Dynamics of institutional arrangements and their adaptation to socio-economic and ecological...
Transcript of Dynamics of institutional arrangements and their adaptation to socio-economic and ecological...
Dynamics of Institutional Arrangements and their Adaptation to Socio-economic and
Ecological Challenges in Pastoral Areas of Northern Kenya
Caroline Kanyuuru
Livelihood, Gender and Impact MeetingNairobi, 1 October 2015
Content
• Introduction – Background, problem statement, objectives • Methodology • Results – (per paper)• Conclusions• Recommendations
Thesis linkhttp://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11295/90151/Kanyuuru_Dynamics%20of%20institutional%20arrangements%20and%20their%20adaptation%20to.pdf?sequence=1
Introduction Background
• Kenyas’ drylands make up 84% of Kenya’s total terrestrial land surface (Barrow and Mogaka, 2007)
• 80% of the country’s eco-tourism interests, 60% of the nation’s livestock (Barrow and Mogaka, 2007) and support about 10million people (CBD/UNEP/IUCN, 2007).
• Management of the environment has rested on customary institutions to make and uphold rules and sanction breach of those rules
• The governance approach needs to be flexible and have the capacity to respond to environmental feedback (Resilience)
Problem statement
• Customary institutions have weakened (group ranch sub-division, change from community to private) a significant threat to sustainable natural resource management (IUCN, 2011).
• A general lack of understanding of the value of the rangelands in entirety (Oba and Kotile, 2001).
Objectives
• Overall objective To understand dynamics of pastoral IA and how this is
influencing value of ecosystem services benefits• Specific objective Identify existing IA and their change over time Measure direct and indirect values of pastoral ecosystem
services benefits in different IA (ESVA) Assess how external actors are facilitating IA dynamism Assess how IA are adapting to socio-economic and
ecological factors challenging development.
Methodology Study area
Cont..
• Purposive (IA) and random sampling (Village, HH)
• Sample size 150 HH- (Israel 2009)• Data collection - Qualitative (FGDs and KI) and
quantitative (HH survey) • Data mgt & analysis (MS Access, MS excel,
SNA, STATA, SPSS,) • Economic valuation (TEV framework)
Paper 1Existing Pastoralists’ Institutional
Arrangements and their Dynamic State in the Northern Rangelands of Kenya
• Authors – Kanyuuru Caroline, Mburu John, Njoka Jesse
Conceptual framework
Exogenous factors (i.e. Land
tenure)
Hybrid institutions
Customary institutions
IA managing resources 2002Ki
nna
Mak
uria
n GR
Wes
t Gat
e CC
Kinn
a
Mak
uria
n GR
Wes
t Gat
e CC
Kinn
a
Mak
uria
n GR
Wes
t Gat
e CC
Kinn
a
Mak
uria
n GR
Wes
t Gat
e CC
Kinn
a
Mak
uria
n GR
Wes
t Gat
e CC
Forest Mgt Land mgt Livestock & pasture mgt
Water Mgt Wildlife Mgt
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Government &NGOsConservancy boardGroup Ranch committeeElders only
Resource management
Insti
tutio
nal a
rran
gem
ents
IA managing resources 2012Ki
nna
Mak
uria
n GR
Wes
t Gat
e CC
Kinn
a
Mak
uria
n GR
Wes
t Gat
e CC
Kinn
a
Mak
uria
n GR
Wam
ba W
est
Kinn
a
Mak
uria
n GR
Wes
t Gat
e CC
Kinn
a
Mak
uria
n GR
Wes
t Gat
e CC
Forest Mgt Land Mgt Livestock & pasture Mgt
Water Mgt Wildlife Mgt
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Government &NGOsConservancy boardGroup Ranch committeeElders only
Resource management
Insti
tutio
nal a
rran
gmen
ts
Cont..Land tenure influence
County Area (Km2)
Land tenure
CC(2012)
Laikipia 9,500 GR 4
Samburu
21,000
GR 7
Isiolo 25,605
Trust land
3
Principle component analysisResource IA mgt
2012IA mgt 2002
IA mgt 2002
Forest (2002) -0.16 0.398 0.080Forest (2012) 0.198 0.080 -0.040Land tenure (2002) 0.137 -0.101 -0.011
Land tenure (2012) 0.219 -0.020 -0.018
Livestock&pasture (2002)
-0.17 -0.011 0.845
Livestock&pasture (2012)
0.211 -0.084 0.041
Water (2002) -0.006 0.413 -0.428Water (2012) 0.212 0.023 -0.030Wildlife (2002) -0.011 0.397 0.164Wildlife (2012) 0.182 0.061 0.021
Perceptions on IA performance
Transparency Participatory Equity Market creation Partnership Effectiveness0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
EldersGroup ranch committeeConservancy board
Socio-economic indicators of a robust institutional arrangement
Activ
e in
stitu
tiona
l arr
ange
men
ts
Paper 2Economic Value of Ecosystem Services
Benefits across Different Pastoralist Institutional Arrangements in the
Northern Rangelands of Kenya
• Authors - Kanyuuru Caroline, Mburu John, Njoka Jesse
Conceptual framework (TEV)
EldersGroup ranch committee
Community conservancy board
Indirect value
Direct values
Aggregate value
Sources of household revenue
Camels
Cattle
Chicken
Donkeys
Goats
Goat skin
Gum arabica
Maize
Milk
Sheep
Sugar
Tomatoes
Maize flour
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
No of HH (2002)No of HH (2012)
Proportion of households trading
Gene
ral s
ourc
es o
f hou
seho
ld re
venu
e
Livestock and livestock products sales (2002, 2012)
Kinna Makurian GR West Gate -
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
Livestock & livestock products sales 2012Livestock & livestock products sales 2002
Study sites
Lives
tock
and
live
stoc
k pr
oduc
t rev
enue
s
Households employment revenue
Kinna Division Makurian GR West Gate CC -
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Average revenue (permanent)Average revenue (casual)
Study sites
Perm
anen
t and
casu
al e
mpl
oym
ent a
vera
ge re
venu
es
Direct (HH revenue) and indirect (communal revenue) values
Kinna Division Makurian GR West Gate CC -
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
indirect valueDirect value
Study sites
Aggr
egat
e ec
onom
ic va
lues
Effect of IA
Direct value Coef. Std. Err. t P>t [95% Conf. Interval]
Kinna (Elders)
Makurian (Group Ranch) -24095 48252.39 -0.5 0.618 -119640 71449.52
Westgate (Community Conservancy) -150558 41182.37 -3.66 0.000 -232104 -69013.2
Age -240.857 749.0791 -0.32 0.748 -1724.11 1242.395
Gender -66874.8 28443.76 -2.35 0.0200 -123196 -10553.3
hhsize 8914.272 30191.65 0.3 0.768 -50868.2 68696.76
Paper 3Assessing External Actors Roles in Facilitating Institutional
Dynamism and Socio- economic and Ecological Development in the Northern Rangelands of Kenya
• Author – Kanyuuru Caroline, Mburu John, Njoka Jesse
Conceptual framework
State and non state actors
Socioeconomic and ecological factors
Customary institutions
Hybrid institutions
External actors present
Government
NGOs
Private ranches
Private sector
Religious organization
Research institutions
Government
NGOs
Private ranches
Private sector
Religious organization
Research institutions
Government
NGOs
Private ranches
Private sector
Religious organization
Research institutions
Grou
p ra
nch
com
mitt
ee
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Level of engagement
Exte
rnal
act
ors o
pera
ting
in d
iffer
ent s
tudy
site
s
Addressing socio-economic and ecological factors
Government and NGO support
Ecological Economic Social0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
GovernmentNGOs
Category of challenges
Acto
r add
ress
ing
chal
leng
es
What government should prioritize
Not i
mpo
rtan
t
Impo
rtan
t
Very
Impo
rtan
t
Not i
mpo
rtan
t
Impo
rtan
t
Very
Impo
rtan
t
Not i
mpo
rtan
t
Impo
rtan
t
Very
Impo
rtan
t
Kinna Makurian GR West Gate CC
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
SocialEconomicEcological
What government should prioritize in the study sites
Cate
gory
of c
halle
nges
Paper 4Adaptation of Institutional Arrangements to Management of Northern Rangelands
of Kenya
• Author – Kanyuuru Caroline, Mburu John, Njoka Jesse• Published – Environment, Development and Sustainability
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-015-9718-y
Conceptual framework
Customary institutions
Hybrid institutions
• Co-management• Livelihood
diversification
Resilience
IA addressing socio-economic and ecological factors
2002 2012
Difference in IA in 2002 and 2012 (Pearson Chi-square)
Factors challenging development Institutional arrangement (IA2002, IA2012)
SocialInsecurity, negative politics, cattle rustling, low education levels, land tenure challenges and negative culture practices
(χ2=28.567, p=0.001)
EconomicLow infrastructure, low financial services, low entrepreneurial skills, lack of livestock markets, middlemen and untapped ecotourism
(χ2=27.6159, p=0.001)
Ecological droughts, disease, floods, pasture degradation and water degradation.
(χ2=32.575, p=0.000).
Conclusion
• IAs managing resources in NK are changing and existing land tenure may have an influence on the change
• IAs are embracing a co-management approach overtime
• Number of external actors present were higher where IA had a semi formal structure (GR&CC)
• Co-management offers pastoralist more opportunity to diversify livelihood
Recommendations
• In drafting the National land policy- community land aspect, the government should consider a co-management approach • It offers rangeland management capacity • Provides opportunity for livelihood diversification
• These are two features of resilient ecosystems.
This work is financed by The Nature Conservancy
It is implemented in a partnership with University of Nairobi, Northern Rangelands Trust
Acknowledgements
The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.
better lives through livestock
ilri.org