Pastoralism and ecosystem-based adaptation in Kenyan Masailand

Osano, P. M., et al., 2013. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to assess the potential for pastoral communities inhabiting Kenyan Masailand to adapt to climate change using conservancies and payments for ecosystem services. Design/methodology/approach: Multiple methods and data sources were used, comprising: a socio-economic survey of 295 households; informal interviews with pastoralists, conservancy managers, and tourism investors; focus group discussions; a stakeholder workshop. Monthly rainfall data was used to analyse drought frequency and intensity. A framework of the interactions between pastoralists’ drought coping and risk mitigation strategies and the conservancy effects was developed, and used to qualitatively assess some interactions across the three study sites. Changes in household livestock holdings and sources of cash income are calculated in relation to the 2008-09 drought. Findings: The frequency and intensity of droughts are increasing but are localised across the three study sites. The proportion of households with per capita livestock holdings below the 4.5 TLU poverty vulnerability threshold increased by 34 per cent in Kitengela and 5 per cent in the Mara site, mainly due to the drought in 2008-2009. Payment for ecosystem services was found to buffer households from fluctuating livestock income, but also generates synergies and/or trade-offs depending on land use restrictions. Originality/value: The contribution of conservancies to drought coping and risk mitigation strategies of pastoralists is analyzed as a basis for evaluating the potential for ecosystem-based adaptation.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-026-3
  • Intervention type: Combination
  • Intervention description:

    no PES but communally owned and managed with a restricted conservation area for wildlife tourism includes conservancy area; tourism lodge setup and revenue invested in local projects

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of food production  Positive biomass supply (although not quantitively measured)
    Drought  Positive effect on income generated from the conservancy (although not through a direct PES scheme)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Ol Kiramatian is a group ranch that covers an area of 21,612 ha [one of the three sites predominantly inhabited by the Maasai]

  • Country: Kenya
  • Habitat/Biome type: Tropical and subtropical grasslands |
  • Issue specific term: Ecosystem-based adaptation

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Not reported
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Mixed
  • Ecosystem measures: assessment is based on interview data/stakeholder opinion/observation (method there is no measure in the sense that we are defining it)
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
  • Impacts for people: Mixed
  • People measures: no specific measure; qualitative assessment people/expert opinion
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Mixed qualitative/quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-026-1
  • Intervention type: Combination
  • Intervention description:

    privatized pes program + restricted conservation area: landowners are allowed limited livestock grazing but are required to relocate their settlements from the land set aside for wildlife tourism. In turn, the tourist operators’ pay each landowner an annual fee of US$39/ha (2009 rates) through a conservancy management company

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of food production  Positive biomass supply (although not quantitively measured)
    Drought  Mixed results changes in household cash income from the PES schemes (which rely on wildlife to generate financial return)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    The Mara: the northern most dry-season grazing reserve for the migrating Serengeti-Mara wildebeest population and includes the Maasai Mara National Reserve and adjacent pastoral lands to the north. [one of the three sites predominantly inhabited by the Maasai]

  • Country: Kenya
  • Habitat/Biome type: Tropical and subtropical grasslands |
  • Issue specific term: Ecosystem-based adaptation

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: mixed results for effectiveness against drought (as measured in terms of income benefits) b/c: there exists a trade-off for participating households as the conditionality of the PES programs bar land use diversification to crop cultivation. the relatively high PES rates are offset by the limitation imposed on livestock grazing inside the conservancy. This limitation does affect the traditional livestock grazing practices in the area and in the long run, can undermine the pastoralists’ adaptive capacity to climate change.
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Mixed
  • Ecosystem measures: assessment is based on interview data/stakeholder opinion/observation (method there is no measure in the sense that we are defining it)
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
  • Impacts for people: Mixed
  • People measures: no specific measure; qualitative assessment people/expert opinion
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Mixed qualitative/quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-026-2
  • Intervention type: Combination
  • Intervention description:

    privatized pes program with the entire area designed for wildlife conservation: A PES program, the Wildlife Conservation Lease, was initiated in 2000 and by 2010 covered an area of 16,700 ha and involved 350 pastoral families. The PES program requires participating landowners to avoid fencing or sub-dividing their land and to allow free movement of wildlife in return for being paid an annual fee of US$10/ha provided by the Kenya Wildlife Service and the Global Environment Facility.

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of food production  Positive biomass supply (although not quantitively measured)
    Drought  Mixed results changes in household cash income from the PES schemes (which rely on wildlife to generate financial return)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    The Kitengela: located to the south of the Nairobi National Park and Kenya’s capital city of Nairobi [one of the three sites predominantly inhabited by the Maasai]

  • Country: Kenya
  • Habitat/Biome type: Tropical and subtropical grasslands |
  • Issue specific term: Ecosystem-based adaptation

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: mixed results for effectiveness against drought (as measured in terms of income benefits) b/c: there exists a trade-off for participating households as the conditionality of the PES programs bar land use diversification to crop cultivation.
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Mixed
  • Ecosystem measures: assessment is based on interview data/stakeholder opinion/observation (method there is no measure in the sense that we are defining it)
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
  • Impacts for people: Mixed
  • People measures: no specific measure; qualitative assessment people/expert opinion
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Mixed qualitative/quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic: