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