasing by the County government.

Figure 9: Best grazing strategies used in Wajir County

The above strategies were rated best by the communities from the fact that they are viewed as cheap to implement, and reduce livestock losses from starvation. Mobility allows access to scarce water resources and the ease of resource management even during dry seasons. The risks reported to the above best strategies are increased incidences of disease outbreaks, increased insecurity, lack of adequate financial support, and fire outbreaks. This provides information to the county Government that if mobility is to be enhanced in the planning, then measure to provide security and animal health care should be put in place. For mobility and planned grazing to be achieved, strong decision making systems that controls access and use of resources is required with good enforcement structures. This study revealed that the current rangeland management practice is !

36!

dominated by personal decision on grazing management with individuals making 82.4 % of the decisions (Figure10). The grazing committees that were formed between 2001 and 2014 have been weakened by the new county administrative systems. Authority of the grazing committees has further been reduced by dilution of powers held by chiefs in reinforcing critical decisions made regarding grazing plans for the communities as it was in the past, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s. At the present, chief are not respected, as their institution is highly politicized and they are many, making overlapping decisions meant to favor their own communities.

Figure 10: Decision on grazing management

The rangeland condition in Wajir at the moment is moderate during wet seasons and bad during dry seasons. The communities identified overgrazing to be a major challenge (65.6%) on grazing management during wet and dry seasons contributing much to rangeland degradation. The management of grazing areas is also faced with great challenges of insecurity during dry seasons (27.4%), (Table 9). In adequate pastures has a serious management challenge during dry seasons with communities and key informants reporting much overgrazing at this period. Diseases and flooding were also reported as a grazing management challenge during the wet season when pastoralists reported much loss of animals due to disease outbreaks and also spread of new diseases from animal returning from far grazing areas. Water resources are also affected by conflicts during dry seasons and this affects grazing management. Poor water management practices results to low hygiene levels from pollution from poor grazing management strategies, which in turn, affects livestock production from water bone diseases and also act as a predisposing factor to spreading diseases. The water !

37!

quality in many areas of Wajir is also salty, reducing quality for both livestock and human consumption. Table 9: Challenges to grazing management for various seasons Variable Wet season grazing areas

Dry season grazing areas

Water access and manage

Category Overgrazing leading to land degradation Low pasture production Migration and conflicts flooding and diseases Overgrazing Inadequate pasture and water leading, low productivity Migration and conflicts Reduced grazing reserves Disease incidences Conflicts Poor water quality, salty, Poor Management Poor hygiene and pollution of water catchment areas

Percentage 65.6 1.4 0.5 32.5 26.4 44.2

27.4 0.5 1.5 27.2 7.3 39.3 26.2

Source: Survey data

Table10 present the main water sources in Wajir County and their reliability with seasonality. Boreholes and wells emerged to be more reliable during wet and dry seasons. The communities also rated surface dams as more reliable in wet seasons (53%) and 46.8% in dry seasons. These are the widely distributed water sources in the County and are focused on by the County for development. Most villages in the county have more than one surface dam. Sand dams are very few due to lack of seasonal rivers, but the few found are only on lagas. Water pans are also reliable during wet seasons (64%) and 37.9% reliable during dry seasons. Table 10: Water sources and their reliability in Wajir County Water source Surface dams Sand dams Wells Boreholes Water Pans

Wet season Reliable Not reliable 53.1 42.9 50 50 80.6 19.4 90.7 9.3 64.3 35.7

Dry season Reliable Not reliable 46.8 53.2 100 77.1 22.9 91.3 8.7 37.9 62.1

Source: Survey data

38!

The main water management practices in the county are fencing, and water committees managing the water sources (with the community paying for borehole water and the revenue used for paying salary of water point attendants, fuel costs and general repair and maintenance). The major challenges to management of water points are contaminations from livestock mainly in surface dams and water pans if not well managed for drinking animals, increasing demand during dry seasons, high maintenance costs (fuel prices), inadequate recharge from poor rainfalls, and low capacity of water committees in managing the water sources. From Key informant interviews, in Wajir County, indiscriminate permanent water developments are preceding planning. These developments have intensified sedenterization in the rangeland and disarrayed seasonal grazing that is central to sustainable utilization of rangeland. They have become centres from which rangeland degradation and desertification is spreading in the county. Contrary to grazing management decisions in the County, water management decisions are made by water committees (Figure11). These committees were formed between 1983 and 2014 and serve 100 to 10,000 heads of livestock and the communities. The committees face various challenges in managing the water points, the challenges includes; low capacity in skills and knowledge in water management, lack of community cooperation in setting up rules and regulations for water use, conflicts over use during dry seasons from immigrants communities, and inadequate funds for maintenance support. The use of water from boreholes is charged at a fee of KES 20 for camels, KES 10 for cattle and KES 5 for shoats. This revenue goes towards maintenance, fuel costs and salary for attendants.

Figure 11: Decisions on water management in Wajir County

39!

4.4 Issues Related to rangeland Management The most common pastoral systems practiced in Wajir County is transhumance, sedentary (settled) pastoralism and nomadic pastoralism. As shown in Figure 12 transhumance is dominant form of pastoralism in Wajir County with 41.7% of the respondent practicing. This was followed by settled pastoralism which accounts for 30.2% of the sampled population. Nomadic pastoralism however, accounted for 28.1%. Nomadic pastoralism is considered the oldest form of pastoralism but it is still commonly practiced in many parts of Kenya as observed in Wajir County. Transhumance can be considered as a strategic move of pastoralist to cope with the ever-decreasing family income levels, changing land use patterns and weather conditions. In Wajir County, however, the ranching system is nonexistence, thus most of the land under livestock production is communal land. Transhumance in Wajir County is characterized by herd splitting, in which lactating stock are left behind. Pastoral producers with large herd sizes usually split them into small groups for proper management during movements and stay in different grazing zones. The dominance of transhumance pastoralism in Wajir County requires proper management and development of interventions such an appropriate distribution of water points and other services such as veterinary health care and security as well as designing a master plan for rangeland use that entails provision of grazing reserves and designated areas for grazing during wet and dry seasons.

40!

Figure 12: Types of Pastoralism practiced in Wajir County

Throughout the world's arid regions, and particularly in Kenya, nomadic pastoralists are undergoing a transition to settled life. Pastoral sedentarisation has been advocated for by many government policies and interventions. This is because of the old believes that nomadic pastoralism is destructive land use and for the services to be provided, pastoralists must settle. On the other hand, sedentarisation represents a response to complex and interrelated factors, including increased competition for range land due to growing populations, loss of livestock due to drought and famine, land privatization or appropriation for commercial farms, ranches, and tourist game parks, and as security against increasing ethnic conflict over resources and civil wars. Although settlement is an ongoing process in Kenyan rangelands, debate about it is centered on provision of services and food security Visa Vis the health and the suitability of the rangeland. The study revealed that most pastoralists in Wajir County are settled in villages across the rangeland. Most families have their members settled in villages or trading centers. According to Key informants and the FGDs, 1 to 10 members in most families have settled in the villages. These settlers do not directly participate in actual livestock keeping as most of them engage in non-pastoral related livelihood activities such petty trade and wage employment. However, despite the fact that they are no longer directly involved in pastoralism, most of them support livestock keeping business by remittances and veterinary services among other provisions. From the household interviews and FGD information, most settled pastoralistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; cited factors such as escalating inter-clan conflicts, and droughts as the reason behind their settlement. Notably, it was widely reported that politics has played a major role in increasing settlements. The politicians are looking for votes and others fulfilling their promises during campaigns to increase the number of chiefs and provide services such as schools and health, resulting in permanent settlements. On the other hand, lack of basic services such as health and education were also contributing factors to change form nomadic pastoralism to more of settlement lifestyle and transhumance. Table 11 present positive and negative impacts of settlements from the pastoral communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perspectives. Most (42.2%) of the interviewed households cited access to !

41!

education in settlements as a positive impact of urbanization. As reported during the FGDs in Kilkiley, before settlements were in place none of their members had access to education, compared to today whereby almost all their children are in formal schooling. Other positive impact include, accessibility to market (29.2%), availability of water for domestic use (5.2%), improved access to health services (12.5%) and increased security (1.6%). Livelihood diversification was reported by 9.4% as a positive impact of settlement and urbanization. The livelihood diversification include pastoralist engaging in non-pastoral income generation activities that are less affected by seasonal climatic fluctuation which grantees a good standard of living and a way out of poverty and food insecurity. Table 11:Positive and negative impacts of urbanization/settlements in Wajir County Variable Positive effect

Negative effect

Category Access to education Market accessibility Water availability Increased security improved health services Livelihood diversification Reduced labor Increased Diseases Cultural changes Un-conducive environment Pollution Pressure on available water sources

Percentage 42.2 29.2 5.2 1.6 12.5 9.4 49.4 30.0 18.8 0.6 0.6 0.6

Source: Survey data

The reported negative impacts on the other hand include reduced labour for herding and other livestock related activities (49.4%). This is critical for pastoral household in Wajir County who are forced to strike a balance between labour requirements and total herd output particularly in terms of milk and live animals. This has a direct impact on the management of livestock which directly affect the standards of living, taking into account that pastoral production system in the county is more of a system that aims at sustaining households. Increased disease was cited by 30% as a negative impact of settlement. This was confirmed by FGDs and key informant information that animals which are concentrated around the villages are experiencing more disease outbreak as compared to the moving herds. This also has a long term negative effect on their livelihoods particularly on accumulation of livestock as a way to manage drought. On the other hand negative cultural influence and change was cited by 18.8% of the !

42!

interviewed pastoral households. These changes include attraction of bad habits such as increased use of drugs like Mirra. Other negative impacts were un-conducive environment for livestock production, pollution and excessive pressure on available water sources. The latter is also seen as a serious threat to the sustainability of the pastoral settlements in Wajir County. Solutions to the negative impacts of settlements from the interviewed pastoral household perceptive include, investing in proper livestock grazing systems that is less labour intensive, link pastoralists to reliable livestock market in order to move form subsistence system to more commercially oriented systems, strengthening the cultural system and values of communities and plan the settlement in a way that will not reduce the available grazing lands. Linked to settlements that that are have interfered with the pastoral system, gas and oil exploration is also taking large tracts of land from the pastoral system. These lands are usually marked off and pastoralists kept off from them. In these areas, extensive excavations and drilling is being done. These activities have contributed to rangeland degradation in form of soil erosion, pollution, deforestation, and reduced grazing areas as reported by 23.5, 31.5, 26.5 and 5.3% of the respondents respectively. Also, loss of gazing land to this activity has precipitated resource use conflicts as reported by 13.5% of the sampled population. Table 12 shows the gender role on rangeland and livestock production, marketing and management. Grazing during both wet and dry season was dominated by adult males with 51.2% and 46.5% of the workload carried by this gender group respectively. Young men also have a big share in grazing management with them been responsible of about 34.9% and 37.8% of the work during wet and dry seasons respectively. Categories of young women and adult female had less to do in terms of grazing management during both wet and dry seasons. Watering livestock followed the same trend, adult male are reported to be responsible for about 44% while 25.9% of the watering is carried out by young men. Contrary to grazing management and watering, milking of lactating stock is dominated by latter categories. Most of the workload in milking around 75.1% is carried out by adult female. Young women carried out about 15.7% of the milking workload. Adult male and young men were reported to have carried out only 6% and 3.2% respectively.

43!

Table 12: Gander role in rangeland production, marketing and management Variable Grazing wet season Grazing dry season Milking Watering Milk marketing Live animal marketing Meat marketing Dryland farming Range improvement Security

Young men % 34.9

Young women % 7.4

Adult male % 51.2

Adult female % 6.5

37.8

10.1

46.5

5.1

3.2 25.9 11.1 16.6

15.7 11.1 24.6 3.2

6.0 44.0 26.1 71.1

75.1 19.0 38.2 7.5

14.6 42.9 18.9

13.2 6.1 4.5

66.2 35.7 70.3

6.0 15.3 6.3

18.5

6.9

72.8

1.7

Source: Survey data

Milk marketing is dominated by adult male and female with 26.1% and 38.2% respectively. Young men are responsible for about 24.6% of the milk marketing, while, young female are responsible for 11.1%. Marketing of live animals were slightly different in comparison to milk. The sale is dominated by adult male with 71.1% share in this process. Young men came second with 16.6% responsibility in live animal marketing. Meat marketing followed the same trend as adult male dominated the process, followed by young men and young women. Although dryland farming is practiced in a very small areas in the county, the farming was dominated by young men (42.9%), followed by adult male (35.7%) and adult female and young women with 15.3% and 6.1% of the workload. Rangeland improvements which include restoration and rehabilitation of the rangeland are dominated by adult male with 70.3% of the workload. This followed by young male (18.9%) and adult female and young women with 15.3% and 6.1% respectively. Provision of security to livestock herds followed the same trend, with adult male having 72.8% responsibility, followed by young men, young women and adult female. 4.5 Rangeland Management Policy and Institutional Support From Table 13, 42 to 46% of community respondents were aware of various government policies in which rangeland management is anchored. However, form Key informant discussions, these policies have not led to proper rangeland management nor enhanced range-based livelihoods in the county partly due to weak implementation, and past historical perspectives. Table 13: Community awareness on rangeland related policies

44!

Policy Issue Range management Livestock management

Aware 42.9 44.1

Not aware 57.1 55.9

Marketing Land Water Livestock diseases

43.5 42.7 44.5 45.7

56.5 55.9 55.5 54.3

Source: Survey data

The economic and political foundation laid down during colonial Kenya that saw ASALs and their people considered economically unproductive and by virtue of their climate and geography to their agricultural counterparts, has persisted in post-independence policy making in Kenya. This policy position regarding ASALs was entrenched in law in newly independent Kenya's blue-print for economic growth, the Sessional Paper No.10 of 1965 and only recently, has been revised by the Sessional Paper No. 8 of 2012, in which the significance of ASALs to the economy is appropriately recognized. This recognition has been strengthened by other policy documents directly or indirectly geared towards the development of dry lands in the country including: the Constitution of Kenya 2010, National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands of 2012, Vision 2030 Development Strategy for Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands 2012, Livestock Policy of 2008, and the Kenya National Land Policy 2007. At the institutional level, and in an attempt to break with history, the Kenya Government set up a national institution at the cabinet level in 2008, i.e., Ministry of State for the Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands to deal specifically with the development challenges of Northern Kenya and other arid lands, as well as offer a strong coordinating framework and mechanism for planning, monitoring and coordination of all development initiatives in the ASALs. However, in the 2014electoral cycle and set up non-government, this crucial over-arching structure does not exist in the current government. Its absence is major backlash to anchoring the various policies on ASALs development as well as budget and resource allocation for dry land development. As specific ministry for the ASALS as was the case of the then Ministry of State for Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands, tasked, to deliver Vision 2030 to the people in arid lands still remains crucial partly due to: First, per the policy papers, the strategies and policies are to be delivered across line ministries requiring a mechanism to oversee and ensure their implementation. Second, the very nature of arid lands makes strong coordination particularly important. Third, in the newly devolved government system brought on by the Constitution of Kenya 2010, most devolution units (counties) with the highest levels of poverty are in arid lands !

45!

where there is still significant inequality in human development to effectively implement and manage policy. Moreover, from the key informant interviews, the current County structure is dominated by locals who even though qualified are bogged down by partisan interests to adequately implement policy to benefit all equal. Fourth the ASALs in the country have significant but untapped potential, and require a strong coordinating entity at national level to leverage private sector investments and thus maximize the potential of the arid lands for the economy as a whole. Lastly, the need for an institutional coordination mechanism specifically for dry lands is attributed to the fact that ASALs need more focused and nuanced policy attention, where previous ASAL interventions and initiatives have failed to generate desired impact, largely because they lacked an appropriate institutional framework to ensure that multi-sectoral commitments were followed through(Anon 2012a; Anon 2008; Anon 2012b. To this end, such a critical Ministry was established and located within the political administration at a position that enables it to access the power needed to influence policy making, implementation and resource allocation. Therefore, for enhanced policy implementation and support to ASALs development in the county and the country in general, there is need to re-operationalisation a docket for ASALs development at the National Government level and within affected County governments, to spearhead and coordinate development. From this study, currently only 24.5% of the community members are accessing institutional support in terms of animal feeding during dry seasons, food aids, animal health and veterinary services (Figure 13). This observation further strengthens the case for a high level institution to profile the County as well as the ASALs for institutional support. This is necessary as current misgivings on the devolved units as units increasingly getting riddled with devolved corruption may not attract external support.

46!

Figure 13: Institution support in Wajir County

From Table 14, implementing proper stocking rates and empowering resource use committees are the key strategies for improving and protecting the rangelands in Wajir County, read at 41.2 and 28.4% respectively. Table 14: Measures to protect rangeland by communities Measures Proper stocking rate Establishing and empowering resource use committees Avoid sedentarisation no measures Proper range management practices Creating awareness on conservation

Percentage 41.2 28.4 7.2 3.1 0.5 19.6

Source: Survey data

The overall goal of rangeland improvement and protection is to improve rangeland productivity and enhance ecosystem resilience to ecological stress, so as to continue producing and thus contribute to sustained livelihoods security and better standards of living. To achieve this goal, all rangeland management practices should contribute to enhanced rangeland resilience. Resilience is the amount of disturbance an ecological system can withstand without changing state. It shrinks with human activities that negatively affect ecosystem processes such nutrient and water cycles. Therefore in this case, it is can be enhanced through:

47!

! Buffering to control unwanted variations by controlling stocking rates or enhancing grazing resources use at different spatial scales to redistribute resource use pressures. ! Avoid overuse, by observing resource use thresholds ! Nurturing system renewal by protecting resource catchments and conserving key species that are central to system survival and ! Civic education to enhance informed decision making on resource use and conservation To this end, the observed measures of protecting the rangeland, particularly through proper stocking rates, empowered resource use committees and civic awareness on resource conservation, are still low, below 50% within the community. Therefore, there is need to up-scaling these issues within the County. In Wajir County, land demarcation and fencing, and planting trees and building gagaions were the main measures implemented by the households to improve the range, and were practiced by 44 and 39.8% of the households (Figure 14), respectively.

Figure 14: Measures to improve the rangeland by communities

Fenced rangeland or enclosures, denoting areas closed off from grazing for a specific period of time, is an established management tool to restore degraded rangeland ecosystems. The fenced area generally regenerates, re-establishing the degraded vegetation. Regeneration of the vegetation in the rangelands positively affects rangeland biodiversity (Asefa et al., 2002; Abebe et al., 2006) and soil fertility (McIntosh et al., 1997; Su et al., 2005; Mekuria et al., 2007); it reduces soil erosion (Descheemaecker et al., 2006) and increases water availability (Hongo et al., 1995). However, in most cases, ecosystem rehabilitation needs to be fostered by planting and !

48!

reseeding (Visser et al., 2004) of indigenous and other adapted plant species. In Wajir County, planting of indigenous trees, should be intensified to enhance rangeland restoration efforts. The fenced areas can also increase direct economic benefits to the households is used for controlled rotational or seasonal grazing, as well as for other income generating activities such as steers fattening, grass cutting for hay, grass seed harvesting and bee keeping. However, fencing the rangeland and thus privatizing formerly communal rangelands, may result in social conflicts and foster rangeland degradation rather than contribute to rehabilitation and productivity increases (Beyene, 2010; Mureithi et al., 2010). Generally, from the key informant discussions it was clear that, fencing of the rangeland is increasingly geared to privatizing the range and will severely constrain pastoral mobility, a key resource use strategy. This will further open up the rangeland to individuation with exclusive rights of use that is central to collapse of the pastoral production systems. Fencing opens up the rangeland to sub-division and land sales, and buying by speculators. Land speculators quickly acquire land from the local pastoralists and get loans using the titles as collateral to invest elsewhere. In this process, it is the poor of the poor herders who loss out in terms of land resources and livelihoods. Therefore, attempts to reform customary land tenure to individual private tenure solely to enhance tenure security, increase investments in land, increase productivity, and make land more responsive to markets have not been realized. These attempts have by and large undermined viable and working pastoral systems particularly for the herding communities of eastern Africa.

49!

CHAPTER FIVE 5 KEY FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND WAYFORWARD 5.1 Key Findings a) The following are the key findings with implications for rangeland and grazing management in the County. â&#x20AC;˘ That 66.8% of the household heads are male, controlling major resources and making important decisions in households. The County has a large household size averaging 8.7 family members. This implies that men and their families will continue to play a central role in implementing rangeland and grazing management plans. 91.5% of the household heads have informal education, limiting their ability to use formal education skills as an asset to diversify their income sources. Because of this, 86% of the household heads pursue pastoralism as the main livelihood source. It is also the main and reliable source of income as rated by 79.3 and 71.9% of the respondents in the wet and dry season respectively. The main source of income under pastoralism is milk sales whose income drops by about 50% in the dry season because of feed scarcity. This as important implication for county rangeland management plans, that prevailing stocking rates must match available feed, if not, commensurate seasonal destocking and restocking levels must be implemented or concerted feed conservation efforts must be put in place to bridge the seasonal feed gaps. â&#x20AC;˘

Access to grazing resources declines critically during drought seasons partly due to reduced mobility coupled with increased conflicts over grazing resources at this period. Reduced mobility was mainly attributed to lack of adequate herding labour as young men are increasingly abandoning pastoralism, neighbouring communities guarding their dry season grazing resources seriously, frequent droughts reducing feed resources widely and issues related to insecurity. This implies that the pastoralists no longer have access to grazing resources during dry seasons and hence exposed to food insecurity and loss of livelihood sources. This is also a precursor for rangeland degradation, from the fact that mobility was part of sustainable rangeland resource use that avoided over exploitation of vegetation.

â&#x20AC;˘

Most of the land in the County is under communal ownership with76.9% of the households laying permanent claims to ownership based on individual, family and community rights as recognized in their traditional system. This implies that land management decisions on these communal land still relies on community agreements, which from the FGDs and KII, the enforcement of some laws !

50!

governing access and use has been weakened by politicization that has diluted the chiefs power that worked in the past. •

•

That land ownership conflicts are not a major issue in the County. However, grazing resource conflicts are common (64%) between clans and aggravated by local politics. These conflicts intensify when migrant communities fail to adherence to the local institutions governing grazing resources and water use. The highest proportion of conflicts at community levels is solved by Chiefs (90%), with peace committees and elders resolving only 8.5 and 0.6% respectively. However, politization of the Chiefs office continues to erode their authority and respect in conflict arbitration, leading to recurrent resource use conflicts. Conflict resolutions mechanisms modeled along customary respected institutions of elders and religious leaders enforced within a legal framework may provide the opportunity of meeting the challenges of resource management and sustainable pastoral production in these areas.

•

The positive drives for willingness to donate land for developments were compensation (42.5%), and use for community development projects (57.5%). This implies that any development initiatives anchored on the two has high chances of acceptance by the communities. More so, if the developments are complementing livestock production systems, then there are high chances of acceptance and adoption.

•

Improper rangeland management practices and expertise was rated the highest (57%) cause of loss of pastoral livelihoods. This is exacerbated by lack of appropriate land use mapping and indiscriminate water developments and settlements. This was highly reported to be the reasons behind increased land degradation, reduced feed resources and breakdown of past sustainable strategies for grazing. !

51!

•

The communities total livestock numbers closely matched the wet season numbers; a season when there is no stress in grazing their livestock, but the livestock numbers declined during dry seasons due to grazing resource limitations. These herd dynamics should be considered in designing rangeland management interventions. Therefore, consideration of herd dynamics with seasonality is a key determinant in the grazing plans.

•

That supplementary feeding (80%) and migration (69.7%) were the preferred coping strategies for livestock feed scarcity during the dry and drought periods by the households respectively. This will require the county to implement a feed conservation strategy in form of grazing reserves to meet feed scarcity in the dry periods and enter into bilateral arrangements with neighbouring counties and countries to secure grazing rights access to their grazing resources during droughts.

•

In the County, 72% of the pastoralists have changed their traditional grazing strategies to mainly supplementary feeding and keeping small herds. The shift in pastoral strategies is in quest to provide adequate animal feed and reduce deaths from starvation precipitated by recurrent droughts, reduce over grazing and adapt to climate change. However, pastoral mobility, proper stocking/restocking, and leasing grazing areas were identified as the best grazing management strategies.

•

The best grazing management strategies are faced by a number of risks particularly increased incidences of disease outbreaks, increased insecurity, lack of adequate financial support, and fire outbreaks. This are the limitations to livelihoods under pastoralism that the County can help address and strengthen the identified strategies.

•

This study revealed that the current rangeland management practice is dominated individual decision making (82.4%) on grazing management. The grazing committees that were formed between 2001 and 2014 have been weakened by the new county administrative systems and their authority further been reduced by dilution of powers held by chiefs in reinforcing critical decisions made on grazing plans for the communities. The Chief are not respected, as their institution is highly politicized and they are many, making overlapping decisions meant to favor their own communities.

52!

•

Overgrazing was identified as a major challenge (65.6%) on grazing management during wet and dry seasons, contributing much to rangeland degradation. These reduce grazing resources and further reduce pastoral livelihoods.

•

Borehole, wells and surface dams are the most reliable water sources during wet and dry seasons. These are the widely distributed water sources in the County and are focused on by the County for development. The major challenges facing the management of water points are pollution from livestock mainly for surface dams and water pans, increasing demand during dry seasons, inadequate recharge from poor rainfalls, and low managerial capacity of the water.

•

In Wajir County, indiscriminate permanent water developments are preceding planning. These developments have intensified sedenterization in the rangeland and disarrayed seasonal grazing that is central to sustainable utilization of rangeland. They have become centres of rangeland degradation and deforestation is spreading in the county. The implications of this are reduced grazing resources from reduced mobility and increase in pressure over a few available grazing areas. The resultant is increased effects of droughts and hence loss of livestock which is wealth.

•

Transhumance is the dominant form of pastoralism in Wajir County with 41.7% of the respondent practicing. It is considered as a strategic move by pastoralist to cope with the ever decreasing family income levels, changing land use patterns and weather conditions. The system is characterized by herd splitting, in which lactating stock are left behind.

•

Sedentarisation represents a response to complex and interrelated factors, including increased competition for rang land resources, land privatization and as security against increasing ethnic conflict over resources. Politics has exacerbated settlements in the county, as politicians/leaders see it as means of delivering services to their people.

•

Positive impacts sedentarisation include; accessibility education, health services and markets, availability of water for domestic use, increased security and opportunities for livelihood diversification.

•

Negative impacts sedentarisation include; reduced labour for herding and other livestock related activities, increased disease both for humans and livestock, negative cultural influence and change, environmental pollution and excessive pressure on available water sources. Solutions to the negative impacts of settlements include, investing in proper livestock grazing systems are less !

53!

labour intensive, linking pastoralists to reliable livestock markets and changing their systems of production to be commercially oriented, strengthening the cultural systems and values of the communities and planning the settlement minimize their interference with available grazing areas. â&#x20AC;˘

Settled pastoralists in villages and trading centres do not directly participate in pastoral livestock keeping as most of them are engage in non-pastoral livelihood activities such petty trade and wage employment. However, they indirect support pastoralism through remittances for meeting livestock husbandry and veterinary services among other provisions.

â&#x20AC;˘

Gender roles in the pastoral system the county were based on rangeland and grazing management, livestock production and marketing, and dryland farming. Men carried a greater work load on range based activities such as herding and security, while women engaged in home-based activities such milking.

b) Policy issues Shifts in policy towards allowing statutory individual exclusive rights of tenure (whose ownership is estimated at 26.1%) over land based resources in the pastoral areas of Wajir County as elsewhere in the drylands of eastern Africa, will seriously undermine the ability of the herding community to access key grazing resources that are discontinuous in space and time. This will make the herders who, by and large, rely on livestock for their livelihoods to become highly vulnerable to famine, droughts and thus food insecurity. This situation will be increasingly aggravated in the County has the herders lose more productive land to other sectors, mainly farming, forestry and wildlife. Also, though customary tenure and traditional institutions for resource control, access, utilization, and management are fairly efficient and sustainable, they are increasingly being marginalized. The combined effect of these factors is likely to lead to the pastoral system to increasingly lose ground and sustainability. To reverse these trends may not be an easy task. However, customary tenure and traditional institutions with a compatible mix of formal systems of resource management may present a starting point for designing sustainable land tenure and resource management system within the county. Of particular significance, tenure systems modeled along controlled customary tenure together with a range of negotiated access rights may provide the opportunity of meeting the challenges of resource management and sustainable livestock production in these areas.

54!

5.2 Conclusion From this study, pastoralism continues to be the main livelihood strategy in Wajir County. This will continue to be so in the foreseeable future until other viable alternative livelihood strategies are developed. The potential alternative livelihoods strategies for consideration include sand and limestone mining, dryland farming, gum production, tourism and eco-tourism. Investments in alternative livelihoods should go hand in with building resilience for pastoralism. At this point in time, pastoralism in the county is undermined by a number of factors but in particular indiscriminate water developments and settlements that have destroyed the traditional system based on wet and dry season grazing areas and grazing reserves. To enhance pastoral resilience, the county government in support with development partners will have to implement strategies and regulations supporting rangeland and grazing management, livestock production and marketing. These strategies should include; immediate cessation of indiscriminate water developments and settlements into grazing areas, enforced seasonal grazing patterns, Strengthened early warning and dissemination of climate information for pastoral production, enforced customary natural resource governance rules, organized mobility of pastoralist into drought reserves with bilateral arrangements with neighboring communities, enforced restocking and destocking strategies to match available feed to stocking rates, enforced feed bulking strategies and rangeland restoration and improvement, a responsive marketing strategy to spur commercialization of subsistence pastoralism and capacity building of pastoral herder to fully participate in a market-oriented pastoral system. 5.3 Way Forward a) There is great need to support pastoralism through appropriate land use policies, development plans that consider and enhance pastoralism as key livelihood option in Wajir County. This may entail development of land use policies protecting pastoral rights of resource use. b) There is need to develop sustainable rangeland management plans which should be done in consultation with men who still take greater responsibility regarding rangeland use decisions in the County. There is also need to build capacity of the men/elders involved in decision making and build on their experiences for key decision making processes

c) There is great need to develop grazing systems and plans that factor in wet season, dry season and drought periods feed demands for livestock. This should ensure there is mechanism in place such as destocking and restocking to match available feed resources with livestock feed demands. This process will require !

55!

proper planned off-take supported by required market infrastructure that protects pastoral interests and should be responsive to seasonal changes. d) There is need to put measures in place that strengthen community law enforcement regarding land use rights in support of pastoralism. This may require elimination of politics in enforcing the community agreements and the process should be strengthened by recognized legal framework supported by County government for effective enforcement.

e) To protect pastoral grazing lands for sustainability, there need to control settlements and water resource developments. This may require development of policy framework to control these processes and should be supported by the community members who are already willing to be part of the process. This will also require collapsing some villages that are already misplaced in the grazing areas. Thus, legislate against indiscriminate permanent water developments preceding planning to mitigate disarraying the pastoral system further and open for opportunities to restore the pastoral system f) Land ownership in Wajir County should be streamlined to avoid the tragedy of the commons by strengthening community ownership and reducing free access which predisposes the land to degradation. This will require land ownership policies supported by County government and communities to protect both interests. g) There is urgent need to support conflict resolutions mechanisms modeled along customary respected institutions of elders and religious leaders enforced within a legal framework to provide the opportunity of meeting the challenges of resource management and sustainable pastoral production in these areas. This may reduce political interference and increase community confidence in the systems. h) There is need to enhance communities capacity on rangeland management, water management and sustainable resource use within the rangelands. This will require a participatory training and learning process which should be also used to develop best grazing practices and instill proper management practices that enhance sustainability. The capacity building should target key resources and relevant decision makers on access, use and protection with clear understanding of gender roles.

56!

i) The emerging adaptation mechanisms to feed shortages such as supplementation and leasing of grazing lands should be supported. Supplementation can be supported by establishment of fodder production during favorable conditions, harvesting and storage in strategic feed resources/fodder banks. j) There is need to develop bilateral agreements between Wajir County and the neighboring Counties and Countries to enhance grazing resource access during droughts k) There is need to support customary land tenure and traditional institutions with a compatible inclusion of formal systems of resource management as a starting point for designing sustainable land tenure and resource management system within the county. These enforced tenure and institutional frameworks should enhancethe best grazing management strategies, particularly pastoral mobility, and proper stocking/restocking, and l) Prepare and implementcapacity building of pastoral herders to fully participate in a market-oriented pastoral system, however, capacity building should focused based on gender roles in the pastoral system.

57!

APPENDICES 6.1 References Abebe, M.H., Oba, G., Angassa, A., Weladji, R.B., 2006. The role of area enclosures and fallow age in the restoration of plant diversity in northern Ethiopia. African Journal of Ecology 44: 507-514. Anon, 2012a. Development Strategy for Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands Vision 2030 Development Strategy for Northern Kenya and Other Arid Lands Development Strategy for Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands. Anon, 2012b. Kenya Vision 2030 REPUBLIC OF KENYA July - August, 2007. Anon, 2008. Republic Of Kenya Ministry Of Livestock Development Service Charter. (July). Asefa, D.T., Oba, G., Weladji, R.B., Colman, J.E., 2002. An assessment of restoration of biodiversity in degraded high mountain grazing lands in northern Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development 14: 25-38. Beyene, F., 2009. Exploring incentives for rangeland enclosures among pastoral and agropastoral households in eastern Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change 19: 494502. Descheemaecker, K., Muys, B., Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Raes, D., Haile, M., Deckers, J., 2006. Litter production and organic matter accumulation in exclosures of the Tigray highlands, Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management 233: 21-35. Hongo, A., Matsumoto, S., Takahashi, H., Zou, H., Cheng, J., Jia, H., Zhao, Z., 1995. Effect of exclosure and topography on rehabilitation of overgrazed shrub-steppe in the Loess Plateau of Northwest China. Restoration Ecology 3: 18-25. McIntosh, P.D., Allen, R.B., Scott, N., 1997. Effects of exclosure and management on biomass and soil nutrient pools in seasonally dry high country, New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management 51: 169-186. Mekuria, W., Veldkamp, E., Haile, M., Nyssen, J., Muys, B. Gebrehiwot, K., 2007. Effectiveness of exclosures to restore degraded soils as a result of overgrazing in Tigray, Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments 69: 270-284. Mureithi, S.M., Verdoodt, A. and Van Ranst, E. 2010. Effects and implications of enclosures for rehabilitating degraded semi-arid rangelands: Critical lessons from Lake Baringo Basin, Kenya. In: Land Degradation and Desertification: Assessment, Mitigation and Remediation. (Pandi Zdruli, Marcello Pagliai, Selim Kapur and Angel Faz Cano, (Eds). Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York. 2010, Part 2, 111-129, DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-8657-0_9. Oxfam GP (2002). Pastoralists under pressure: The politics of sedentarisation and marginalization in north-eastern Kenya. Republic of Kenya (2013). Ministry of Devolution and Planning 2013: Wajir County development profile !

58!

Republic of Kenya (2013). Wajir County 2013: First County integrated development plan 2013-2017. Su, Y.Z, Li, Y.L., Cui, J.Y., Zhao, W.Z., 2005. Influences of continuous grazing and livestock exclusion on soil properties in a degraded sandy grassland, Inner Mongolia, northern China. Catena 59: 267-278. Visser, N., Botha J.C., Hardy M.B., 2004. Re-establishing vegetation on bare patches in the Nama Karoo, South Africa. Journal of Arid Environments 57: 155-177. 6.2 Pictures

The dominant vegetation are Acacia spp.

Wild animals in the rangeland of Wajir South

Termites nest mouldsin the area of West Wajir

Livestock market in Abakore Village

59!

6.3 Household/individual questionnaire 1. General information 1.1 Date of interview: …………/…………/… ………… Name of enumerator: ………………………..……….. 1.2 Name of respondent: ……………………… Sex: 1) Male 2) Female 1.3 Location …………………… Sub-location ……………………..……….Village………………………………….… 2. Household head’s information 2.1 Sex: 1) Male…………. 2) Female ……………. 2.2 Age? ……… 2.3 Education: 1) None….. 2) Primary………… (3) Secondary……… 4) Post-Secondary.... 2.4 Household Size/Composition ………….. No. of male............. No. of female ........................ 2.6 What is your main occupation? ………………………………………………………………………………..……… 2.7 List all the income generation activities and how much did you get from each per month Source of income Rank during Last wet season Rank during dry Last Dry season wet season (1, amount (Kshs) per season (1, 2, 3) amount (Kshs) per 2, 3) month month

3. Land use planning and tenure 3.1 Do you have access to land for your livelihood activities (grazing)? During rainy season: 1) Yes ……. 2) No …… During dry season: 1) Yes ……. 2) No …… During drought: 1) Yes ……. 2) No …… 3.2 If yes, which type of land? a) Family land………….. (b) Individual ownership ………………. (c) Community land ………………… (d) Trust land ……………… e) group ranch…………… (f) Others, specify…………………………………………………………………… 3.3 What is the nature of your land ownership (tenure right)? a) Permanent……………………. b) temporary………………………………. 3.4 If permanent? a) Freehold ………….. b) Leasehold …………… Others (specify) ……………….…. 3.5 If temporary? a) Tenancy……… b) Free access (SQ) ………… Others (specify) …………………. 3.6 Are you aware of any land related conflict in your area? 1) Yes ……….. 2) No ………….…….. 3.7 Have you experienced land conflicts? 1) Yes ………….. 2) No …………………………………………… 3.8 If yes what was the nature of the conflicts………………………………………………………..………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. !

60!

3.9 How are the land related conflicts addressed at the following levels a) Family ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… b) Community …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……. b) County government …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… d) National government …………………………………………………………………………………………………..……. 3.10 As part of the community are you willing to give part of your land for special development/conservation purposes? 1) Yes …………………..…. 2) No ……………………………..…… 3.11 If No, give a reason? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3.12 If yes at what conditions………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.13 What are the problems faced in land management? ...................................................................................................................................................... ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...…………. . 4. Rangeland management and practices 4.1 Which of the following livestock species do you have? Livestock species

Total number

No. wet season

No dry season

Where do you graze/ wet season

Where do you graze/ dry season

Camel Cattle Goats Sheep Donkeys Other (specific…..)

4.2 Do you pay for grazing permits 1) Yes ………. 2) No …………. (if No skip to 4.6) 4.3 If yes who do you pay to………………………………………………………………………. 4.4 How much do you pay in cash………………………… in kind? …………………….. 4.5 Please inform us on use of money collected from grazing? ………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………….………………………….. 4.6 Do you have grazing reserves in your area? 1) Yes ………. 2) No ……… (if No skip to 4.8) 4.7 If yes, where are they located/size in ha? …………………………………………………….. 4.8 How do you deal with serious livestock feed shortage? - During dry season? ..................................................................................................................................................... During drought? ……………………………………..………………………………………………………………………….…… 4.9 Have you changed your grazing strategy for the last 20 years? 1) Yes ………. 2) No……….

61!

4.10 If Yes, please fill the table below Old practices

New practices

Reason for change

4.11 If No Please share with us the current grazing strategies? …………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………….….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4.12 In order of priority, list your best grazing management strategy? Grazing management strategy

What makes it best

Risk to strategy

4.13 Who manages grazing areas 1) Individuals………….. 2) Grazing committee …………. (If individual skip to 4.18) 4.14 If grazing committee, when was it formed? …………………………………………… 4.15 What is the total number of members 1)…………… 2) Male………… 3) Females…….. 4.16 How many livestock keepers do they manage……………………………….…………… and how are the grazing reserves managed………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………. 4.17 What are the challenges faced by the committee in managing grazing areas and grazing reserves…………………………………………………………………………………………..…… ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4.18 List the problems you faced in the last five years, concerning use of: 1- Wet season grazing areas ………………………………………………………………... 2- Dry seasons grazing areas ……………………………………………………………….. 3- Grazing reserves …………………………………………………………………………… 4- Water access and management …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4.19 What are the water sources in your area? Water sources

Uses (1.livestock2.domestic 3. both)

Reliability(1. reliable, 2. not reliable) Wet season

Dry season

Seasonal river Surface dams

62!

Sand dams Wells Boreholes Water Pans Others specify………………

4.20 What are the water management practices in place for the following? Water sources River Surface dams Sand dams Wells Boreholes Water Pans Others specify………

Management practices

Challenges to management

4.21 Who manages water sources? 1) Individuals………….. 2) Water committee…………. 4.22 If water committee, when was it formed? ………………………………………………. 4.23 What is the total number of members 1)…………… 2) Male………… 3) Females…….. 4.24 How many livestock keepers do they serve? ……………………………………………… 4.25 What are the challenges faced by the committee in managing water areas ……………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.26 Do you pay for water for household use 1) Yes………….. 2) No……… 4.27 Do you pay for water use permits for your animals 1) Yes……….. 2) No ……….. (If No skip to 5.1) 4.28 If yes who do you pay to…………………………………………………………………. 4.29 How much do you pay ……………………………………………………………………… 4.30Please inform us on use of money collected from water permits …………………….. . ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5. Issues related to rangeland management 5.1 List the role of various categories of people under the following? Activities

Who is responsible 1. young men 2. Young women 3. Adult male 4. adult female

Approximate time in hours per day

Grazing dry season Grazing wet season Milking Watering Milk Marketing Live animal marketing Meat marketing

63!

Dryland farming Range improvement (clearing and reseeding) Security Others specify

5.2 Are you 1) Nomadic ……………………….….. 2) Settled…………………..… 3) both……………………… (If No Settled skip to 5.3) 5.2 If settled where? 1) Urban area (town)…………………………….. 2) Village …………………………... 5.3 How many members of your family have settled in town (trading centres) …………………. 5.4 What are the reasons for moving………………………………………………………………………………….…. ………………………………………………...………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5.5 Are they still participating directly in livestock keeping 1) Yes …………… 2) No ……………… 5.6 If no, are they involved in any way (support) in livestock keeping 1) Yes …… 2) No …….. 5.7 If yes how…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5.8 Fill the following table on negative and positive influences of towns on livestock keeping and the rangeland Positive effects

Negatives effects

Any solution to negative effects

5.9 Are you aware of any government policy on the following? a) Range management 1) Yes …………… 2) No ……… b) Livestock management 1) Yes …………… 2) No ……… c) Marketing 1) Yes …………… 2) No ……… d) Land 1) Yes …………… 2) No ……… e) Water 1) Yes …………… 2) No ……… f) Livestock diseases 1) Yes …………… 2) No ……… 5.10 Are you getting any support in range and livestock management? 1. ) Yes …… 2) No …… 5.11 If yes provide the following information? Organization/Institutions Services Cost (Ksh) involved Frequency

6.0 What measures do you have in place to protect your rangelands?..................................................................................................................... !

64!

.......................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................... 6.1 How do you manage and improve your rangelands?..................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................... 6.2 Comment on the greatest threat to your rangelands including; 1. Oil and gas exploration ………………………………………………................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................... 2. Settlements…............................................................................................................ .....................................................................................................................……………. 3. …………………………………………......................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................

65!

6.4 Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) Guide 1. 2. 3. 4.

What are the land use types in your area? Are there conflicts over land use/access in your area? What are the causes and resolutions of conflicts? How are the land related conflicts addressed at the following levels? a. Family b. Community c. County government d. National government 5. What livestock species do you keep in the area and which ones are important 6. How is grazing management planned and enforced in your area 7. How are livestock feed shortage addressed? 8. Are there strategies that are used to manage the rangeland usage in your area? If not, what plans are there for such? 9. Are there changes in grazing strategies lately? 10. Which grazing management strategies have worked in the past for this community? 11. Which one has not, reasons? What are the best strategies currently? 12. What are the challenges faced managing grazing areas? 13. List the problems you faced in the last five years, concerning use of: a. Wet season grazing areas b. Dry seasons grazing areas c. Grazing reserves 14. What are the water sources in your area? 15. What are the water management practices in place in your area? 16. What are the challenges faced in managing water in your area? 17. Do communities charge for water use permits? How much do they charge, how is the revenue used? 18. How do women participate in natural resources management? What are the strategies? 19. What is the impact of urbanization/settlements on rangeland management and livestock keeping in your area (positive and negative?) 20. What measures do you have in place to protect your rangelands? 21. How do you manage and improve your rangelands

66!

6.5 Key informant question guide 1. Land use planning and tenure a. What are the land use types in the area â&#x20AC;&#x201C;Wajir b. Land tenure in Wajir County c. Conflicts over land use/access d. Causes and resolutions e. How are the land related conflicts addressed at the following levels i. a) Family ii. b) Community iii. b) County government iv. d) National government 2. Rangeland management and practices a. Livestock species kept in the area and which ones are important b. How is grazing management planned and enforced in wajir c. Wet season, dry season and grazing reserve d. Do you issue grazing permits? e. Use of revenue from permits f. How are livestock feed shortage addressed? g. Are there strategies that are used to manage the rangeland usage in the County? If not, what plans are there for such? h. Are there changes in grazing strategies lately? i. Which grazing management strategies has worked in the past j. Which one has not, reasons? What are the best strategies currently? k. What are the challenges faced by the committee in managing grazing areas and grazing reserves l. List the problems you faced in the last five years, concerning use of: i. wet season grazing areas ii. dry seasons grazing areas iii. grazing reserves m. What are the water sources in your area? n. What are the water management practices in place in wajir? o. What are the challenges faced by the committees in managing water areas p. Do communities charge for water use permits? How much do they charge, how is the revenue used q. How do women participate in natural resources management? What are the strategies? 3. Impact of urbanization !

67!

a. What is the impact of urbanization/settlements on rangeland management and livestock keeping in wajir (positive and negative?) b. Who are the key stakeholders in rangeland management in Wajir County and their roles/contribution? c. What measures do you have in place to protect your rangelands? d. How do you manage and improve your rangelands e. Comment on the greatest threat to your rangelands including; i. Oil and gas exploration ii. ii. The new community land bill

68!

6.6 List of key informants 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Hassan Gure – DLPO- Wajir East Daud Y. Guliye-DLPO- Wajir West Benard O. Otieno-DLPO- Eldas Noordi Abdi Kheyley- District Pastoral Association Officer- Wajir County Issack Abdille- CDRO-NDMA Wajir County Ahmed Kolosh Mohamed – Chief Officer Water – Wajir County Dahiye Maalim- Chief Officer Environment, Natural Resources and Energy – Wajir County 8. Abdi I. Abdi-Ag. County Director of Water 9. Farah Siyad Tube- County Director of Agriculture 10. Dr. Ahmed A. Abdi Monitoring and Evaluation Officer-Environment and Energy 11. Jimale Hassan Sheikh- Chief Officer- Lands, Housing and Physical Planning- Wajir County 12. Abdullahi Hassan Adan- Physical Planner – Wajir County 13. Hussen Osman Ahmed- Member of County Assembly (MCA)- Khorof Harar Ward 14. Osman Mohamed Abaille- MCA-Ibrahim Ure Ward 15. Ali Bulle Yalahow – Elder/Chief (1981-2003)- Tarbaj 16. Abdi Jimale Mohamed – Elder – Wajir East 17. Aydrus S. Daar – WASDA Diretor 18. Ibrahim Sheikh WASDA-WASH Advisor 19. Halima Bashir- ALDEV-K Program Manager 20. Mohamed Kuresh- Livelihood Coordinator ALDEV- Wajir 21. Ismail Abdikadir – ALDEV-Project Oficer – Wajir 22. Mohamed Mursah- Project Coordinator – Oxfarm Wajir 23. Abdirizak Kontona- Project Officer- Oxfarm Wajir 24. Mohamed Abdi- Project Officer- Oxfarm Wajir

69!

DISCLAIMER This study has been funded by UK aid from the UK government; however the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s official policies.

70!

OXFAM KENYA THE ATRIUM CHAKA ROAD P.O. BOX 40680, GPO NAIROBI (00100) KENYA TEL: +254 020 2820000/ +254 020 2920000 www.oxfam.org.uk/kenya

71!