Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Pastoralist herd size maintenance during drought with the use of reseeded fields near Lake Baringo, Kenya

Pastoralist herd size maintenance during drought with the use of reseeded fields near Lake... Land degradation, loss of access to land resources, climate variability, socio-economic changes, and population increase are among the factors that contribute to forage shortage among the pastoral communities. The loss of forage is critical, especially when droughts are frequent and prolonged. Interventions to improve pastoralists’ resilience include policies that encourage livelihood diversification, that is, promoting enterprises that are less impacted by climate variability. This paper evaluates a reseeding project among pastoralists from Lake Baringo, Kenya, with the goal of rehabilitating degraded lands. Field owners participated in a survey and answered both quantitative and qualitative questions relating to their field and household characteristics. We use livestock herd size to assess households’ conditions. We hypothesize that field characteristics including total land size reseeded, the total number of fields and the number of field locations, years of experience of working in reseeded fields, type of management, fencing, and the number of income-generating activities have an effect on herd size maintenance during drought. We find that the total number of fields and the number of income-generating activities have significant explanatory power in predicting a household’s ability to maintain its herd size during drought. These factors are related to fine-scale control over land use which contributes to maintaining herd size. These findings suggest that reseeding by local pastoralists could be replicated and up-scaled into other dryland counties of Kenya and sub-Saharan Africa as a promising intervention to improve resilience to climate variability, alleviate poverty, and improve environmental conditions. Keywords: Land degradation, Variable climate, Sustainable range management Introduction into sustenance based on the pastoralists’ knowledge of Rangelands are characterized by biophysical limitations, the surrounding ecosystems (Ayal et al. 2018). Given including low biomass production, extreme tempera- that rangelands comprise the majority of terrestrial land tures, and low water availability, which make the condi- worldwide (Lund 2007) and its inhabitants depend on tions naturally harsh (Lund, 2007). Despite these the land for sustenance, land degradation is a problem conditions, over 600 million people depend on range- of global concern which widely affects the sustainable lands for their livelihoods worldwide. Many of these development of many regions in the globe, especially people are pastoralists who move with their livestock in sub-Saharan Africa. Land degradation directly links to search of pasture and water. Pastoral social systems en- food insecurity, vulnerability to climate change, and pov- able the conversion of the limited ecological resources erty (UNCCD 2020). Pastoral societies also face many threats to their way of life, such as challenges related to climate change, pol- * Correspondence: dgithu@email.arizona.edu itical and economic marginalization, a development that School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, is not culturally accommodative, and increasing resource Tucson, AZ, USA Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2022 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 2 of 10 competition (Greiner et al. 2021; Kirkbride 2008). While and herd size maintenance among communities that the pastoral culture is based on resilient adaptation to have been managing and using reseeded fields in con- variable weather and land conditions, there are limits to junction with a drought. Drought stresses households’ their resilience amidst diminishing range resources resilience on a variety of fronts and typically results in (Meybeck 2012). Droughts have been increasing in in- reduced herd size (Homewood and Lewis 1987, Kimiti tensity, duration, and extent (Ayal 2018). When com- et al. 2018). We hypothesize that field and household bined with the loss of herding lands to private farms, characteristics affect the maintenance of herd size during ranches, game parks, and urban areas, pastoralists can drought. find it difficult to adapt to changes in the external envir- onment (Opiyo et al. 2014). National development plans Study area can often also fail to acknowledge pastoral economies The study was conducted in Baringo County in the Rift and marginalize them on the basis of their geographical Valley region of Kenya. Baringo covers an area of 11,015 remoteness and ethnicity (Kirkbride 2008; Husmann km (Koitaba et al. 2016) and encompasses Lake Baringo 2016). Many governments still appear to consider the at about 129 km (Kiage & Liu. 2009). The population of pastoral culture as outdated and needing replacement the area is about 667,000 people (Kenya National Bureau with modern livelihood systems (Vetter 2005). Modern of Statistics 2019). The county can be divided into two livelihoods generally refer to the introduction of seden- major zones: the highlands and the lowlands (Jaetzold & tary policies among pastoralists and limit their mobility, Schmidt, 1983). This study focuses on the lowland re- the mobility which forms the core of the pastoral culture gions near Lake Baringo basin, areas that are arid and and supports the livestock on which they depend for semi-arid lands. Annual rainfall ranges between 400 and food (Reed & Stringer, 2016). 600 mm with frequent droughts every 5 to 9 years Traditional pastoralism has had to transform and in- (Ochieng et al. 2017). Temperatures range from a mini- clude new strategies that help pastoralists adapt to the mum of 10 °C to a maximum of 35 °C (Kiage & Liu. contemporary challenges facing their way of life. Among 2009; Odada et al. 2006). these strategies are changing mobility patterns where Data were collected in four areas: Salabani, Meisori, flocks of sheep and goats browse and graze in the vicin- Loruk, and Akorian sub-locations in Baringo North con- ity of permanent homesteads while cattle-centred no- stituency, of Baringo County. These areas are the terri- madism transforms into transhumance. Transhumance tories of the Il Chamus tribe known more commonly as has cattle graze distant pastures in the dry season and the Njemps, and the Tugen tribe (see Fig. 1). Baringo near home during the rainy season (Anderson & Bollig County is one of the five most rural counties in Kenya, 2016). These changes have led to intense use of reserved and over 50% of its population live below the poverty grazing areas resulting in degraded bare-soil patches line (Diwakar 2018). Range degradation and drought in with limited chance for natural recovery. The degrad- the region have led to low livestock production resulting ation can be seen as a result of modern movement con- in an increased number of households engaging in other straints combined with traditional practices and income-generating activities among them crop cultiva- strategies employed by pastoralists in relation to herd tion, migration, beekeeping, irrigated vegetable farming size and grazing management (Opiyo et al. 2015). The by the shores of the lake, and petty trade (Johansson & decrease in the quality and quantity of pasture also Svensson 2002; Greiner et al. 2021). The region occupied causes reduced herd survival rates among pastoral herds by the Njemps is mostly flat and is covered by well- in Kenya and other parts of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) drained silt loam to clay loam alluvial soils. The region (Baker and Hoffman 2006; Kirkbride 2008). In the in- occupied by the Tugen has saline soils and the area is terim, while land management and social structures characterized by shallow, stony-sandy soils with rock adapt, reseeding degraded lands can return them to pro- outcrops, volcanic ash, and lava boulders (Elhadi et al. ductive use. 2012). The vegetation in the areas surrounding the lake Agro-pastoralists from Lake Baringo, Kenya, have been is dominated by trees and shrubs (Acacia reficiens, Aca- reseeding lands for more than three decades and these cia tortilis, Boscia coriacea, Balanites aegyptiaca, interventions have been promoted as addressing food in- Maerua angolensis, Cordia sinensis, and Salvadora per- security, poverty, and other livelihood problems (de sica) with little undergrowth (Kiage & Liu 2009; Kaimba Groot 1992; Meyerhoff et al. 2020). This has been made et al. 2011). possible through the presence of the Rehabilitation of The lowland zone occupied by the Njemps tribe is Arid Environments (RAE) Trust/Ltd, a nongovernmental dominated by invasive Prosopis juliflora bushes and organization in the area that facilitates participatory Opuntia ficus-indica (prickly pear cactus) which has sig- range restoration on a cost-sharing basis. Our study nificantly changed the land cover of the region (Maundu seeks to determine the relationship between reseeding et al. 2009). These species compete for soil nutrients Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 3 of 10 Fig. 1 Diagram of study site sub-locations with the grasses, hence reducing the grazing capacity. use are fully made by the field owner. Fields were Climate change and its effects along with siltation of the planted using indigenous grass species including Cen- lake have resulted in the loss of grazing lands near the chrus ciliaris, Eragrostis superba, Enteropogon macrosta- lake shores to floods (Odada et al. 2006). Kaimba et al. chyus, Sehima nervosum, and Cymbopogon pospichilii. (2011) indicate that cattle rustling and tribal clashes are common between the Pokot and the Tugen, as they have Sampling strategy disputes over grazing resources which result in underuti- The target population was approximately 500 field lized grazing lands near the clash hotspots. owners who own more than 900 privately reseeded fields and were selected from the three pastoral communities Methods that are dominant in Baringo County. The target sample Reseeding was 150 respondents for household survey-based re- The respondents of this study are chosen from agro- sources available. To determine which fields to visit, the pastoralists of Lake Baringo who use reseeded fields. private field owners were categorized by tribe and sub- These fields were reseeded with the support of the Re- locations (see Fig. 1). This resulted in 29 categories with habilitation of Arid Environments (RAE) Trust/Ltd, an the highest sub-location having 242 fields and the lowest initiative that began in 1982 (de Groot 1992) in the having one field (see Table 1). The top two sub- Njemps flats. The programme was later extended to locations with the greatest number of field owners per other degraded lands in the region including the Tugen tribe was selected, leaving six sub-locations (two per and Pokot territories. While communal fields have been tribe). The two sub-locations from the Pokot tribe with reseeded in this region, this study focused only on the the highest number of reseeded fields had 20 private private enclosures for which management decisions and field owners which is about 2% of all the field owners Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 4 of 10 Table 1 Sub-locations, fields, and the three tribes Sub-location Size (hectares) Number of fields Number of owners Dominant tribe Meisori 106 100 79 Njemps Salabani 239.7 242 138 Njemps Akorian 34.5 140 95 Tugen Loruk 107.3 183 99 Tugen Loyamuruk* 24.3 7 4 Pokot Tangulbei* 29.9 20 16 Pokot Total 541.7 692 431 Note: * indicates locations not selected for further study with private fields planted by RAE Trust/Ltd. As such, common way to assess the household wealth of pastoral- the Pokot tribe was omitted from the sample and all re- ists (Butt et al. 2009, Ducrotoy et al. 2017) spondents were randomly selected from the Tugen and All the fields used for this analysis were reseeded with the Njemps and from four sub-locations. the support of RAE Trust/Ltd (Meyerhoff et al. 2020), and all fields had been used for grazing. Of the 193 households that were visited, only 91 were used in the Data collection analysis (see Table 2). The 102 responses not used for Data were collected through the administration of a sur- the analysis included those newly reseeded fields that vey that included both open-ended and closed-ended had not yet been used for grazing, households where the questions, where 193 household visits were conducted in targeted field owner was not available because they had June 2019. The respondents who participated in the permanently relocated or had migrated in search of pas- study answered both quantitative and qualitative ques- ture and water, households where owners had aban- tions which related to the field owner’s gender, the field doned their fields because of insecurity due to tribal manager (owner, paid help, or no one), years of experi- clashes over grazing resources, and those whose fields ence with fields, the number of fields, the number of were not in use because they had been submerged by field locations, the cumulative land size, the kind of fen- the flooding of Lake Baringo in the previous years. Add- cing (wire, living material, none), the number of species itional records were also eliminated for not reporting planted in the field, the owners’ assessment of revegeta- herd data and for not engaging in any livelihood activity. tion success, the number and nature of livelihood activ- As suggested by Fratkin and Roth (1990), some sample ities, and the number of each kind of livestock before selection may exist: the pool of survey respondents may and after the drought. Livestock herd sizes tend to be have discounted the poorest of the field owners because fixed as long as households maintain the number of ani- the drought may have forced them to move outside of mals that approximately maximize their available forage, our survey area. As such, our results should be viewed herding capability, and risk, all of which vary dynamic- as a lower bound on these relationships. ally. When conditions get worse, excess livestock can be sold or consumed. Herd sizes can also decrease due to Analysis natural mortality or theft and/or other loss (Cately et al. The Loruk sub-location herd survival data was visibly 2014). Herds can potentially increase in size each year different from the other sub-locations (see Fig. 2). The by 50% (relatively few male animals are needed), but known events in the Loruk sub-location appeared to livestock offspring production for pastoralists can be low need separate evaluation from the remaining sub- due to unfavourable maternal conditions for rebreeding, locations (Akorian, Meisori, Salabani) and analysis of high mortality among immature animals, and delayed these final three sub-locations formed the primary ana- rebreeding to extend milk production. Herd size is a lysis. The response variable of herd size maintenance Table 2 Sample population Sub-location Dominant tribe Total households visited Households used for analysis Percentages Akorian Tugen 56 27 53.6 Loruk Tugen 43 19 46.5 Meisori Njemps 39 22 59.0 Salabani Njemps 55 23 45.5 Total 193 91 Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 5 of 10 Fig. 2 Herd size maintenance percentages. Note: Figures obtained through comparing herd size from before and after the 2019 drought for the agro-pastoralists from the four sub-locations near Lake Baringo, Kenya was regressed against the explanatory variables: sub- livelihood activities showed that 89.8% of the field location (Akorian, Meisori, Salabani), owner’s gender owners were men (n = 88). 10.2% of the fields were (male, female), the field manager (owner, paid help, or owned by women. This is consistent with the pastoralist no one), years of experience with fields (years since the culture in which women have not traditionally had the first field established), the number of fields, the number right to inherit land (Talle 1988), but have the right to of field locations, the cumulative land size, the kind of use the land and benefit from its resources (Allegretti fencing (wire, living material, none), the number of spe- 2018). As such, most of the fields are owned by men and cies planted, the owners’ assessment of revegetation suc- the majority of the field management decisions are made cess, the number of livelihood activities, and the total by females. This difference between ownership and man- herd size. agement is illustrated in the breakdown of who manages To ensure a large number of explanatory variable the fields, where the majority of the households (59.2%) model did not mask one another, stepwise regression have their fields managed by the owner with the help of using the Akaike Information Criterion was completed the rest of the family members. The pastoral culture has using the step function in R (R Foundation for Statistical been shown to be patriarchal and polygamous resulting Computing, Vienna, Austria) which iteratively adds and in sufficient labour from family members, to share field drops model terms to combine both backward and for- management roles including, fencing, controlled grazing, ward selections. This resulted in the selection of the and weeding. These activities are often spearheaded by most informative model from among those possible. The women (Fratkin 1997; Allegretti 2018). In recent years, residuals of both the initial model and the resulting par- pastoral households have increasingly hired casual simonious model were checked for normality and the re- labourers to help with the field management responsibil- sponse variable transformed but this did not change the ities (Belay 2016). We find that more than a third selection of terms or levels of significance for any of the (37.8%) of the respondents followed this trend. Hired variables. The final parsimonious model had the herd labour can facilitate the migration of pastoralists and size maintenance arcsine-square-route transformed to agro-pastoralists to other cities and towns in search of make the residuals meet the assumption of normality. employment, education, and livelihood diversification as All analyses were performed in R (version 3.6.1). they adapt to a changing climate among other social challenges. The remaining respondents (3%) reported no Results and discussion field management. Household characteristics and field traits The total land sizes reseeded were 1.82 ± 2.83 hectares Analysis of the combined responses from the Tugen and (mean ± SD) per household. Households had more than the Njemps on the gender of field owner, field managers, one field (1.87 ± 1.31 fields) with the additional fields ei- land sizes, fence types, the success of reseeding exercise, ther being extensions of existing fields or new fields in species used for the reseeding, and the number of up to five different locations. These fields varied in size Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 6 of 10 ranging from 0.1 to 12.1 hectares, with cumulative land durability under grazing and disturbance, drought toler- sizes reseeded ranging from 0.1 to 19.5 hectares. Land ance, and forage quality (Lobell et al. 2008; Overholt and ownership in the rangelands of Kenya is mostly commu- Franck 2017). To foster success, the reseeding used grass nally owned, though more recently, traditional systems seeds that had been locally hand-harvested by agro- have seen the critical institution of land tenure shift pastoralists. The seed was then processed, cleaned, and from communally owned to private lands. Individual stored to break dormancy and increase germination. land ownership in pastoral areas including Baringo is Mganga et al. (2015) reported that native species includ- through occupation and usufruct, attributing to the ris- ing Cenchrus ciliaris and Eragrostis superba have been ing population pressure and speculative official demarca- successful in reseeding and fighting desertification in tion and adjudication of the land by the government. As East Africa and are the most preferred because of their such, to mark territory and for maximized reseeding forage value. Similarly, the Tugen and the Njemps prefer benefits, fields are protected by fences of different types these species because of their native status, forage value, based on the preference of the field owners and their fi- and grazing tolerance. The survey respondents engaged nancial capabilities. The most common (85.7%) fence in (2.57 ± 1.53) income-generating activities associated type in the area was live fences made from invasive with reseeded fields. These activities were dry season Opuntia and Prosopis species and twigs and shrubs like grazing, harvesting grass seeds, cutting thatching grass, Acacia and others found in the area. A smaller propor- milking cattle, engaging in fattening programmes, baling tion of fields (11.2%) were protected by barbed wire baling of hay, and leasing of land (Githu et al. 2020). fences. A few fields (3.1%) had no fences which matched The reseeding is a source of livelihood diversification. the percentage of fields that had no management. Fen- This diversification has the potential to reduce house- cing is an important undertaking for field owners in hold vulnerability from uncertainties including climate- order to protect their land from trespass grazing. Tres- related disruptions causing forage shortages. pass grazing occurs when livestock that does not belong to the field owner grazes on the private field without the Herd characteristics consent of the field owner. There are no current legal The purposes of pastoral herds include the regular provisions that offer pastoralists and agro-pastoralists a provision of food in the form of meat, milk, and blood; framework for compensation when their grass fields are cash income; a measure of exchange in terms of dowry; illegally grazed as compared to livestock illegally grazing compensation of injured persons during raids; a symbol a maize field. Lack of legal protection for field owners of wealth and prosperity; and security against droughts, from illegal grazing fails to buffer the investments made disease outbreaks, and other rangeland calamities by those who successfully reseed their fields. Consider- (Kaimba et al. 2011). The Tugen and the Njemps pas- ing that 97% of the respondents of this research invested toral communities keep cattle, sheep, and goats (see in the different fence types to secure their fields demon- Table 3). strates that they understand the importance of protect- For many pastoral communities, the act of counting ing their fields from uncontrolled grazing. animals is culturally offensive, and the survey respon- The respondents of this study have been stewards of dents may not have been entirely forthcoming on their reseeded lands for an average of 10 years. The majority livestock numbers. This is consistent, however, with of them (92%) felt that the reseeding exercise was suc- other studies, including Cately et al. (2014). The house- cessful with just 7.3% reporting poor reseeding success. hold herd sizes may include animals belonging to mem- Barr et al. (2017) found that the success of reseeding av- bers of other households. Our survey does not probe erages 70% (± 3%) with mixtures yielding higher success into ownership issues but instead focuses on the herd rates although their results were not from Africa. For that graze on the reseeded fields in question. We assume this study, nearly all fields (98%) were reseeded using the that any exaggeration of herd sizes will be consistent native perennial bunchgrass Cenchrus ciliaris (African across households reporting on herd size figures before foxtail or buffelgrass), and 14.4% were reseeded using a and after the drought to reflect the impact of reseeding. mixture of native species including Eragrostis superba (Maasai love grass), Enteropogon macrostachyus, Sehima Table 3 Household herd size in tropical livestock units (TLU) nervosum,and Cymbopogon pospochilii. The success rate Tribe Cattle Calves Sheep Goats Kids/lambs Total of the observed reseeding activity was much higher than Njemps 11.97 1.75 5.49 6.65 0.60 20.43 Barr et al.’s(2017) reports, and possible explanations Tugen 13.32 2.75 4.32 8.50 1.19 20.86 would be because the reseeding was undertaken using Total 12.64 2.54 5.04 7.65 1.11 20.66 indigenous species that are drought-tolerant and have Note: 1 TLU is equivalent to 250-kg live weight, a cow = 1 TLU, a calf = 0.4 adapted to the conditions of this area. Grasses native to TLU, a sheep/goat = 0.11 TLU, lambs = 0.05 TLU, and kids = 0.04 TLU Africa are known for their ready establishment, (Kristjanson et al. 2002; Wilson 2003) Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 7 of 10 When comparing the sub-locations, herd sizes do not between neighbouring communities (Greiner 2013). significantly differ (p = 0.46), with an average of 16.5 ± Loruk sub-location borders the Pokot territory and is 14.6 TLU (Average ± SD) with 15.7 ± 13.1 TLU for the the most affected by cattle theft. Though they have Akorian, 18.5 ± 16.5 TLU for the Loruk, 13.9 ± 9.9 TLU invested in reseeding their fields, they do not seem to for the Meisori, and 18.1 ± 18.1 TLU for the Salabani reap the benefits of having higher herd size maintenance sub-location. Households average 9.6 ± 4.9 members as compared to the agro-pastoralists from Akorian, Mei- (average ± SD) with 8.3 ± 2.3 members for the Akorian, sori, and Salabani. 12.6 ± 5.1 members for the Loruk, 6.9 ± 2.7 members Analysis of the data from Akorian, Meisori, and Sala- for the Meisori, and 10.8 ± 6.6 members for the Salabani bani sub-locations showed that the total number of sub-location. This is an average of 1.7 TLU per house- fields (p < 0.001) and the number of activities (p = hold member. Herd sizes, in terms of TLU per house- 0.044) had substantial explanatory power which was hold member, are double those found by Hauck and confirmed in a parsimonious model. The parsimonious Rubenstein (2017; 1.1 TLU per household member) model only explained about 20% of the variability in the among Maasai pastoral communities from northern data likely due to the relatively high herd survival rates Kenya. These herd sizes are also similar to those from (see Tables 4 and 5). Each additional reseeded field Nigerian pastoralists (Ducrotoy et al. 2017). While herd added 1.5% to herd size maintenance. More research is sizes fluctuate for many reasons (Kimiti et al. 2018), our needed to better delineate the reason for this, though we finding of 1.7 TLU per household member raises some believe that having more fields would allow for improved concern for this pastoral community. Fratkin and Roth control of grazing and the ability to save forage. As such, (1990) classified pastoral households as poor if there the ability to graze some fields while resting others (rota- were less than 4.5 TLU per household member because tional grazing) has been the essential observation that al- below 4.5 TLU per household, the livestock herd could lows for improved land condition under livestock not provide sufficient calories to support the household grazing worldwide (Flynn et al. 2017). The inability to on its own. This implies that these agro-pastoralists were defer grazing on sub-sections may explain why the total getting more than half of their calories from sources land size did not show up as a significant predictor of other than their livestock. herd size maintenance. Larger undivided parcels offer only the option to graze or not to graze. Herd size maintenance Herd size maintenance differs in the Loruk sub-location Table 4 Herd survival regression full model (p = 0.002; see Fig. 2). The Loruk sub-location averages Variables Pr(>|t|) only 49% survival following the 2019 drought, while the (Intercept) 0.00132** Akorian, Meisori, and Salabani average 80%, 85%, and 82%, respectively. The reduced herd survival rates in Sub-location Meisori 0.470 Loruk may be attributed to security concerns that led Sub-location Salabani 0.484 them to abandon their land. This insecurity may be Gender male 0.694 linked to newer forms of cattle theft between tribes in Managed by owner 0.658 the area but differs from the long history of inter-tribal Managed by a paid worker 0.303 cattle rustling. Cattle rustling practices were motivated Years of experience 0.688 by traditional cultural ceremonies and events such as bride price paying, the celebration of the warriors, and Number of fields 0.046* competition among age-sets. Cattle rustling was a sport Number of field locations 0.263 that had to be sanctioned and blessed by the elders, and Total land size 0.886 the warriors involved used conventional weapons such Fence type none 0.831 as spears, sticks, bows, and arrows when acquiring live- Fence type wire 0.767 stock from another community. However, cattle theft Species used 0.384 has evolved into large-scale theft operations involving taking away thousands of cattle in broad daylight, ex- Reseeding success good 0.267 changing gunfire, rape, abduction, and killing and Reseeding success poor 0.131 wounding of men, women, and children (Kimani et al. Total herd size 0.738 2020). Inadequate policies, shrinking of natural re- Number of livelihood activities 0.060* sources, acquisition of weapons, and a collapse of the Adjusted R-squared 0.081 traditional governance system are to blame for this Prob > F 1.384 change. Commercialization of cattle raids and political incitement have also led to large-scale violent raiding Significance designed by 0 ‘***’, 0.001 ‘**’, 0.01 ‘*’, 0.05 ‘.’, 0.1 “1 Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 8 of 10 Table 5 Herd survival regression parsimonious model have been commonly seen with a negative view by the environmental conservation world and routinely used as Variables Pr(>|t|) the villain of the tragedy of the commons (Turner and (Intercept) 8.01e−14*** Schlecht 2019), it is notable that the agro-pastoralists in Number of fields 0.0006*** our sample were able to restore and then conserve their Field locations 0.167 restored grazing lands across decades when they have Number of livelihood activities 0.044* control over them. R-squared 0.212 Adjusted R-squared 0.177 Conclusions and recommendations Reseeding among the pastoral Tugen and Njemps com- Prob > F 0.001 munities is correlated with diversified sources of liveli- Significance designed by 0 ‘***’, 0.001 ‘**’, 0.01 ‘*’, 0.05 ‘.’, 0.1 ‘.’ 1 hoods and generally stable herd sizes. The reseeding One may expect that having more locations would be appears to offer environmental benefits along with associated with a negative effect on herd size mainten- allowing households flexibility in responding to the chal- ance. Livestock movement has been shown to expose lenges of climate variability, land degradation, and pov- the herds to risk (Butt et al. 2009) but this must be bal- erty. The high success rates and the long-term anced by the need to move to available forage (Baker sustainment of the reseeding imply that this intervention and Hoffman 2006) and the need for water. We see that is appropriate for the situation and that sustainable graz- the movement between locations was not associated ing management can be achieved in these areas. When with a change in herd survival. It may be the case that sustainably managed, reseeded fields can support a more the distances were not long enough to be associated with sedentary lifestyle for the pastoralists and the agro- higher risk. The number of activities had significant ex- pastoralists. Future policies and institutions that support planatory power (p = 0.044) for herd survival with each larger-scale reseeding on communal lands, private enclo- additional activity adding 0.3% herd survival. Earnings sures, or open ranges may expand these benefits al- from other income-generating activities may have sup- though simultaneous additional work is needed on the ported the purchase of forage for their herds once they social and legal frameworks for pastoralists and agro- had exhausted dry season grazing on their reseeded pastoralists to fully benefit from reseeding. Future re- fields. Our results are consistent with those of Ducrotoy search should try to understand the changing culture of et al. (2017), for Nigerian pastoralists and agro- pastoralism given the current challenges and the holistic pastoralists. They describe diversification of livelihoods impact of reseeding large-scale communal lands. as an important way for households to mitigate risk and Acknowledgements allow resilience in the face of changing environmental The authors express their sincere gratitude to all the people who and social conditions. However, Ducrotoy et al. (2017) participated in making this research work a success. Special thanks to the Rehabilitation of Arid Environments (RAE) Trust/Ltd team and specifically to also note that for their Nigerian pastoralists, diversifica- Dr. Elizabeth Meyerhoff for her guidance and resourcefulness during the tion also correlates with smaller TLU per household process of developing this research. We also acknowledge the efforts of member which the authors associate with poverty or a Murray Roberts, Joseph Kulei, Raphael Kimosop, Bernard Lenariach, and the rest of RAE's team who helped during the data collection process. A big move away from a pastoral lifestyle as a primary liveli- thank you also goes to the Tugen and Njemps community members hood. The addition of activities may represent household who participated in the research. Their contribution was very useful for the economic pressure in maintaining desired herd size study. which in turn may take away resources from mobile Authors’ contributions herding activities and indicate a transition toward a All authors conceived the study methods. Diana Githu collected the survey more sedentary lifestyle. data. Diana Githu and Jeffrey S. Fehmi analysed the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Regional environmental conditions, such as drought and aridity, combined with social and legally 55 driven Funding changes in herding behaviour, have been thought to re- This research was supported by the Fulbright Foreign Student’s Program and the Harry Wayne Springfield research grant. sult in resource degradation and especially the loss of grasses and grasslands (Kassahun et al. 2008). While Availability of data and materials some of the environment would benefit from reduced The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. grazing, the extant plant community across much of Af- rica seems a product of grazing and may convert to a Declarations woody dominated plant community in the absence of Ethics approval and consent to participate grazing (Oba et al. 2000). As with most ecological sys- This study received ethical approval through the University of Arizona tems, balance among grazing and rest plays a role. Institutional Review Board (IRB), protocol number 1905646702 on 06/06/ Nonetheless, given that pastoralists and agro-pastoralists 2019. Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 9 of 10 Consent for publication of Arizona. Retrieved from https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/6421 Not applicable. 07. Accessed 12 Oct 2020. Greiner, C. 2013. Guns, land, and votes: Cattle rustling and the politics of boundary (re)making in Northern Kenya. African Affairs 112 (447): 216–237. Competing interests https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adt003. The authors declare that they have no competing interests. But also note Greiner, C., H.-P. Vehrs, and M. Bollig. 2021. Land-use and land-cover changes in that Diana W. Githu worked as an employee of the Rehabilitation of Arid pastoral drylands: Long-term dynamics, economic change, and shifting Environments (RAE) Trust/Ltd from January 2016 to June 2018. socioecological frontiers in Baringo, Kenya. Human Ecology 49 (5): 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-021-00263-8. Author details Hauck, S., and D.I. Rubenstein. 2017. Pastoralist societies in flux: A conceptual School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, framework analysis of herding and land use among the Mukugodo Maasai of Tucson, AZ, USA. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Kenya. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 7 (1): 18. https://doi.org/10.11 University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 86/s13570-017-0090-4. Homewood, K., and J. Lewis. 1987. Impact of drought on pastoral livestock in Received: 31 March 2021 Accepted: 29 March 2022 Baringo, Kenya 1983-85. Journal of Applied Ecology 24: 615–631. Husmann, C. 2016. Marginality as a root cause of poverty: Identifying marginality hotspots in Ethiopia. World Development 78: 420–435. https://doi.org/10.101 6/j.worlddev.2015.10.024. References Jaetzold, R., & Schmidt, H. 1983. Farm management handbook of Kenya (Vol. II, Allegretti, A. 2018. Respatializing culture, recasting gender in peri-urban sub- Part C): Natural conditions and farm management information, East Kenya. Saharan Africa: Maasai ethnicity and the ‘cash economy’ at the rural-urban Ministry of Agriculture (No. 630.96762 JAE v. 2. CIMMYT.). Kenya: Centro interface, Tanzania. Journal of Rural Studies 60: 122–129. https://doi.org/10.101 Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo 6/j.jrurstud.2018.03.015. Johansson, J., & Svensson, J. 2002. Land degradation in the semi-arid catchment Anderson, D.M., and M. Bollig. 2016. Resilience and collapse: Histories, ecologies, of Lake Baringo, Kenya. Report on a minor field study of physical causes with conflicts and identities in the Baringo-Bogoria basin, Kenya. Journal of Eastern a socioeconomic aspect. Göteborgs: Department of Geography, University of African Studies 10 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17531055.2016.1150240. Goteborg, Sweden Ayal, D., M. Radeny, S. Desta, and G.G. Tegegn. 2018. Climate variability, Kaimba, G.K., B.K. Njehia, and A.Y. Guliye. 2011. Effects of cattle rustling and perceptions of pastoralists and their adaptation strategies: Implications for household characteristics on migration decisions and herd size amongst livestock system and diseases in Borana zone. International Journal of Climate pastoralists in Baringo District, Kenya. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice Change Strategies and Management. 10 (4): 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 1 (1): 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-1-18. IJCCSM-06-2017-0143. Kassahun, A., H.A. Snyman, and G.N. Smit. 2008. Impact of rangeland degradation Baker, L.E., and M.T. Hoffman. 2006. Managing variability: Herding strategies in on the pastoral production systems, livelihoods and perceptions of the communal rangelands of semiarid Namaqualand South Africa. HumEcol 34 Somali pastoralists in Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments 72 (7): (6): 765–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9036-y. 1265–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.01.002. Barr, S., J.L. Jonas, and M.W. Paschke. 2017. Optimizing seed mixture diversity and Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Nairobi, Kenya. 2019. Kenya National Bureau seeding rates for grassland restoration. Restoration Ecology 25 (3): 396–404. of Statistics. https://www.knbs.or.ke/. Accessed 4 Mar 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12445. Kiage, L.M., and K. Liu. 2009. Palynological evidence of climate change and land Belay, A.L. 2016. Alternative livelihoods for former pastoralists in rural settings. 7. degradation in the Lake Baringo area, Kenya, East Africa, since AD 1650. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Global Cooperation / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 279 (1–2): 60–72. https:// Global Programme Food Security, Berne, CapEx in supporting pastoral doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2009.05.001. development. Kimani, A.G., C. Masiga, and Kenyatta University. 2020. A study on the Butt, B., A. Shortridge, and A.M.G.A. WinklerPrins. 2009. Pastoral herd comprehensive comparison between indigenous cattle rustling and modern management, drought coping strategies, and cattle mobility in Southern cattle rustling in West Pokot County, Kenya. Path of Science 6 (12): 1011– Kenya. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99 (2): 309–334. 1016. https://doi.org/10.22178/pos.65-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045600802685895. Kimiti, K.S., D. Western, J.S. Mbau, and O.V. Wasonga. 2018. Impacts of long-term Cately, A., B. Admassu, G. Bekele, and D. Abebe. 2014. Livestock mortality in land-use changes on herd size and mobility among pastoral households in pastoralist herds in Ethiopia and implications for drought response. Disasters Amboseli ecosystem, Kenya. Ecological Processes 7 (1): 4. https://doi.org/10.11 38 (3): 500–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12060. 86/s13717-018-0115-y. De Groot, P., Field-Juma, A., & Hall, D. O. 1992. Reclaiming the land: Revegetation Kirkbride, M. 2008. Survival of the fittest: Pastoralism and climate change in East in semi-arid Kenya. Harare, Zimbabwe: African Center for Technology Studies Africa. Oxfam GB, Oxford England: Oxfam International briefing paper. (ACTS) Press, Nairobi Kenya and Biomass Users Network (BUN). Koitaba, E., M. Waiganjo, and S. Wanyoike. 2016. An analysis of factors influencing Dikiwar, V., and A. Shepherd. 2018. Understanding poverty in Kenya. A financial control practices in community based organizations in Baringo multidimensional analysis. London: Overseas Development Institute. County, Kenya. Journal of Economics, Management and Trade:1–10. https:// Ducrotoy, M.J., C.W. Revie, A.P.M. Shaw, U.B. Musa, W.J. Bertu, A.M. Gusi, R.A. doi.org/10.9734/BJEMT/2016/20158. Ocholi, A.O. Majekodunmi, and S.C. Welburn. 2017. Wealth, household Kristjanson, P.M., M. Radeny, D. Nkedianye, R.L. Kruska, R.S. Reid, H. Gichohi, F. heterogeneity and livelihood diversification of Fulani pastoralists in the Atieno, and R. Sanford. 2002. Valuing alternative land-use options in the Kachia Grazing Reserve, northern Nigeria, during a period of social transition. Kitengela wildlife dispersal area of Kenya. Nairobi: International Livestock PLoS ONE 12 (3): e0172866. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172866. Research Institute. Elhadi, Y.A., D.M. Nyariki, V.O. Wasonga, and W.N. Ekaya. 2012. Transient poverty Lobell, D.B., M.B. Burke, C. Tebaldi, M.D. Mastrandrea, W.P. Falcon, and R.L. Naylor. among pastoral households in the semi-arid lowland of Baringo district, 2008. Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Kenya. Ozean Journal of Social Sciences 5 (1): 9–19. Science 319 (5863): 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152339. Fratkin, E. 1997. Pastoralism: Governance and development issues. Annual Review Lund, H.G. 2007. Accounting for the world’s rangelands. Rangelands 29 (1): 3–10. of Anthropology 26 (1): 235–261. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.2 https://doi.org/10.2111/1551-501X(2007)29[3:AFTWR]2.0.CO;2. 6.1.235. Fratkin, E., and E.A. Roth. 1990. Drought and economic differentiation among Maundu, P., S. Kibet, Y. Morimoto, M. Imbumi, and R. Adeka. 2009. Impact of Ariaal pastoralists of Kenya. Human Ecology 18 (4): 385–402. https://doi.org/1 Prosopis juliflora on Kenya’s semi-arid and arid ecosystems and local 0.1007/BF00889464. livelihoods. Biodiversity 10 (2-3): 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2009. Fynn, R.W.S., K.P. Kirkman, and R. Dames. 2017. Optimal grazing management 9712842. strategies: Evaluating key concepts. African Journal of Range & Forage Science Meybeck, A., Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, & 4 (2): 87–98. https://doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2017.1347584. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Eds.). 2012. Githu, D., Fehmi, J., & Josephson, A. 2020. Range reseeding dynamics and the Building resilience for adaptation to climate change in the agriculture sector: heterogeneity of pastoralists from Lake Baringo, Kenya. In Mimeo: University Proceedings of a Joint FAO/OECD Workshop 23-24 April 2012. Food and Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 10 of 10 Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Meyerhoff, E., P. de Groot, and B. Jones. 2020. Restoring grasslands in Kenya’s Rift Valley. 8 European Tropical Forest Research Network. Bonn: News bulletin 60. Mganga, K.Z., N.K.R. Musimba, D.M. Nyariki, M.M. Nyangito, and A.W. Mwang’ombe. 2015. The choice of grass species to combat desertification in semi-arid Kenyan rangelands is greatly influenced by their forage value for livestock. Grass Forage Science 70 (1): 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12 Oba, G., N.C. Stenseth, and W.J. Lusigi. 2000. New perspectives on sustainable grazing management in arid zones of sub-Saharan Africa. BioScience 50 (1): 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0035:NPOSGM]2.3.CO;2. Ochieng, R., C. Recha, B.O. Bebe, and G.M. Ogendi. 2017. Rainfall variability and droughts in the drylands of Baringo County, Kenya. Open Access Library Journal 4 (08): e3827. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1103827. Odada, E.O., J.O. Onyando, and P.A. Obudho. 2006. Lake Baringo: Addressing threatened biodiversity and livelihoods. Lakes & Reservoirs: Science, Policy and Management for Sustainable Use 11 (4): 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.144 0-1770.2006.00309. Opiyo, F.E., O.V. Wasonga, and M.M. Nyangito. 2014. Measuring household vulnerability to climate-induced stresses in pastoral rangelands of Kenya: Implications for resilience programming. Pastoralism 4 (1): 10. https://doi. org/10.1186/s13570-014-0010-9. Opiyo, F., O. Wasonga, M. Nyangito, J. Schilling, and R. Munang. 2015. Drought adaptation and coping strategies among the Turkana pastoralists of Northern Kenya. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 6 (3): 295–309. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13753-015-0063-4. Overholt, W.A., and A.R. Franck. 2017. The invasive legacy of forage grass introductions into Florida. Natural Areas Journal 37 (2): 254–264. https://doi. org/10.3375/043.037.0214. Reed, M.S., and L.C. Stringer. 2016. Land degradation, desertification and climate change: Anticipating, assessing and adapting to future change, 224. Oxford: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203071151. Talle, A. 1988. Women at a loss: Changes in Maasai pastoralism and their effects on gender relations. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/1 9896707322. Accessed 16 Jan 2021. Turner, M., and E. Schlecht. 2019. Livestock mobility in sub-Saharan Africa: A critical review. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 9 (1): 13. https://doi. org/10.1186/s13570-019-. UNCCD Achieving land degradation neutrality. 2020. https://www.unccd.int/a ctions/achieving-land-degradation-neutrality. Accessed 20 May 2020. Vetter, S. 2005. Rangelands at equilibrium and non-equilibrium: Recent developments in the debate. Journal of Arid Environments 62 (2): 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.11.015. Wilson, R. T. 2003. Livestock production and farm animal genetic resources in the Usangu Wetland of the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 15, Article #2. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/1/ wils151.htm. Accessed 23 Jan 2021. Publisher’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Pastoralism Springer Journals

Pastoralist herd size maintenance during drought with the use of reseeded fields near Lake Baringo, Kenya

Githu, Diana W.; Fehmi, Jeffrey S.; Josephson, Anna
Pastoralism , Volume 12 (1) – May 4, 2022
Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/pastoralist-herd-size-maintenance-during-drought-with-the-use-of-llMy4m0OcY

References (72)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2022
eISSN
2041-7136
DOI
10.1186/s13570-022-00238-4
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Land degradation, loss of access to land resources, climate variability, socio-economic changes, and population increase are among the factors that contribute to forage shortage among the pastoral communities. The loss of forage is critical, especially when droughts are frequent and prolonged. Interventions to improve pastoralists’ resilience include policies that encourage livelihood diversification, that is, promoting enterprises that are less impacted by climate variability. This paper evaluates a reseeding project among pastoralists from Lake Baringo, Kenya, with the goal of rehabilitating degraded lands. Field owners participated in a survey and answered both quantitative and qualitative questions relating to their field and household characteristics. We use livestock herd size to assess households’ conditions. We hypothesize that field characteristics including total land size reseeded, the total number of fields and the number of field locations, years of experience of working in reseeded fields, type of management, fencing, and the number of income-generating activities have an effect on herd size maintenance during drought. We find that the total number of fields and the number of income-generating activities have significant explanatory power in predicting a household’s ability to maintain its herd size during drought. These factors are related to fine-scale control over land use which contributes to maintaining herd size. These findings suggest that reseeding by local pastoralists could be replicated and up-scaled into other dryland counties of Kenya and sub-Saharan Africa as a promising intervention to improve resilience to climate variability, alleviate poverty, and improve environmental conditions. Keywords: Land degradation, Variable climate, Sustainable range management Introduction into sustenance based on the pastoralists’ knowledge of Rangelands are characterized by biophysical limitations, the surrounding ecosystems (Ayal et al. 2018). Given including low biomass production, extreme tempera- that rangelands comprise the majority of terrestrial land tures, and low water availability, which make the condi- worldwide (Lund 2007) and its inhabitants depend on tions naturally harsh (Lund, 2007). Despite these the land for sustenance, land degradation is a problem conditions, over 600 million people depend on range- of global concern which widely affects the sustainable lands for their livelihoods worldwide. Many of these development of many regions in the globe, especially people are pastoralists who move with their livestock in sub-Saharan Africa. Land degradation directly links to search of pasture and water. Pastoral social systems en- food insecurity, vulnerability to climate change, and pov- able the conversion of the limited ecological resources erty (UNCCD 2020). Pastoral societies also face many threats to their way of life, such as challenges related to climate change, pol- * Correspondence: dgithu@email.arizona.edu itical and economic marginalization, a development that School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, is not culturally accommodative, and increasing resource Tucson, AZ, USA Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2022 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 2 of 10 competition (Greiner et al. 2021; Kirkbride 2008). While and herd size maintenance among communities that the pastoral culture is based on resilient adaptation to have been managing and using reseeded fields in con- variable weather and land conditions, there are limits to junction with a drought. Drought stresses households’ their resilience amidst diminishing range resources resilience on a variety of fronts and typically results in (Meybeck 2012). Droughts have been increasing in in- reduced herd size (Homewood and Lewis 1987, Kimiti tensity, duration, and extent (Ayal 2018). When com- et al. 2018). We hypothesize that field and household bined with the loss of herding lands to private farms, characteristics affect the maintenance of herd size during ranches, game parks, and urban areas, pastoralists can drought. find it difficult to adapt to changes in the external envir- onment (Opiyo et al. 2014). National development plans Study area can often also fail to acknowledge pastoral economies The study was conducted in Baringo County in the Rift and marginalize them on the basis of their geographical Valley region of Kenya. Baringo covers an area of 11,015 remoteness and ethnicity (Kirkbride 2008; Husmann km (Koitaba et al. 2016) and encompasses Lake Baringo 2016). Many governments still appear to consider the at about 129 km (Kiage & Liu. 2009). The population of pastoral culture as outdated and needing replacement the area is about 667,000 people (Kenya National Bureau with modern livelihood systems (Vetter 2005). Modern of Statistics 2019). The county can be divided into two livelihoods generally refer to the introduction of seden- major zones: the highlands and the lowlands (Jaetzold & tary policies among pastoralists and limit their mobility, Schmidt, 1983). This study focuses on the lowland re- the mobility which forms the core of the pastoral culture gions near Lake Baringo basin, areas that are arid and and supports the livestock on which they depend for semi-arid lands. Annual rainfall ranges between 400 and food (Reed & Stringer, 2016). 600 mm with frequent droughts every 5 to 9 years Traditional pastoralism has had to transform and in- (Ochieng et al. 2017). Temperatures range from a mini- clude new strategies that help pastoralists adapt to the mum of 10 °C to a maximum of 35 °C (Kiage & Liu. contemporary challenges facing their way of life. Among 2009; Odada et al. 2006). these strategies are changing mobility patterns where Data were collected in four areas: Salabani, Meisori, flocks of sheep and goats browse and graze in the vicin- Loruk, and Akorian sub-locations in Baringo North con- ity of permanent homesteads while cattle-centred no- stituency, of Baringo County. These areas are the terri- madism transforms into transhumance. Transhumance tories of the Il Chamus tribe known more commonly as has cattle graze distant pastures in the dry season and the Njemps, and the Tugen tribe (see Fig. 1). Baringo near home during the rainy season (Anderson & Bollig County is one of the five most rural counties in Kenya, 2016). These changes have led to intense use of reserved and over 50% of its population live below the poverty grazing areas resulting in degraded bare-soil patches line (Diwakar 2018). Range degradation and drought in with limited chance for natural recovery. The degrad- the region have led to low livestock production resulting ation can be seen as a result of modern movement con- in an increased number of households engaging in other straints combined with traditional practices and income-generating activities among them crop cultiva- strategies employed by pastoralists in relation to herd tion, migration, beekeeping, irrigated vegetable farming size and grazing management (Opiyo et al. 2015). The by the shores of the lake, and petty trade (Johansson & decrease in the quality and quantity of pasture also Svensson 2002; Greiner et al. 2021). The region occupied causes reduced herd survival rates among pastoral herds by the Njemps is mostly flat and is covered by well- in Kenya and other parts of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) drained silt loam to clay loam alluvial soils. The region (Baker and Hoffman 2006; Kirkbride 2008). In the in- occupied by the Tugen has saline soils and the area is terim, while land management and social structures characterized by shallow, stony-sandy soils with rock adapt, reseeding degraded lands can return them to pro- outcrops, volcanic ash, and lava boulders (Elhadi et al. ductive use. 2012). The vegetation in the areas surrounding the lake Agro-pastoralists from Lake Baringo, Kenya, have been is dominated by trees and shrubs (Acacia reficiens, Aca- reseeding lands for more than three decades and these cia tortilis, Boscia coriacea, Balanites aegyptiaca, interventions have been promoted as addressing food in- Maerua angolensis, Cordia sinensis, and Salvadora per- security, poverty, and other livelihood problems (de sica) with little undergrowth (Kiage & Liu 2009; Kaimba Groot 1992; Meyerhoff et al. 2020). This has been made et al. 2011). possible through the presence of the Rehabilitation of The lowland zone occupied by the Njemps tribe is Arid Environments (RAE) Trust/Ltd, a nongovernmental dominated by invasive Prosopis juliflora bushes and organization in the area that facilitates participatory Opuntia ficus-indica (prickly pear cactus) which has sig- range restoration on a cost-sharing basis. Our study nificantly changed the land cover of the region (Maundu seeks to determine the relationship between reseeding et al. 2009). These species compete for soil nutrients Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 3 of 10 Fig. 1 Diagram of study site sub-locations with the grasses, hence reducing the grazing capacity. use are fully made by the field owner. Fields were Climate change and its effects along with siltation of the planted using indigenous grass species including Cen- lake have resulted in the loss of grazing lands near the chrus ciliaris, Eragrostis superba, Enteropogon macrosta- lake shores to floods (Odada et al. 2006). Kaimba et al. chyus, Sehima nervosum, and Cymbopogon pospichilii. (2011) indicate that cattle rustling and tribal clashes are common between the Pokot and the Tugen, as they have Sampling strategy disputes over grazing resources which result in underuti- The target population was approximately 500 field lized grazing lands near the clash hotspots. owners who own more than 900 privately reseeded fields and were selected from the three pastoral communities Methods that are dominant in Baringo County. The target sample Reseeding was 150 respondents for household survey-based re- The respondents of this study are chosen from agro- sources available. To determine which fields to visit, the pastoralists of Lake Baringo who use reseeded fields. private field owners were categorized by tribe and sub- These fields were reseeded with the support of the Re- locations (see Fig. 1). This resulted in 29 categories with habilitation of Arid Environments (RAE) Trust/Ltd, an the highest sub-location having 242 fields and the lowest initiative that began in 1982 (de Groot 1992) in the having one field (see Table 1). The top two sub- Njemps flats. The programme was later extended to locations with the greatest number of field owners per other degraded lands in the region including the Tugen tribe was selected, leaving six sub-locations (two per and Pokot territories. While communal fields have been tribe). The two sub-locations from the Pokot tribe with reseeded in this region, this study focused only on the the highest number of reseeded fields had 20 private private enclosures for which management decisions and field owners which is about 2% of all the field owners Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 4 of 10 Table 1 Sub-locations, fields, and the three tribes Sub-location Size (hectares) Number of fields Number of owners Dominant tribe Meisori 106 100 79 Njemps Salabani 239.7 242 138 Njemps Akorian 34.5 140 95 Tugen Loruk 107.3 183 99 Tugen Loyamuruk* 24.3 7 4 Pokot Tangulbei* 29.9 20 16 Pokot Total 541.7 692 431 Note: * indicates locations not selected for further study with private fields planted by RAE Trust/Ltd. As such, common way to assess the household wealth of pastoral- the Pokot tribe was omitted from the sample and all re- ists (Butt et al. 2009, Ducrotoy et al. 2017) spondents were randomly selected from the Tugen and All the fields used for this analysis were reseeded with the Njemps and from four sub-locations. the support of RAE Trust/Ltd (Meyerhoff et al. 2020), and all fields had been used for grazing. Of the 193 households that were visited, only 91 were used in the Data collection analysis (see Table 2). The 102 responses not used for Data were collected through the administration of a sur- the analysis included those newly reseeded fields that vey that included both open-ended and closed-ended had not yet been used for grazing, households where the questions, where 193 household visits were conducted in targeted field owner was not available because they had June 2019. The respondents who participated in the permanently relocated or had migrated in search of pas- study answered both quantitative and qualitative ques- ture and water, households where owners had aban- tions which related to the field owner’s gender, the field doned their fields because of insecurity due to tribal manager (owner, paid help, or no one), years of experi- clashes over grazing resources, and those whose fields ence with fields, the number of fields, the number of were not in use because they had been submerged by field locations, the cumulative land size, the kind of fen- the flooding of Lake Baringo in the previous years. Add- cing (wire, living material, none), the number of species itional records were also eliminated for not reporting planted in the field, the owners’ assessment of revegeta- herd data and for not engaging in any livelihood activity. tion success, the number and nature of livelihood activ- As suggested by Fratkin and Roth (1990), some sample ities, and the number of each kind of livestock before selection may exist: the pool of survey respondents may and after the drought. Livestock herd sizes tend to be have discounted the poorest of the field owners because fixed as long as households maintain the number of ani- the drought may have forced them to move outside of mals that approximately maximize their available forage, our survey area. As such, our results should be viewed herding capability, and risk, all of which vary dynamic- as a lower bound on these relationships. ally. When conditions get worse, excess livestock can be sold or consumed. Herd sizes can also decrease due to Analysis natural mortality or theft and/or other loss (Cately et al. The Loruk sub-location herd survival data was visibly 2014). Herds can potentially increase in size each year different from the other sub-locations (see Fig. 2). The by 50% (relatively few male animals are needed), but known events in the Loruk sub-location appeared to livestock offspring production for pastoralists can be low need separate evaluation from the remaining sub- due to unfavourable maternal conditions for rebreeding, locations (Akorian, Meisori, Salabani) and analysis of high mortality among immature animals, and delayed these final three sub-locations formed the primary ana- rebreeding to extend milk production. Herd size is a lysis. The response variable of herd size maintenance Table 2 Sample population Sub-location Dominant tribe Total households visited Households used for analysis Percentages Akorian Tugen 56 27 53.6 Loruk Tugen 43 19 46.5 Meisori Njemps 39 22 59.0 Salabani Njemps 55 23 45.5 Total 193 91 Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 5 of 10 Fig. 2 Herd size maintenance percentages. Note: Figures obtained through comparing herd size from before and after the 2019 drought for the agro-pastoralists from the four sub-locations near Lake Baringo, Kenya was regressed against the explanatory variables: sub- livelihood activities showed that 89.8% of the field location (Akorian, Meisori, Salabani), owner’s gender owners were men (n = 88). 10.2% of the fields were (male, female), the field manager (owner, paid help, or owned by women. This is consistent with the pastoralist no one), years of experience with fields (years since the culture in which women have not traditionally had the first field established), the number of fields, the number right to inherit land (Talle 1988), but have the right to of field locations, the cumulative land size, the kind of use the land and benefit from its resources (Allegretti fencing (wire, living material, none), the number of spe- 2018). As such, most of the fields are owned by men and cies planted, the owners’ assessment of revegetation suc- the majority of the field management decisions are made cess, the number of livelihood activities, and the total by females. This difference between ownership and man- herd size. agement is illustrated in the breakdown of who manages To ensure a large number of explanatory variable the fields, where the majority of the households (59.2%) model did not mask one another, stepwise regression have their fields managed by the owner with the help of using the Akaike Information Criterion was completed the rest of the family members. The pastoral culture has using the step function in R (R Foundation for Statistical been shown to be patriarchal and polygamous resulting Computing, Vienna, Austria) which iteratively adds and in sufficient labour from family members, to share field drops model terms to combine both backward and for- management roles including, fencing, controlled grazing, ward selections. This resulted in the selection of the and weeding. These activities are often spearheaded by most informative model from among those possible. The women (Fratkin 1997; Allegretti 2018). In recent years, residuals of both the initial model and the resulting par- pastoral households have increasingly hired casual simonious model were checked for normality and the re- labourers to help with the field management responsibil- sponse variable transformed but this did not change the ities (Belay 2016). We find that more than a third selection of terms or levels of significance for any of the (37.8%) of the respondents followed this trend. Hired variables. The final parsimonious model had the herd labour can facilitate the migration of pastoralists and size maintenance arcsine-square-route transformed to agro-pastoralists to other cities and towns in search of make the residuals meet the assumption of normality. employment, education, and livelihood diversification as All analyses were performed in R (version 3.6.1). they adapt to a changing climate among other social challenges. The remaining respondents (3%) reported no Results and discussion field management. Household characteristics and field traits The total land sizes reseeded were 1.82 ± 2.83 hectares Analysis of the combined responses from the Tugen and (mean ± SD) per household. Households had more than the Njemps on the gender of field owner, field managers, one field (1.87 ± 1.31 fields) with the additional fields ei- land sizes, fence types, the success of reseeding exercise, ther being extensions of existing fields or new fields in species used for the reseeding, and the number of up to five different locations. These fields varied in size Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 6 of 10 ranging from 0.1 to 12.1 hectares, with cumulative land durability under grazing and disturbance, drought toler- sizes reseeded ranging from 0.1 to 19.5 hectares. Land ance, and forage quality (Lobell et al. 2008; Overholt and ownership in the rangelands of Kenya is mostly commu- Franck 2017). To foster success, the reseeding used grass nally owned, though more recently, traditional systems seeds that had been locally hand-harvested by agro- have seen the critical institution of land tenure shift pastoralists. The seed was then processed, cleaned, and from communally owned to private lands. Individual stored to break dormancy and increase germination. land ownership in pastoral areas including Baringo is Mganga et al. (2015) reported that native species includ- through occupation and usufruct, attributing to the ris- ing Cenchrus ciliaris and Eragrostis superba have been ing population pressure and speculative official demarca- successful in reseeding and fighting desertification in tion and adjudication of the land by the government. As East Africa and are the most preferred because of their such, to mark territory and for maximized reseeding forage value. Similarly, the Tugen and the Njemps prefer benefits, fields are protected by fences of different types these species because of their native status, forage value, based on the preference of the field owners and their fi- and grazing tolerance. The survey respondents engaged nancial capabilities. The most common (85.7%) fence in (2.57 ± 1.53) income-generating activities associated type in the area was live fences made from invasive with reseeded fields. These activities were dry season Opuntia and Prosopis species and twigs and shrubs like grazing, harvesting grass seeds, cutting thatching grass, Acacia and others found in the area. A smaller propor- milking cattle, engaging in fattening programmes, baling tion of fields (11.2%) were protected by barbed wire baling of hay, and leasing of land (Githu et al. 2020). fences. A few fields (3.1%) had no fences which matched The reseeding is a source of livelihood diversification. the percentage of fields that had no management. Fen- This diversification has the potential to reduce house- cing is an important undertaking for field owners in hold vulnerability from uncertainties including climate- order to protect their land from trespass grazing. Tres- related disruptions causing forage shortages. pass grazing occurs when livestock that does not belong to the field owner grazes on the private field without the Herd characteristics consent of the field owner. There are no current legal The purposes of pastoral herds include the regular provisions that offer pastoralists and agro-pastoralists a provision of food in the form of meat, milk, and blood; framework for compensation when their grass fields are cash income; a measure of exchange in terms of dowry; illegally grazed as compared to livestock illegally grazing compensation of injured persons during raids; a symbol a maize field. Lack of legal protection for field owners of wealth and prosperity; and security against droughts, from illegal grazing fails to buffer the investments made disease outbreaks, and other rangeland calamities by those who successfully reseed their fields. Consider- (Kaimba et al. 2011). The Tugen and the Njemps pas- ing that 97% of the respondents of this research invested toral communities keep cattle, sheep, and goats (see in the different fence types to secure their fields demon- Table 3). strates that they understand the importance of protect- For many pastoral communities, the act of counting ing their fields from uncontrolled grazing. animals is culturally offensive, and the survey respon- The respondents of this study have been stewards of dents may not have been entirely forthcoming on their reseeded lands for an average of 10 years. The majority livestock numbers. This is consistent, however, with of them (92%) felt that the reseeding exercise was suc- other studies, including Cately et al. (2014). The house- cessful with just 7.3% reporting poor reseeding success. hold herd sizes may include animals belonging to mem- Barr et al. (2017) found that the success of reseeding av- bers of other households. Our survey does not probe erages 70% (± 3%) with mixtures yielding higher success into ownership issues but instead focuses on the herd rates although their results were not from Africa. For that graze on the reseeded fields in question. We assume this study, nearly all fields (98%) were reseeded using the that any exaggeration of herd sizes will be consistent native perennial bunchgrass Cenchrus ciliaris (African across households reporting on herd size figures before foxtail or buffelgrass), and 14.4% were reseeded using a and after the drought to reflect the impact of reseeding. mixture of native species including Eragrostis superba (Maasai love grass), Enteropogon macrostachyus, Sehima Table 3 Household herd size in tropical livestock units (TLU) nervosum,and Cymbopogon pospochilii. The success rate Tribe Cattle Calves Sheep Goats Kids/lambs Total of the observed reseeding activity was much higher than Njemps 11.97 1.75 5.49 6.65 0.60 20.43 Barr et al.’s(2017) reports, and possible explanations Tugen 13.32 2.75 4.32 8.50 1.19 20.86 would be because the reseeding was undertaken using Total 12.64 2.54 5.04 7.65 1.11 20.66 indigenous species that are drought-tolerant and have Note: 1 TLU is equivalent to 250-kg live weight, a cow = 1 TLU, a calf = 0.4 adapted to the conditions of this area. Grasses native to TLU, a sheep/goat = 0.11 TLU, lambs = 0.05 TLU, and kids = 0.04 TLU Africa are known for their ready establishment, (Kristjanson et al. 2002; Wilson 2003) Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 7 of 10 When comparing the sub-locations, herd sizes do not between neighbouring communities (Greiner 2013). significantly differ (p = 0.46), with an average of 16.5 ± Loruk sub-location borders the Pokot territory and is 14.6 TLU (Average ± SD) with 15.7 ± 13.1 TLU for the the most affected by cattle theft. Though they have Akorian, 18.5 ± 16.5 TLU for the Loruk, 13.9 ± 9.9 TLU invested in reseeding their fields, they do not seem to for the Meisori, and 18.1 ± 18.1 TLU for the Salabani reap the benefits of having higher herd size maintenance sub-location. Households average 9.6 ± 4.9 members as compared to the agro-pastoralists from Akorian, Mei- (average ± SD) with 8.3 ± 2.3 members for the Akorian, sori, and Salabani. 12.6 ± 5.1 members for the Loruk, 6.9 ± 2.7 members Analysis of the data from Akorian, Meisori, and Sala- for the Meisori, and 10.8 ± 6.6 members for the Salabani bani sub-locations showed that the total number of sub-location. This is an average of 1.7 TLU per house- fields (p < 0.001) and the number of activities (p = hold member. Herd sizes, in terms of TLU per house- 0.044) had substantial explanatory power which was hold member, are double those found by Hauck and confirmed in a parsimonious model. The parsimonious Rubenstein (2017; 1.1 TLU per household member) model only explained about 20% of the variability in the among Maasai pastoral communities from northern data likely due to the relatively high herd survival rates Kenya. These herd sizes are also similar to those from (see Tables 4 and 5). Each additional reseeded field Nigerian pastoralists (Ducrotoy et al. 2017). While herd added 1.5% to herd size maintenance. More research is sizes fluctuate for many reasons (Kimiti et al. 2018), our needed to better delineate the reason for this, though we finding of 1.7 TLU per household member raises some believe that having more fields would allow for improved concern for this pastoral community. Fratkin and Roth control of grazing and the ability to save forage. As such, (1990) classified pastoral households as poor if there the ability to graze some fields while resting others (rota- were less than 4.5 TLU per household member because tional grazing) has been the essential observation that al- below 4.5 TLU per household, the livestock herd could lows for improved land condition under livestock not provide sufficient calories to support the household grazing worldwide (Flynn et al. 2017). The inability to on its own. This implies that these agro-pastoralists were defer grazing on sub-sections may explain why the total getting more than half of their calories from sources land size did not show up as a significant predictor of other than their livestock. herd size maintenance. Larger undivided parcels offer only the option to graze or not to graze. Herd size maintenance Herd size maintenance differs in the Loruk sub-location Table 4 Herd survival regression full model (p = 0.002; see Fig. 2). The Loruk sub-location averages Variables Pr(>|t|) only 49% survival following the 2019 drought, while the (Intercept) 0.00132** Akorian, Meisori, and Salabani average 80%, 85%, and 82%, respectively. The reduced herd survival rates in Sub-location Meisori 0.470 Loruk may be attributed to security concerns that led Sub-location Salabani 0.484 them to abandon their land. This insecurity may be Gender male 0.694 linked to newer forms of cattle theft between tribes in Managed by owner 0.658 the area but differs from the long history of inter-tribal Managed by a paid worker 0.303 cattle rustling. Cattle rustling practices were motivated Years of experience 0.688 by traditional cultural ceremonies and events such as bride price paying, the celebration of the warriors, and Number of fields 0.046* competition among age-sets. Cattle rustling was a sport Number of field locations 0.263 that had to be sanctioned and blessed by the elders, and Total land size 0.886 the warriors involved used conventional weapons such Fence type none 0.831 as spears, sticks, bows, and arrows when acquiring live- Fence type wire 0.767 stock from another community. However, cattle theft Species used 0.384 has evolved into large-scale theft operations involving taking away thousands of cattle in broad daylight, ex- Reseeding success good 0.267 changing gunfire, rape, abduction, and killing and Reseeding success poor 0.131 wounding of men, women, and children (Kimani et al. Total herd size 0.738 2020). Inadequate policies, shrinking of natural re- Number of livelihood activities 0.060* sources, acquisition of weapons, and a collapse of the Adjusted R-squared 0.081 traditional governance system are to blame for this Prob > F 1.384 change. Commercialization of cattle raids and political incitement have also led to large-scale violent raiding Significance designed by 0 ‘***’, 0.001 ‘**’, 0.01 ‘*’, 0.05 ‘.’, 0.1 “1 Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 8 of 10 Table 5 Herd survival regression parsimonious model have been commonly seen with a negative view by the environmental conservation world and routinely used as Variables Pr(>|t|) the villain of the tragedy of the commons (Turner and (Intercept) 8.01e−14*** Schlecht 2019), it is notable that the agro-pastoralists in Number of fields 0.0006*** our sample were able to restore and then conserve their Field locations 0.167 restored grazing lands across decades when they have Number of livelihood activities 0.044* control over them. R-squared 0.212 Adjusted R-squared 0.177 Conclusions and recommendations Reseeding among the pastoral Tugen and Njemps com- Prob > F 0.001 munities is correlated with diversified sources of liveli- Significance designed by 0 ‘***’, 0.001 ‘**’, 0.01 ‘*’, 0.05 ‘.’, 0.1 ‘.’ 1 hoods and generally stable herd sizes. The reseeding One may expect that having more locations would be appears to offer environmental benefits along with associated with a negative effect on herd size mainten- allowing households flexibility in responding to the chal- ance. Livestock movement has been shown to expose lenges of climate variability, land degradation, and pov- the herds to risk (Butt et al. 2009) but this must be bal- erty. The high success rates and the long-term anced by the need to move to available forage (Baker sustainment of the reseeding imply that this intervention and Hoffman 2006) and the need for water. We see that is appropriate for the situation and that sustainable graz- the movement between locations was not associated ing management can be achieved in these areas. When with a change in herd survival. It may be the case that sustainably managed, reseeded fields can support a more the distances were not long enough to be associated with sedentary lifestyle for the pastoralists and the agro- higher risk. The number of activities had significant ex- pastoralists. Future policies and institutions that support planatory power (p = 0.044) for herd survival with each larger-scale reseeding on communal lands, private enclo- additional activity adding 0.3% herd survival. Earnings sures, or open ranges may expand these benefits al- from other income-generating activities may have sup- though simultaneous additional work is needed on the ported the purchase of forage for their herds once they social and legal frameworks for pastoralists and agro- had exhausted dry season grazing on their reseeded pastoralists to fully benefit from reseeding. Future re- fields. Our results are consistent with those of Ducrotoy search should try to understand the changing culture of et al. (2017), for Nigerian pastoralists and agro- pastoralism given the current challenges and the holistic pastoralists. They describe diversification of livelihoods impact of reseeding large-scale communal lands. as an important way for households to mitigate risk and Acknowledgements allow resilience in the face of changing environmental The authors express their sincere gratitude to all the people who and social conditions. However, Ducrotoy et al. (2017) participated in making this research work a success. Special thanks to the Rehabilitation of Arid Environments (RAE) Trust/Ltd team and specifically to also note that for their Nigerian pastoralists, diversifica- Dr. Elizabeth Meyerhoff for her guidance and resourcefulness during the tion also correlates with smaller TLU per household process of developing this research. We also acknowledge the efforts of member which the authors associate with poverty or a Murray Roberts, Joseph Kulei, Raphael Kimosop, Bernard Lenariach, and the rest of RAE's team who helped during the data collection process. A big move away from a pastoral lifestyle as a primary liveli- thank you also goes to the Tugen and Njemps community members hood. The addition of activities may represent household who participated in the research. Their contribution was very useful for the economic pressure in maintaining desired herd size study. which in turn may take away resources from mobile Authors’ contributions herding activities and indicate a transition toward a All authors conceived the study methods. Diana Githu collected the survey more sedentary lifestyle. data. Diana Githu and Jeffrey S. Fehmi analysed the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Regional environmental conditions, such as drought and aridity, combined with social and legally 55 driven Funding changes in herding behaviour, have been thought to re- This research was supported by the Fulbright Foreign Student’s Program and the Harry Wayne Springfield research grant. sult in resource degradation and especially the loss of grasses and grasslands (Kassahun et al. 2008). While Availability of data and materials some of the environment would benefit from reduced The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. grazing, the extant plant community across much of Af- rica seems a product of grazing and may convert to a Declarations woody dominated plant community in the absence of Ethics approval and consent to participate grazing (Oba et al. 2000). As with most ecological sys- This study received ethical approval through the University of Arizona tems, balance among grazing and rest plays a role. Institutional Review Board (IRB), protocol number 1905646702 on 06/06/ Nonetheless, given that pastoralists and agro-pastoralists 2019. Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 9 of 10 Consent for publication of Arizona. Retrieved from https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/6421 Not applicable. 07. Accessed 12 Oct 2020. Greiner, C. 2013. Guns, land, and votes: Cattle rustling and the politics of boundary (re)making in Northern Kenya. African Affairs 112 (447): 216–237. Competing interests https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adt003. The authors declare that they have no competing interests. But also note Greiner, C., H.-P. Vehrs, and M. Bollig. 2021. Land-use and land-cover changes in that Diana W. Githu worked as an employee of the Rehabilitation of Arid pastoral drylands: Long-term dynamics, economic change, and shifting Environments (RAE) Trust/Ltd from January 2016 to June 2018. socioecological frontiers in Baringo, Kenya. Human Ecology 49 (5): 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-021-00263-8. Author details Hauck, S., and D.I. Rubenstein. 2017. Pastoralist societies in flux: A conceptual School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, framework analysis of herding and land use among the Mukugodo Maasai of Tucson, AZ, USA. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Kenya. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 7 (1): 18. https://doi.org/10.11 University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 86/s13570-017-0090-4. Homewood, K., and J. Lewis. 1987. Impact of drought on pastoral livestock in Received: 31 March 2021 Accepted: 29 March 2022 Baringo, Kenya 1983-85. Journal of Applied Ecology 24: 615–631. Husmann, C. 2016. Marginality as a root cause of poverty: Identifying marginality hotspots in Ethiopia. World Development 78: 420–435. https://doi.org/10.101 6/j.worlddev.2015.10.024. References Jaetzold, R., & Schmidt, H. 1983. Farm management handbook of Kenya (Vol. II, Allegretti, A. 2018. Respatializing culture, recasting gender in peri-urban sub- Part C): Natural conditions and farm management information, East Kenya. Saharan Africa: Maasai ethnicity and the ‘cash economy’ at the rural-urban Ministry of Agriculture (No. 630.96762 JAE v. 2. CIMMYT.). Kenya: Centro interface, Tanzania. Journal of Rural Studies 60: 122–129. https://doi.org/10.101 Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo 6/j.jrurstud.2018.03.015. Johansson, J., & Svensson, J. 2002. Land degradation in the semi-arid catchment Anderson, D.M., and M. Bollig. 2016. Resilience and collapse: Histories, ecologies, of Lake Baringo, Kenya. Report on a minor field study of physical causes with conflicts and identities in the Baringo-Bogoria basin, Kenya. Journal of Eastern a socioeconomic aspect. Göteborgs: Department of Geography, University of African Studies 10 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17531055.2016.1150240. Goteborg, Sweden Ayal, D., M. Radeny, S. Desta, and G.G. Tegegn. 2018. Climate variability, Kaimba, G.K., B.K. Njehia, and A.Y. Guliye. 2011. Effects of cattle rustling and perceptions of pastoralists and their adaptation strategies: Implications for household characteristics on migration decisions and herd size amongst livestock system and diseases in Borana zone. International Journal of Climate pastoralists in Baringo District, Kenya. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice Change Strategies and Management. 10 (4): 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 1 (1): 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-1-18. IJCCSM-06-2017-0143. Kassahun, A., H.A. Snyman, and G.N. Smit. 2008. Impact of rangeland degradation Baker, L.E., and M.T. Hoffman. 2006. Managing variability: Herding strategies in on the pastoral production systems, livelihoods and perceptions of the communal rangelands of semiarid Namaqualand South Africa. HumEcol 34 Somali pastoralists in Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments 72 (7): (6): 765–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9036-y. 1265–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.01.002. Barr, S., J.L. Jonas, and M.W. Paschke. 2017. Optimizing seed mixture diversity and Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Nairobi, Kenya. 2019. Kenya National Bureau seeding rates for grassland restoration. Restoration Ecology 25 (3): 396–404. of Statistics. https://www.knbs.or.ke/. Accessed 4 Mar 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12445. Kiage, L.M., and K. Liu. 2009. Palynological evidence of climate change and land Belay, A.L. 2016. Alternative livelihoods for former pastoralists in rural settings. 7. degradation in the Lake Baringo area, Kenya, East Africa, since AD 1650. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Global Cooperation / Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 279 (1–2): 60–72. https:// Global Programme Food Security, Berne, CapEx in supporting pastoral doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2009.05.001. development. Kimani, A.G., C. Masiga, and Kenyatta University. 2020. A study on the Butt, B., A. Shortridge, and A.M.G.A. WinklerPrins. 2009. Pastoral herd comprehensive comparison between indigenous cattle rustling and modern management, drought coping strategies, and cattle mobility in Southern cattle rustling in West Pokot County, Kenya. Path of Science 6 (12): 1011– Kenya. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99 (2): 309–334. 1016. https://doi.org/10.22178/pos.65-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045600802685895. Kimiti, K.S., D. Western, J.S. Mbau, and O.V. Wasonga. 2018. Impacts of long-term Cately, A., B. Admassu, G. Bekele, and D. Abebe. 2014. Livestock mortality in land-use changes on herd size and mobility among pastoral households in pastoralist herds in Ethiopia and implications for drought response. Disasters Amboseli ecosystem, Kenya. Ecological Processes 7 (1): 4. https://doi.org/10.11 38 (3): 500–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12060. 86/s13717-018-0115-y. De Groot, P., Field-Juma, A., & Hall, D. O. 1992. Reclaiming the land: Revegetation Kirkbride, M. 2008. Survival of the fittest: Pastoralism and climate change in East in semi-arid Kenya. Harare, Zimbabwe: African Center for Technology Studies Africa. Oxfam GB, Oxford England: Oxfam International briefing paper. (ACTS) Press, Nairobi Kenya and Biomass Users Network (BUN). Koitaba, E., M. Waiganjo, and S. Wanyoike. 2016. An analysis of factors influencing Dikiwar, V., and A. Shepherd. 2018. Understanding poverty in Kenya. A financial control practices in community based organizations in Baringo multidimensional analysis. London: Overseas Development Institute. County, Kenya. Journal of Economics, Management and Trade:1–10. https:// Ducrotoy, M.J., C.W. Revie, A.P.M. Shaw, U.B. Musa, W.J. Bertu, A.M. Gusi, R.A. doi.org/10.9734/BJEMT/2016/20158. Ocholi, A.O. Majekodunmi, and S.C. Welburn. 2017. Wealth, household Kristjanson, P.M., M. Radeny, D. Nkedianye, R.L. Kruska, R.S. Reid, H. Gichohi, F. heterogeneity and livelihood diversification of Fulani pastoralists in the Atieno, and R. Sanford. 2002. Valuing alternative land-use options in the Kachia Grazing Reserve, northern Nigeria, during a period of social transition. Kitengela wildlife dispersal area of Kenya. Nairobi: International Livestock PLoS ONE 12 (3): e0172866. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172866. Research Institute. Elhadi, Y.A., D.M. Nyariki, V.O. Wasonga, and W.N. Ekaya. 2012. Transient poverty Lobell, D.B., M.B. Burke, C. Tebaldi, M.D. Mastrandrea, W.P. Falcon, and R.L. Naylor. among pastoral households in the semi-arid lowland of Baringo district, 2008. Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Kenya. Ozean Journal of Social Sciences 5 (1): 9–19. Science 319 (5863): 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152339. Fratkin, E. 1997. Pastoralism: Governance and development issues. Annual Review Lund, H.G. 2007. Accounting for the world’s rangelands. Rangelands 29 (1): 3–10. of Anthropology 26 (1): 235–261. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.2 https://doi.org/10.2111/1551-501X(2007)29[3:AFTWR]2.0.CO;2. 6.1.235. Fratkin, E., and E.A. Roth. 1990. Drought and economic differentiation among Maundu, P., S. Kibet, Y. Morimoto, M. Imbumi, and R. Adeka. 2009. Impact of Ariaal pastoralists of Kenya. Human Ecology 18 (4): 385–402. https://doi.org/1 Prosopis juliflora on Kenya’s semi-arid and arid ecosystems and local 0.1007/BF00889464. livelihoods. Biodiversity 10 (2-3): 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2009. Fynn, R.W.S., K.P. Kirkman, and R. Dames. 2017. Optimal grazing management 9712842. strategies: Evaluating key concepts. African Journal of Range & Forage Science Meybeck, A., Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, & 4 (2): 87–98. https://doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2017.1347584. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Eds.). 2012. Githu, D., Fehmi, J., & Josephson, A. 2020. Range reseeding dynamics and the Building resilience for adaptation to climate change in the agriculture sector: heterogeneity of pastoralists from Lake Baringo, Kenya. In Mimeo: University Proceedings of a Joint FAO/OECD Workshop 23-24 April 2012. Food and Githu et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2022) 12:21 Page 10 of 10 Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Meyerhoff, E., P. de Groot, and B. Jones. 2020. Restoring grasslands in Kenya’s Rift Valley. 8 European Tropical Forest Research Network. Bonn: News bulletin 60. Mganga, K.Z., N.K.R. Musimba, D.M. Nyariki, M.M. Nyangito, and A.W. Mwang’ombe. 2015. The choice of grass species to combat desertification in semi-arid Kenyan rangelands is greatly influenced by their forage value for livestock. Grass Forage Science 70 (1): 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12 Oba, G., N.C. Stenseth, and W.J. Lusigi. 2000. New perspectives on sustainable grazing management in arid zones of sub-Saharan Africa. BioScience 50 (1): 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0035:NPOSGM]2.3.CO;2. Ochieng, R., C. Recha, B.O. Bebe, and G.M. Ogendi. 2017. Rainfall variability and droughts in the drylands of Baringo County, Kenya. Open Access Library Journal 4 (08): e3827. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1103827. Odada, E.O., J.O. Onyando, and P.A. Obudho. 2006. Lake Baringo: Addressing threatened biodiversity and livelihoods. Lakes & Reservoirs: Science, Policy and Management for Sustainable Use 11 (4): 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.144 0-1770.2006.00309. Opiyo, F.E., O.V. Wasonga, and M.M. Nyangito. 2014. Measuring household vulnerability to climate-induced stresses in pastoral rangelands of Kenya: Implications for resilience programming. Pastoralism 4 (1): 10. https://doi. org/10.1186/s13570-014-0010-9. Opiyo, F., O. Wasonga, M. Nyangito, J. Schilling, and R. Munang. 2015. Drought adaptation and coping strategies among the Turkana pastoralists of Northern Kenya. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 6 (3): 295–309. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13753-015-0063-4. Overholt, W.A., and A.R. Franck. 2017. The invasive legacy of forage grass introductions into Florida. Natural Areas Journal 37 (2): 254–264. https://doi. org/10.3375/043.037.0214. Reed, M.S., and L.C. Stringer. 2016. Land degradation, desertification and climate change: Anticipating, assessing and adapting to future change, 224. Oxford: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203071151. Talle, A. 1988. Women at a loss: Changes in Maasai pastoralism and their effects on gender relations. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/1 9896707322. Accessed 16 Jan 2021. Turner, M., and E. Schlecht. 2019. Livestock mobility in sub-Saharan Africa: A critical review. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 9 (1): 13. https://doi. org/10.1186/s13570-019-. UNCCD Achieving land degradation neutrality. 2020. https://www.unccd.int/a ctions/achieving-land-degradation-neutrality. Accessed 20 May 2020. Vetter, S. 2005. Rangelands at equilibrium and non-equilibrium: Recent developments in the debate. Journal of Arid Environments 62 (2): 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.11.015. Wilson, R. T. 2003. Livestock production and farm animal genetic resources in the Usangu Wetland of the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 15, Article #2. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/1/ wils151.htm. Accessed 23 Jan 2021. Publisher’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Journal

Pastoralism – Springer Journals

Published: May 4, 2022

Keywords: Land degradation; Variable climate; Sustainable range management

There are no references for this article.