ReSAKSS ECA Stakeholder Workshop

11th June, 2012

ENHANCING RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE

CHANGE IN THE HORN OF AFRICA

By Jesse T. Njoka,

Centre for Sustainable Dryland Ecosystems and Societies

University of Nairobi

Peter Kamande – Associate Consultant

Sammy Mutua – Associate Consultant

MAP OF THE HORN OF AFRICA

STUDY METHODOLOGY

Research questions i. What kinds of humanitarian and development interventions have been

implemented in the Horn of Africa and other dry areas of Africa?

ii. What are the medium and long-term interventions that have been supported by

the host government, development partners, NGOs and communities?

iii. What successful interventions (if any) exist that could be scaled up and what are

the main inhibiting factors to optimal take-up of these interventions?

iv. What have been the main challenges of these interventions?

v. What criteria may be used to judge interventions to be successful or not?

vi. What short-term and long-term investments are required to increase resilience of

the pastoral areas of the Horn of Africa?

vii. Given that livestock and livestock products are the main sources of livelihood for

most communities in the Horn of Africa, what tangible measures should be taken

to strengthen the sector; and by whom?

viii. Given that severe drought episodes appear to be occurring more frequently how

does that impact or change the effectiveness of what otherwise would have been

“good” policies or programs?

Selection of study sites

Focus on drylands and pastoral & agropastoral

livelihoods

Four sites selected based on crossborder nature of

drylands in HoA. Sites were: 1) Karamoja (Turkana

area), 2) Somali/Mandera ecosystem,3) Maasai ecosystem

(Kajiado & Narok) and 4) Lower Eastern (Kitui, Mwingi and

Makueni districts)

Data collection

Review of literature e.g. on past projects, policies

Interviews with communities, experienced

professionals (NGOs, CBOs) and other stakeholders

Focus group discussions at community level

STUDY METHODOLOGY

70% of the HOA is occupied by Drylands – 95%

in Somalia, >80% in Kenya , 60% of Uganda

and approximately 50% Tanzania

The inhabitants are among the poorest and

vulnerable people in the world

Droughts are common occurrence for centuries.

Increased vulnerability of the communities in the

region

Conflict/insecurity challenges

SOME FACTS

FACTS CONTI---

Livelihoods in ASALs of the HoA region are at

risk from:

Rising temperatures

More intense and variable rainfalls

frequent and severe droughts

Declining land productivity

political instability and insecurity

2010/2011 DROUGHT CRISIS IN THE HOA

The most serious drought in 60 years

14 million people affected

Mass migration and movement of people/ livestock

and further complicated by insecurity and terrorism

activities in Somalia

Serious food deficits and poor distribution system

Rising food prices- prices of staple maize have

escalated and remain high

Devastating effect on GDP growth

Overview of land uses/resource uses in the ASALs

≈livelihoods

Livestock

Wildlife

Alternatives:

charcoal

burning

Rainfed farming

ECOSYSTEM CHALLEGES IN HOA

Deterioration of range condition

Land tenure and property rights

Conflicts and insecurity issues

Demographic trends- Population growth-increased

pressure on natural systems

Mobility of pastoralists and livestock- mismatch

between resource tenure and land tenure

Effect of boundaries and borders- Physical vs

ecological delineations

IMPACT OF DROUGHT OVER THE YEARS -CASE OF KENYA

6/20/2012

10

IMPACT OF DROUGHT OVER THE YEARS -CASE OF KENYA

11 Relationship between drought events and GDP growth in Kenya over two decades

Examples Past

Interventions

6/20/2012

13

KEY MESSAGES FROM PAST INTERVENTIONS –

(EFFECTIVENESS IN ENHANCING RESILIENCE)

Emergency interventions are short term in nature

Do not enhance resilience of target communities

e.g. free relief food

Most actors do not follow the Drought

Management Cycle

Past interventions have enhanced DEW efforts-

but limited uptake and late response

Poor coordination of key actors

Poor exit strategies -linking emergency

interventions with long-term development

KEY MESSAGES

Limited funding base to upscale successful

interventions and best practices

High competition for limited funding by agencies

Most interventions are small scale in nature -

limited impact

Coordination and supervisory role by

responsible Government departments not

adequate .

Poor enforcement of Government relevant

policies e.g,( NEMA, range water management)

1. SUCCESS FACTORS: Criteria for Judging

Best Practices

Taking into account past community experience

about what they consider successful- increases

ownership and adoption/replication.

Practices that have community involvement and

ownership

Sensitivity to culture of the local communities/

beneficiaries

Easy to replicate and build on previous community

knowledge and experience

2. SUCCESS FACTORS: Criteria for Judging

Best Practices

Good management and good M & E

Provide results in– short term, medium and long

term timeframe e.g. enhancing long-term

productivity of the land and livestock

Sustainability of the practice once in operation and

longterm cost effectiveness

Reduce risks related to drought and climate change

events

Enhance the ability of the natural ecosystem and

communities to cope with and recover from stress

EXAMPLES OF SUCCESS:

CASE STUDIES-

LIVESTOCK MARKETING: CO-MANAGEMENT

Livestock marketing associations (LMA)

partnership with local authorites e.g. case in

Samburu for co-management between LMA and

county council

multiple water solutions

boreholes

sand dams

roof catchment

rock catchment

shallow wells

run off harvesting (water ponds and

pans)

Multiple water solutions- development & management of

diverse water resources in a landscape

Range rehabilitation-group ranches -

Laikipia

B) Range rehabilitation

in grazing land need to

be combined with

controlled grazing

A) Before rehabilitation

B) After rehabilitation

A) Range rehabilitation by

reseeding grazing

degraded areas

PROMOTION OF WILDLIFE/LIVESTOCK

INTERACTIONS- MULTIPLE USE OF RANGELANDS

a) Livestock-wildlife shared ecosystems e.g. community conservancies

in Northern Rangeland Trust

b) Re-introduction of wildlife in historically and ecologically suited areas

ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS

Aloe farming e.g. piloted in Turkana Bee keeping e.g. several counties

in lower Eastern

COMMUNITY ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICES

•Trained pastoralists as paravets with government support

•Community drug stores

•Link to drug distributors/companies e.g. LMA in Wajir supplies drugs

Drug store in

NamoruputhTurkana

PAYMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

• Ecotourism facilities e.g. Sasaab lodge -West Gate Conservancy (WGC)

in Samburu): community-private sector partnership model

• Payments for securing wildlife corridor e.g. Kitengela Wildlife Lease

program

Sasaab lodge, WGC, Samburu

APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGIES

•Solar pump for –boreholes

•Solar driers

•Wind power

•

Solar pump in Namoruputh (Turkana) with capacity of

20,000Litres/hour (Practical Action Project)

CASES OF SOME PAST FAILURES

Intervention Reasons for failure (lessons) Impact of failure Livestock off-take through KMC Insufficient funds Massive livestock losses

-64 billion shillings worth

of livestock died this

year alone

Kenya Livestock Development

Project Phase 1

(Commercialization of pastoral

livestock production)

Failure to understand the role of

livestock in the pastoral value

system- e.g. the pastoralist were

reluctant to release their young

calves for fattening - considered

more resilient to drought

Water resources management Poor maintenance of water

structures e.g. silted dams in dry

land areas

Poor citing of boreholes

High cost of maintenance of

equipment e.g. due to frequent

breakdowns especially during

water –stress

Stalled water facilities

Range degradation

around water points

Sedenterization trend

Interventions that have failed or performed poorly

Intervention Reasons for failure (lessons) Impact of failure

Contingency funding Untimely disbursement of funds-

comes in too late when damage

has already taken place making it

more.

Contributed to cycle of

humanitarian crisis

makes it difficulty for

communities to recover

Livestock Group ranches Mismanagement,

land tenure challenges

Inequitable benefits to members-

those who held bigger herds

benefited more

Collapse of group

ranches; leading to

subdivision of group

ranches;

Threatens extensive

nomadic livestock

production.

Land degradation

Bee keeping Cultural problem/ issues –

pastoralist still attached to

livestock

Technical problems- e.g. design of

bee hives, processing

Honey production below

capacity

Interventions that have failed or performed poorly

Intervention Reasons for failure (lessons) Impact of failure

Range rehabilitation Land Tenure system challenges

e.g. in Baringo district

Pilot basis - No up-scaling

Community Conservancy approach Land tenure /access challenges

e.g. access for land at the Pokot-

Samburu border

Benefit sharing- lack of clear

formulae

Exacerbated conflicts/

Resource based

Irrigation Wrong technology e.g. Diesel

pumps

Increased food insecurity

Early warning system Failure to integrate modern early

warning with traditional

knowledge (which is trusted)

Poor packaging of early warning

information-

Poor mode of dissemination of

information e.g. bulletins are not

as effective as radio messages

Poor up-take of EWMs and

Information from KMD

Massive livestock loses

Interventions that have failed or performed poorly

LESSONS LEARNT FROM PAST HUMANITARIAN $

DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS

HOA livelihood interventions should be informed by wider

cross border ecosystem functions and pastoral identities

Building community structures/ institutions -increases

the local capacity to manage droughts and respond to

emergencies

Multi-stakeholder approach to disaster management

leads to improved responses through enhanced funding

and sharing of experiences and best practices

Heavy livestock losses- some pastoral families are

forced to transit from nomadic life to crop farming

Women role in enhancing resilience - by

empowerment through credit facility schemes and

support for income generating activities

Facilitation to access grazing and watering resources

through inter and intra community negotiation is an

important adaptation strategy

Climate change impacts like drought aggravate

resource-based conflicts

LESSONS LEARNT CONTI…….

POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES

Factors undermining effectiveness of climate change resilience

•Dis-jointed government policies due to sectoral approach

•CCA measures NOT yet mainstreamed in most sectoral policies

• Long legislative process for policy enactment and political intrigues e.g. delay in

enacting ASAL policy In Kenya

•Ignorance and lack of awareness of policy reforms – due to top down approach

•Weak policy enforcement by relevant government departments

•Cross border sharing of resources for CCA not well understood by policy makers across

the HOA region

• Biased policies - e.g. policies that favor agric at the expense of pastoralism in ASALs,

WTO policies favor comparative advantage agric. at the expense smallscale indigenous

cropping

•Lack of policies on value of dryland resources and ecosystems in the HOA

POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES CONTI--

Factors undermining effectiveness of climate change resilience

Weak government coordination of actors and interventions

Weak pastoral and agro-pastoral institutions e.g. cannot

effectively enforce agreements Limited capacity (human and financial) and knowledge among

actors in CCA approaches

Corruption and weak governance (e.g. recent case of WB-

funded ALRMP)

Lack of political will and political interference in development

and humanitarian work

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Responding to CC require long term –approaches

Actors must appreciate dynamics /trends in

pastoralism

Need to distinguish adaptation initiatives that

enhance resilience of communities from those

that undermine their resilience .

Pastoralists must be supported to maintain the

extraordinary resilience inherent to their traditional

way of life.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONT’D

Government should provide leadership in vetting interventions which may undermine or enhance resilience in the long term

Support programs that address conflicts and insecurity in the HOA

Build on natural resource management to enhance community resilience to climate change.

Strengthen non-livestock based interventions to diversify livelihoods and enhance resilience to CC

Future programs and projects should build on past interventions in the ASALs

Community participation is key to building their resilience to climate change

CONCLUSION & RECOM CONTI…..

Legislation of key policies eg. Disaster

management policy , ASAL policy

Support community managed disaster risk

reduction

Support CBEWS- Early warning information

dissemination through local media

WAY FORWARD: INVESTMENTS FOR ENHANCING

RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Proposed investments for enhancing resilience to climate change:

Strengthen livestock-based livelihoods to improve household food

security and incomes

Improved water management practices particularly water harvesting

technologies

Practices that reduce land degradation and increase land productivity

and ecosystem resilience

Capacity building of local institutions and communities to strengthen

local level adaptation/coping mechanisms

Infrastructure development: road networks, communication and social

amenities

Disaster risk management due to increased frequency and magnitude of

disasters e.g. community-based disaster risk reduction

Supporting and strengthening activities of enterprise-based interventions

such as the village cooperative banks and livestock marketing

associations

PRINCIPLES FOR RESILIENCE PROGRAMMING

Core principles identified by development specialists (Frankenberger T.,

Campbell J., Njoka J.T., Spangler T., & S. Nelson, 2012):

i. Support a change, over time, in the balance of effort and resources

from humanitarian assistance toward disaster risk management, climate

change adaptation, livelihood support and social protection;

ii. Recognize and respond to the different needs, capabilities and

aspirations of different people, especially those of the most

vulnerable groups (women, children, orphans, elderly, displaced);

iii. Build the capacity of formal and informal institutions for equitable

natural resource management, conflict mitigation and social protection;

iv. Advocate for and promote improved governance among

government institutions and civil society by supporting responsive

policies, transparent resource allocation and greater accountability;

v. Inform coherent policy formulation and programme design that

responds to ongoing change in environmental, social and economic

conditions;

PRINCIPLES FOR RESILIENCE PROGRAMMING

vi. Enable community participation by identifying and engaging

customary institutions and valuable forms of traditional knowledge for

coping with climate variability;

vii. Promote empowerment of women by creating greater opportunity for

their involvement in key institutions and decision-making processes;

viii.Be owned at the country level by linking with national policies and

investment plans consistent with the CAADP and the Hyogo Framework

for Action;

ix. Build effective partnerships that draw on the comparative advantages

of a wide range of stakeholders; and

x. Do no harm: Ensure that neither humanitarian responses nor

development initiatives undermine the ability of vulnerable populations

to achieve livelihood security over the long-term.

THANK YOU