DYNAMICS OF INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THEIR ... · Dynamics of Institutional Arrangements and...
Transcript of DYNAMICS OF INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THEIR ... · Dynamics of Institutional Arrangements and...
Dynamics of Institutional Arrangements and their Adaptation to Socio-economic and
Ecological Challenges in Pastoral Areas of Northern Kenya
Caroline Kanyuuru
Livelihood, Gender and Impact Meeting
Nairobi, 1 October 2015
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
IntroductionBackground
• 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.
MethodologyStudy 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 institutionsCustomary institutions
IA managing resources 2002
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Kin
na
Mak
uri
an G
R
We
st G
ate
CC
Kin
na
Mak
uri
an G
R
We
st G
ate
CC
Kin
na
Mak
uri
an G
R
We
st G
ate
CC
Kin
na
Mak
uri
an G
R
We
st G
ate
CC
Kin
na
Mak
uri
an G
R
We
st G
ate
CC
Forest Mgt Land mgt Livestock & pasturemgt
Water Mgt Wildlife Mgt
Inst
itu
tio
nal
arr
ange
me
nts
Resource management
Government &NGOs
Conservancy board
Group Ranch committee
Elders only
IA managing resources 2012
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Kin
na
Mak
uri
an G
R
We
st G
ate
CC
Kin
na
Mak
uri
an G
R
We
st G
ate
CC
Kin
na
Mak
uri
an G
R
Wam
ba
We
st
Kin
na
Mak
uri
an G
R
We
st G
ate
CC
Kin
na
Mak
uri
an G
R
We
st G
ate
CC
Forest Mgt Land Mgt Livestock & pastureMgt
Water Mgt Wildlife Mgt
Inst
itu
tio
nal
arr
angm
en
ts
Resource management
Government &NGOs
Conservancy board
Group Ranch committee
Elders only
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 analysis
Resource IA mgt2012
IA mgt2002
IA mgt2002
Forest (2002) -0.16 0.398 0.080
Forest (2012) 0.198 0.080 -0.040
Land tenure (2002) 0.137 -0.101 -0.011
Land tenure (2012) 0.219 -0.020 -0.018
Livestock&pasture(2002)
-0.17 -0.011 0.845
Livestock&pasture(2012)
0.211 -0.084 0.041
Water (2002) -0.006 0.413 -0.428
Water (2012) 0.212 0.023 -0.030
Wildlife (2002) -0.011 0.397 0.164
Wildlife (2012) 0.182 0.061 0.021
Perceptions on IA performance
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Transparency Participatory Equity Market creation Partnership Effectiveness
Act
ive
inst
itu
tio
nal
arr
ange
me
nts
Socio-economic indicators of a robust institutional arrangement
Elders
Group ranch committee
Conservancy board
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
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Camels
Cattle
Chicken
Donkeys
Goats
Goat skin
Gum arabica
Maize
Milk
Sheep
Sugar
Tomatoes
Maize flour
Proportion of households trading
Ge
ne
ral s
ou
rce
s o
f h
ou
seh
old
re
ven
ue
No of HH (2002)
No of HH (2012)
Livestock and livestock products sales (2002, 2012)
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
Kinna Makurian GR West Gate
Live
sto
ck a
nd
live
sto
ck p
rod
uct
re
ven
ue
s
Study sites
Livestock & livestock products sales 2012
Livestock & livestock products sales 2002
Households employment revenue
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Kinna Division Makurian GR West Gate CC
Pe
rman
en
t an
d c
asu
al e
mp
loym
en
t av
era
ge r
eve
nu
es
Study sites
Average revenue (permanent)
Average revenue (casual)
Direct (HH revenue) and indirect (communal revenue) values
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
Kinna Division Makurian GR West Gate CC
Agg
rega
te e
con
om
ic v
alu
es
Study sites
indirect value
Direct value
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
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Government
NGOs
Private ranches
Private sector
Religious organization
Research institutions
Government
NGOs
Private ranches
Private sector
Religious organization
Research institutions
Government
NGOs
Private ranches
Private sector
Religious organization
Research institutions
Eld
ers
on
lyG
rou
p r
anch
co
mm
itte
eC
om
mu
nit
yco
nse
rvan
cy b
oar
d
Level of engagement
Exte
rnal
act
ors
op
era
tin
g in
dif
fere
nt
stu
dy
site
s
Addressing socio-economic and ecological factors
Government and NGO support
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Ecological Economic Social
Act
or
add
ress
ing
chal
len
ges
Category of challenges
Government
NGOs
What government should prioritize
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
No
t im
po
rtan
t
Imp
ort
ant
Ve
ry Im
po
rtan
t
No
t im
po
rtan
t
Imp
ort
ant
Ve
ry Im
po
rtan
t
No
t im
po
rtan
t
Imp
ort
ant
Ve
ry Im
po
rtan
t
Kinna MakurianGR
West GateCC
Cat
ego
ry o
f ch
alle
nge
s
What government should prioritize in the study sites
Social
Economic
Ecological
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