kenya’s drylands – wastelands or an undervalued national

Kenya’s Drylands – Wastelands or an Undervalued National Economic Resource

Edmund Barrow and Hezron Mogaka

Edited by: Roy Behnke 2007

IUC

N P

hoto Library © Jim

Thorsell

The World Conservation Union

www.iucn.org

Kenya’s Drylands – Wastelands or an Undervalued National Economic Resource TABLE of CONTENT PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................................3 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................................5 1 KENYA’S DRYLAND RESOURCES, LIVELIHOODS AND ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES..............7

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY .........................................................................................................................7 1.2 DRYLAND ECOSYSTEMS: CHARACTERISTICS AND IMPORTANCE ........................................................................7

1.2.1 The Livestock Sub-sector ......................................................................................................................10 1.2.2 Agriculture..............................................................................................................................................12 1.2.3 Land Tenure and Land Use ...................................................................................................................13 1.2.4 Poverty, Health and Gender ..................................................................................................................13 1.2.5 Sector Development Goals and Priority Policy Reforms .......................................................................14

1.3 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................15 2 ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF KENYA’S DRYLANDS ....................................................................................16

2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................16 2.2 LIVESTOCK...................................................................................................................................................16 2.3 DRYLAND CULTIVATION (RAINFED AND IRRIGATED).........................................................................................17 2.4 DRYLAND NATURAL RESOURCES (FORESTS, RANGELANDS) ............................................................................19 2.5 CHARCOAL – A SPECIAL CASE.......................................................................................................................23 2.6 WILDLIFE AND TOURISM ................................................................................................................................25 2.7 THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF DRYLANDS – DROUGHTS AND CALAMITIES.............................................................27 2.8 KNOWLEDGE GAPS – TOWARDS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF DRYLANDS ...29 2.9 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................31

3 VALUATION OF DRYLAND GOODS AND SERVICES: THE EXAMPLE OF TURKANA DISTRICT ............32 3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .........................................................................................................................32 3.2 LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION IN TURKANA DISTRICT.............................................................................................35 3.3 FORESTRY AND VEGETATION RESOURCES.....................................................................................................36 3.4 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................38 3.5 TOURISM AND ECOTOURISM ACTIVITIES IN TURKANA DISTRICT........................................................................39 3.6 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................39

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................41

2


Preface and Acknowledgements This study is a work in progress. It compiles material from many sources to make a case for the importance of dryland ecosystem goods and services in Kenya. It nonetheless has a number of weaknesses including: 1. Discrepancies in livestock population estimates in the drylands; different numbers are

quoted by different authors, which may actually refer to different areas of land, presenting a major valuation problem since livestock are the most important economic asset for these drylands;

2. An imperfect understanding of the true value of dryland cultivation, a deficiency which cannot be remedied without additional primary data collection. Kenyan agricultural data tends to be aggregated in terms of crop yields per district, but there are few predominately “dryland” districts where agriculture is practiced (e.g. Meru, Machakos). It is even more difficult to gain a picture of the long term costs of dryland cultivation, especially if the predicted risks of climate change come into play – which would make dryland cultivation, as it is now practiced, a much more risky enterprise.

We view this report as a small step towards gaining a better understanding of the economics of dryland ecosystems in Kenya. We are grateful to a number of people who have made helpful comments on earlier drafts of this study including Jonathan Davies, Josh Bishop, and Caterina Wolfangel. We are particularly grateful for the detailed and constructive comments received from Michael Mortimore. We are, however, responsible for any remaining shortcomings in this report. Likewise the views in this study are ours, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the institutions for whom we work.

3


List of Acronyms

AFC Agricultural Finance Cooperation ARLMP Arid Lands Management Project ASAL Arid and Semi Arid Lands CBAHW Community Based Animal Healthcare Workers CBOs Community Based Organizations CPR Common Property Regime CVM Contingent Valuatino Method ERS Economic Recovery Strategy FEWS Famine Early Warning System FSA Financial Services Associations GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GOK Government of Kenya ICIPE International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology ICRAF The World Agroforestry Centre IIED International Institute for Environment and Development ILRI International Livestock Research Institute ITDG Practical Action Kenya IUCN The World Conservation Union KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute KEFRI Kenya Forestry Research Institute KRDS Kenya Rural Development Strategy KREMU Kenya Rangeland Ecological Monitoring Unit K-REP Kenya Rural Enterprises Programme KWS Kenya Wildlife Service MoLFD Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development NAEP National Agricultural Extension Policy NALEP National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme NGO Non Governmental Organization NTFP Non Timber Forest Product PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper SACCOs Savings and Credit Cooperative Organizations TEV Total Economic Value UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme WEDCO Women Economic Development Cooperative WISP World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism

4


Summary The purpose of this study is to identify and better understand the contribution of dryland ecosystem goods and services to poverty reduction, livelihood security and the national economy of Kenya. The aim is to influence national and international policy and decision-making.

As discussed in section 1 of the report, the drylands (Arid and Semi Arid Lands or ASAL) of Kenya make up 84% of Kenya’s total land surface, support about 9.9 million Kenyans (or approximately 34 % of the country’s population), account for more than 80% of the country’s eco-tourism interests and up to 75% of its wildlife population. The drylands nonetheless receive insufficient investment – both in terms of financing and policy incentives, and are under-recognized for their potential value in national development and poverty reduction. On average the people of the drylands are poorer, with proportionally fewer social services and less infrastructure than their counterparts in high potential areas. Many pastoralists have had their critical dry season grazing areas expropriated for other land uses, thereby undermining one of the few integrated land use systems capable of supporting life in such harsh lands. Yet the potential, especially in the livestock sector, is now increasingly being recognized and there are also many other economic benefits derived from the drylands, which are discussed. Section 2 of the report reviewed some of the economic and statistical literature for the drylands of Kenya. The analysis was not able to provide a total economic value for Kenya’s drylands, but it does provide a clearer idea of the role of Kenya’s drylands in poverty reduction and livelihood improvement, the attainment of environmental objectives, and in terms of market value and future potential. Notable results of this review include:

• Some of the most important economic assets from the drylands are livestock products and services. Kenya’s national livestock herd has been estimated at 33.4 million head, with 46% of this herd (or 15.2 million livestock) being kept by pastoralists. Pastoral livestock holdings may have a capital value of approximately $860 million with an annual off-take for meat and hides worth $69.3 million for both subsistence and sale. As pastoralists in Kenya generally manage livestock for milk not meat, the total value of the milk production for drylands (approximately $134.6 million per annum) is nearly twice that of the value of slaughter off-take. Blood is also an important product, but there are few estimates of its economic importance. The accuracy of the above figures is, however, subject to doubt because no systematic enumeration of ASAL livestock has been carried out since 1995, and reasonable projections of herd output are very sensitive to estimates of total herd size.

• We found few economic studies of dryland crop agriculture and horticulture in Kenya. The primary exception was Machakos District (semi-arid but suitable for dryland cultivation, with a population of approximately 1.5 million people), where there was a seven fold improvement in the value of agricultural output per sq.km between the 1930s and 1980s and a doubling of yield per capita, accompanied by a dramatic drop in rates of soil erosion. We found no adequate studies of the long-term economic costs and benefits of irrigation, despite donor and government involvement in many of these schemes.

• This review uncovered examples of the economic importance of dryland forests and forest products – including timber, gums and resins and charcoal – but no comprehensive estimate of the national value of these outputs. Probably about 40% of all charcoal producers come from ASAL, and approximately half of the preferred and commonly used tree species for charcoal also come from ASAL. A crude estimate of the value of the charcoal trade from the drylands is Kshs 16 billion ($0.2

5


billion), a figure that does not incorporate the costs of charcoal production in terms of environmental degradation and negative impacts on other production systems such as pastoralism.

• Wildlife conservation in Kenya provides great benefits as part of tourism and income to the nation, but rural people do not benefit in a proportionate manner. This has resulted in significant losses in wildlife as lands are converted to other forms of land use such as wheat and maize cultivation that do offer immediate benefits for rural livestock owners and farmers. This situation may be slowly changing with greater equity in lease arrangements between the private sector and community groups.

Section 3 of the report reviewed existing studies of the probable economic value of environmental goods and services in Turkana District. This case study revealed that:

• Livestock production in Turkana District supports nearly the entire population of over 486,000 people, either directly (as livestock keepers) or indirectly (through trading in livestock and livestock products). Livestock are a source of income, indicator of social status, source of food and means of establishing social ties. The main types of stock are cattle, goats, sheep, camels and donkeys.

• It is estimated that 30% of the soils in Turkana District can support agricultural

production, but farming is limited by low and variable rainfall. Most cultivation is based on low-input sorghum farming, so if the crop fails the losses are not large as such crop production complements the livestock sector, and people do not necessarily depend on the crop. Irrigation has been tried for many years with huge financial inputs from both the Government and donors but has failed to perform. The problem with irrigation schemes is not the technology per se, but how the technology has been contextualized and made appropriate to local level management and ownership.

• Total fodder availability is 1,146 Kg per ha per year for the whole district, which represents approximately Kshs 11,000/ ($160) per ha per year. In addition, over 103 plant species in Turkana District are used as fruits, vegetables, food, and in medicine processing. Honey production in Turkana District is increasing rapidly, as the number of modern beehives has increased by over 1,000% in the last 9 years.

• Forests with a canopy cover of over 12% are limited to the mountain ranges, which are relatively humid, and along the main rivers, which have significant areas of riverine forest. Forestry resources support a wide range of household activities – livestock production, honey, traditional medicines, shelter, charcoal production and foods – and in some areas are becoming an important source of household income particularly through the sale of charcoal, gums and resins. They play key service functions, including soil stabilisation particularly along riverbanks and flood plains, climate amelioration and wind-breaking.

• 99.3% of energy use in Turkana District comes from fuelwood and charcoal, which represents nearly 80,000 tons of fuelwood per annum – a value of approximately $2.9 million per annum (at a value of approximately Kshs 2.50 per Kg of wood fuel equivalent). In addition, large amounts of timber are required for building traditional Turkana houses as well as other forms of building.

• Tourism in Turkana District has declined over the years due to increasing insecurity and poor infrastructure.

6


1 Kenya’s Dryland Resources, Livelihoods and Ecosystem Goods and Services

1.1 Background to the study The purpose of the study is to identify and better understand the contribution of dryland ecosystem goods and services to poverty reduction, livelihood security and national economy in order to influence national and international policy and decision-making. This study will help provide guidance for planners and policy-makers based on a more accurate valuation of dryland ecosystem goods and services. It is also important that decision makers have a better understanding of the particular conditions of dryland land use management – conditions that favor extensive and communally managed systems that are able to cope with aridity and with temporal and spatial variability in rainfall. Given the backgrounds of many government staff (and donors), their “received wisdom” is based more on sedentary agriculture and production systems, and not on systems where mobility and diversified livelihood options are a prerequisite to both survival and ecosystem functionality.

1.2 Dryland Ecosystems: Characteristics and Importance The drylands (Arid and Semi Arid Lands or ASAL) of Kenya make up 84% of Kenya’s total land surface, support about 9.9 million Kenyans (or approximately 34 % of the country’s population), account for more than 80% of the country’s eco-tourism interests, 60% of the nation’s livestock, and up to 75% of its wildlife population (Kenya Republic of 2002a, 2005). These ecosystems support relatively low-density human populations, given low rainfall levels and low levels of primary rangeland productivity. The drylands of Kenya can be divided up into a number of broad types based on land use patterns:

1. Pastoralism dominates the more arid landscapes of the north. Rainfed agriculture is scarce and erratically practiced, though irrigation may be locally important (Zones VII and VIII, and part of Zone VI, Map 1);

2. Pastoral-Agricultural interface where pastoral lands have a potential for cultivation, such as the Maasai rangelands (Parts of Zones IV, V and VI, Map 1);

3. Commercial ranches are found in a number of land use types, though most are in the agro-pastoral and marginal agricultural lands (Parts of zones IV, V, and VI, Map 1);

4. Dryland agriculture is found in many districts and is characterized by settled communities and “titled” individual land holdings, with livestock as an important component of land use.

In Kenya there are about 9 million ha (19%) which can support rain-fed agriculture, 15 million ha (31%) is devoted for more sedentary forms of livestock production (private and commercial ranches), and the remaining 24 million ha (50%) is drier and suitable for pastoralism (Kenya Republic of 2001a). Over 60% of the national livestock herd is concentrated in the 31 Districts of the drylands, and provide over 67% of the red meat consumed in the country (Kenya Republic of 2001a). But the returns are low as livestock are often sold at low prices and fattened on commercial ranches before sale. Despite the huge livestock potential, the drylands account for only 3% and 7% of the agricultural and commercial outputs respectively (Kenya Republic of 2000). The national livestock herd – over half of which resides in the drylands – produces 10% of the GDP, and 50% of the agricultural GDP (Kenya Republic of 2000).

In Kenya, dryland ecosystems include the tropical grassland and savannah/woodlands, the warm desert and semi-desert, and more temperate grasslands. Arid and semi-arid or sub-humid zones are characterized by low, erratic and usually bi-modal rainfall of up to 1,000mm (and as low as less than 200 mm) per annum, periodic (often every 5 years) droughts, and different associations of vegetative cover and soils. Inter-annual rainfall can vary from 50-100% in arid zones and 20-30% in the semi-arid zones.

7


The productivity of drylands is generally quite low compared to the high potential areas. Plant biomass per unit area of drylands (globally) is about 6 Kg per sq. metre, compared with many richer terrestrial systems (10-18 Kg, (Safriel et al. 2002). In a similar vein the net production of global drylands (between 1981-2000) was 703 gm per sq metre (+/- 44 gm) which is lower than for cultivated systems (1,098 gm per sq. metre), and the forest and woodland system (869 gm per sq. metre, (Safriel et al. 2002). While primary productivity per unit land area may be low (due to low rainfall, high temperatures and poor soils), the drylands are very large and can sustain extensive systems of land use, whether for pastoralism or dryland cultivation.

While the drylands of Kenya occupy a very large portion of the country’s surface area (over 80%), and have over 30% of the country’s population, the actual area available for use by the inhabitants of the drylands is significantly less (Table 1), as much land has been expropriated for other uses (for irrigation, rain-fed agriculture, and as reserved areas), and many of these expropriated lands are dry and drought time forage zones so critical to wider pastoralist land use. Nearly 92% of the land alienated for National Parks and Reserves are found in the ASAL, and over 50% of the gazetted forests (Table 1, Norton-Griffiths & Southby 1995). While most of the drylands of Kenya are either appropriate for pastoral or agro-pastoral land use, there are also considerable areas with low or marginal agricultural potential (Map 1).

Table 1: Area (km2) of Parks, Reserves and Gazetted Forests of Kenya Zone Total Land Area Parks and

Reserve Gazetted Forests Available for

use Zone 1 – per humid

2,240 350 1,210 680

Zone 2 – humid 22,290 1,030 2,050 19,210Zone 3 – sub-humid

70,440 1,980 6,170 62,290

Zone 4 – transitional

94,860 9,500 1,630 83,730

Zone 5 – semi-arid 163,050 23,590 6,520 132,940Zone 6 – Arid 223,190 4,970 1,620 216,600 576,070 41,420 19,200 515,450Source: Norton-Griffiths & Southby 1995.

Table 2: Districts Classified by Percentage of Kenya’s ASALs % Drylands per District Districts % Kenya’s ASAL

100% Isiolo, Marsabit, Garissa, Mandera, Wajir, Turkana 62% 85-100% Kitui, Tana River, Taita-Taveta, Kajiado, Samburu 25% 50-85% Embu, Meru, Machakos, Laikipia, West Pokot,

Kilifi, Kwale, Baringo 10%

30-50% Lamu, Narok, Elgeyo, Marakwet 3% Source: Kenya Government of 1994.

8


Map 1 The Drylands of Kenya

Source: (Chikamai & Odera 2002)

9


The dryland ecosystems of Kenya are experiencing rapid population growth due to internal growth and in-migration from more densely populated higher potential areas. This is one basis for ecological degradation especially in those lands bordering high potential areas, and exacerbates the effects of drought. Drought is common (Table 3). However, the fact that drought proceeds to famine is more than just an issue of population increase, and relates to both under- and misguided- development, the erosion of people’s coping mechanisms (e.g. for risk management and resilience enhancement), ignoring early warning signals, and policy failure – all of which exacerbate the effects of drought.

Table 3: Drought incidences in Kenya and areas hit most 1970 - 2006 Period Region most affected Remarks

1972 All dryland areas Livestock mortality and water shortage in most parts of the country

1973-74 Most parts of Kenya Human and livestock deaths occur in Northern Kenya

1974-76 Eastern, Central and Northern Provinces

Some pastoralists lost about 80% of their livestock

1980 Central, Eastern, Western & Coast Provinces

Crop failure, livestock deaths and water shortage

1981 Eastern Province Livestock deaths and crop failure 1983 Countrywide Livestock deaths occur particularly within ASALs 1984 Central, R. Valley, Eastern &

North Eastern Large food deficit and livestock deaths

1987 Eastern and Central Severe food shortage and livestock deaths in Eastern Province

1992-94 Northern, Central and Eastern Provinces

Severe food shortage and livestock deaths

1999-2000 Country wide except Western & Coast

High livestock mortality

2006 Most parts of the country Dryland areas hit most and high levels of livestock mortality

Source: Adapted from UNEP & Government of Kenya 2000.

Droughts vary in scale and intensity, and are likely to become more frequent and more intense given the predications of climate change. Drought leads to reduced forage availability, degradation of the environment and an increase in destitution. While it is difficult to say with statistical validity that droughts are increasing in frequency and severity, a deteriorating trend is suggested by the severity of the 1999/2000 and 2005/06 droughts, and that in neighboring Somalia four of the past six years (2000-2006) were considered drought years (IUCN - The Eastern Africa Regional Office 2006).

ASAL water resources are scarce, short-lived, and many are saline. Only 50% of the rural populations have access to potable water, and in some areas safe water is only available to 20% of the population. The percentage of the population with access to safe drinking water is 16% in Garissa, 17% in Samburu, 21% in Laikipia, and 30% in Wajir compared the national average of 49%.

1.2.1 The Livestock Sub-sector Kenya has a wide range of domestic livestock species (Table 4). Cattle are the most important in biomass terms (73%) followed by goats and sheep (19%) and camels (6%). Most of these animals are indigenous. Zebu cattle make up about 75% of the national cattle herd, while dairy cattle number about 3 million, of which 60% are crossbreds. Most of the sheep in Kenya are the indigenous fat-tail group of hair Sheep, and goats are the small East African group of short-eared Goats. There are three types of camels in Kenya – Rendille, Gabbra and Somali – most belonging to the Benadir type from southern Somalia. Camels

10


are economically very important in the drier parts of Kenya and have a considerable impact on the welfare of pastoral communities who use them for milk, meat, hides and transport. Some camels are progressively being introduced into the southern rangelands in Kajiado, Narok, Mwingi, Kitui, Kilifi and Machakos. The ASAL areas are the major producers of beef, mutton, goat meat and camel meat, while the high and medium potential lands are important for dairy production. About 33% of cattle, 50% of goats and sheep and 100% of camels in Kenya are found in the ASAL.

Table 4: Livestock Distribution in Kenya Species Pastoral Areas

(millions) Rest of country

(millions) Total Numbers

(millions) Dairy Cattle Negligible 3 3 Other Cattle 4 (44%) 5 9 Goats 6 (50%) 6 12 Local Sheep 4 (57%) 3 7 Wool Sheep Negligible 1 1 Camels 1 (100%) Negligible 1 Donkeys 0.2 (50%0 0.2 0.4 Total 15.2 (46%) 18.2 33.4 Source: Muthee 2006; percentages refer to relative proportion found in drylands.

Pastoralism has proved the most viable form of use for many of the more arid landscapes. Rain-fed agriculture is risky (crops may fail two or more years in five) yet has become a dominant activity in semi-arid lands. The majority of the people of arid and semi-arid lands depend on pastoralism and/or agriculture. Pastoralism in turn depends totally on the natural ecosystem goods and services (pasture, browse, water). While livestock and cultivation (opportunistic, rain-fed or irrigated) are the mainstay, there are a variety of activities that are undertaken with a more direct market value. These activities include ecotourism and the collection and sale of gums, resins and henna, ecotourism – activities which are frequently under-valued, or the benefits are trapped externally. These zones exhibit ecological constraints which set limits to nomadic pastoralism and settled agriculture, which include (Salih & Ahmed, 1993):

• Rainfall patterns that are inherently erratic over space and time; • Rainfall which usually falls as intense storms with high run-off rates; • A high rate of evapo-transpiration further reducing yields; • Weeds grow more vigorously than cultivated crops and compete for scarce reserves of

moisture; • Low organic matter levels, except for short periods after harvesting or manure

applications; and • Highly variable responses to fertilizer.

Factors that favour the livestock industry in the ASAL, include the fact that the ASAL has over 50% of the livestock population and produces over 67% of the red meat consumed. All the camels are found in the ASAL, and contribute about 11.5% of the milk produced in Kenya. In spite of these potentials, livestock productivity is constrained by a number of factors including:

Low Livestock Potential and Dryland Husbandry Practices: The productivity of most of the indigenous livestock is low compared to exotic livestock. But livestock productivity has to be taken in the context of the potential primary productivity of the rangelands. This situation is compounded by the encroachment of ASAL grazing areas with cultivation, shortages of water, and the conversion of highly productive patches of vegetation to agriculture and reserved lands.

Access to, Availability of, and Knowledge about Drugs: The control and treatment of many livestock diseases, especially those in the dry lands are constrained by poor

11


diagnostic facilities, low public awareness of the disease control situation, and illegal and uncontrolled stock movements, which is compounded by the relative paucity of veterinary services. The long borders with neighbouring countries worsen the disease control situation, made worse by the collapse of the quarantine facilities along the corridors with neighbouring countries.

Inadequate Feed Availability: Natural rangeland is the main source of nutrients for both livestock and wildlife in the ASAL. It is finite and its biomass productivity and potential is constrained by the realities of climate, but it is central to ecosystem and land use management. These rangelands may be locally degraded (e.g. around settlements) or heavily encroached by bush or weed, or many of the richer patch vegetation areas – so important in the dry times – may have been expropriated for agriculture or as reserves (wildlife or forests, Table 1).

Scarcity of Water for Livestock: Most pastoralists lack adequate water for domestic and livestock use, and the ASAL districts experience water shortages because of low rainfall and drought, low density and poor maintenance of existing water points, and conflict. The water coverage ratio in Garissa district is the lowest in Kenya at 19.7% followed by Isiolo at 22.3% and Marsabit at 25%.1 During the dry season, livestock cover long distances in search of water, leading to poor health and lower productivity. This is compounded by environmental degradation around existing water points due to influxes of large numbers of livestock. The total water deficit for human and livestock needs in the ASAL is estimated at 45,953 m3 per day for 2000, and is projected to increase to 59,537 m3 per day by 2010. There is need to provide water, which is an indispensable part of life and food security, to meet the growing needs of the people of ASAL.

Under-exploited Livestock Marketing, Credit and Processing Facilities: Dilapidated livestock marketing infrastructure (quarantine stations, veterinary checkpoints, stock routes, holding grounds), poorly organized livestock market information systems, and the fact that the current livestock market in Kenya is a buyer’s market (though this is an over-simplification of complex trading systems), constitute major constraints for producers. Pastoralists in the ASAL rely predominantly on informal traders to market livestock, and these informal trade routes and systems are only starting to be understood (Muthee 2006). Despite the large number of credit facilities in Kenya, very few are represented in the ASAL region. As a result, ASAL-based livestock traders and processors have difficulty accessing credit for improving their service delivery systems (Muthee 2006).

Inadequate Quality Assurance Standards and Facilities: The performance of the livestock sector is further constrained by inadequate quality control facilities and poor inspection and compliance systems. The result has been substandard animal health services and increased incidences of animal diseases. The importance of Community-Based Animal Healthcare Workers (CBAHW) is recognized, but not adequately covered by trained veterinary experts, and the curriculum for training is yet to be standardized.

1.2.2 Agriculture Agriculture is one of the biggest sectors of the Kenyan economy, and its performance is the major determinant of overall GDP growth. About 50% of agricultural outputs are derived from crop production, while the livestock sub-sector contributes 50% of the total agricultural income or 10% of the total GDP, yet employs about 50% of the agricultural labour force (Kenya Republic of 2002a). Any growth in the agriculture and livestock sectors will be significant both in terms of its contribution to the overall agriculture sector share of the GDP and to poverty reduction.

1. The criterion used to delineate water sources coverage is a five-km radius from an existing permanent or reliable water supply.

12


1.2.3 Land Tenure and Land Use Three systems of land occupancy are found in Kenya. These are individual (freehold), communal (customary, usually as trust lands), and public (leasehold). Individual title confers security of tenure by registering the absolute rights of ownership to the holders. This can encourage investment on land, make farmers more credit-worthy, create a land market, minimize land disputes, and promote intensification of agriculture. Communal land tenure is found mainly in the ASAL, although there are still some remnants of it in the high to medium potential lands. Public (leasehold) tenure system confers right of occupation and use for a given period, usually 99 years, and is generally subject to conditions of use and payment of rent. Both freehold and leasehold tenure systems mainly apply to urban, and to high and medium potential lands, though many private (individual or company) and group ranches have secure freehold rights in some dry lands. Another form of public tenure is vested in Government for such use as state farms and ranches, national parks and reserves of various types, and gazetted forests.

The total surface area of Kenya is about 587,000 km2, out of which the land area is about 576,000 km2 and the remainder is under water. Only about 16% of the land area is high and medium potential, while 84% is classified as ASAL (Table 3). The high and medium potential lands are dominated by crop and dairy farming, both of which occupy 31% and 30%, respectively, of the land area. The remaining land is devoted to forest (22%), parks (12%) and urban development, homesteads and infrastructure (5%). The major economic activity in the ASAL is nomadic pastoralism, which occupies about 50% of the ASAL landmass, while ranching and other forms of livestock keeping utilize 31% and the remaining 19% is capable of supporting some agriculture, including agropastoralism.

1.2.4 Poverty, Health and Gender Kenya is the 22nd poorest country in the world with the third most skewed income distribution amongst low income economies, where 50% of the population exist on less then US$1 per day. Incidences of poverty are particularly pronounced in the ASALs. On average, 65% of the ASAL population live below the poverty line compared to the national average of 26%, with some of the poorest districts exceeding this figure (Thornton et al. 2002). The ASALs are home to some of the poorest segments of Kenyan society, trapped in an increasingly risk prone and hostile environment, and marginalized from the mainstream of the country’s economic activity. The economic activities that are found in drylands are not recognized for their true value and do not attract outside investment, therefore further undermining their productivity.

Poverty in the drylands is compounded by poor physical infrastructure, limited services compared to the rest of the country, and lack of organized markets including lack of market information. This is heightened by inter-community conflict over water and rich-patch vegetation, something that is likely to become more serious with the negative impacts of climate change. Sedentarisation of pastoralists in drylands limits the use of scarce resources and locally exacerbates degradation. Incidence of poverty in the ASAL is the highest in the country with about 65% of the people living below the poverty line, with some of the poorest districts far exceeding this (Isiolo 73%; Marsabit 80%; and Samburu 82%).

Typical responses of the poor in dryland areas have been to appropriate highly productive patches of common land for cultivation, to encroach on reserved areas, to intensify arable agriculture on marginal lands, to shorten fallow periods, and to migrate on a seasonal or permanent basis to cities, towns, agricultural plantations. Many people are forced into short term solutions to livelihood related problems and make use of the market as best they can. For example, they may be forced to cut and sell trees to meet short term needs, e.g. school fees or for health problems, while knowing the long term importance of such assets (Chambers & Leach 1987). These short-term responses compromise the longer term sustainable management so critical to the drylands, and have not provided long-term benefits to the poor.

13


Though livestock ownership and control is mainly the domain of men, women also own livestock through marriage or inheritance. While men’s work is more associated with herd management and decision-making, the gender division of labour is not clear cut, as women are often involved in decision-making related to livestock and spend as much time as men on animal care. Women are responsible for milking, food processing and distribution, managing small stock, and for daily food provisioning in the homestead. Men’s responsibilities include planning and decision-making with regard to livestock movement, feeding and watering, castration, vaccination, slaughter, building of enclosures, digging wells and livestock marketing. Young men and women as well as children perform most of the herding. To a large degree, it is men who control the income from livestock and its products, although women have a say in how the income is spent. Conflicts over the use of income are one of the factors for the high level of divorce in the ASAL, and contribute to women’s poverty.

The situation of women and men in pastoral communities is not static, as incidences of drought has lead to transformations in the socio-cultural and socio-economic organization of pastoral societies. Due to the decimation of cattle and other livestock, women play an active role to ensure family survival by participating more aggressively in activities such as bee-keeping, camel rearing and trading in livestock, particularly small stock, as well as non-livestock products such as hay, mats, charcoal, clothing, and vegetables. From the proceeds of these activities, they pay school fees, and look after the health of their children and livestock. Evidence from the Kenya Women Finance Trust indicates that women are very capable of utilizing and repaying micro-credit. The number of female-headed households in the ASAL is on the increase. Currently 40% of all households in Garissa, for example, are female headed, due to the high rate of divorce, and the effects of HIV/AIDS. Over 80% of children are delivered at home in the drylands. The rate of literacy is low at 22%. Access to social services is very poor, coupled with the low per capita infrastructure network in the ASAL compared to other parts of the country.

1.2.5 Sector Development Goals and Priority Policy Reforms Following the elections of 2002, the Government launched an ‘Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS) for Wealth and Employment Creation’ (2003-2007) (Kenya Republic of 2003). The strategy identifies key policy actions necessary to spur the recovery of the Kenyan economy. The four priority areas that form the core of the macro-economic framework are maintaining revenues above 21% of GDP, strengthening governance institutions, rehabilitation of physical infrastructure, and investment in human capital. Kenya’s ERS recognizes the importance of the ASAL to overall economic growth with equity. The GOK’s development objective in the ASAL is to strengthen rural livelihoods through support to livestock and range management, eco-tourism, and where feasible, initiate long-term irrigation projects. The main objective is to restore the economy to an accelerated and sustainable growth path by increasing the GDP growth rate from 2.3% in 2003 to 7% in 2006; generate employment for 500,000 annually and reduce poverty levels from 56.8% at present to 51.8% by 2007. The ERS recognizes the potential growth of the ASAL that need to be tapped in order to promote economic development and poverty reduction.

The Kenya Rural Development Strategy (KRDS - Kenya Republic of 2001b, 2002b) is a roadmap to assist the Government, private investors, civil society, NGOs and development partners to improve the overall well being of the people of Kenya. The principal objectives of the KRDS are to (1) increase agricultural productivity, (2) expand farm and non-farm income earnings to attain food security for all, (3) reduce disease and ignorance, and (4) achieve sustainable natural resource management. The KRDS will facilitate participatory rural development through equitable and improved access to productive assets and services that promote food security, employment, higher incomes and welfare. The 15 year strategy (2001 – 2016) is guided by the National Development Plan.

14


The decentralization process has advanced to some extent, and the Local Government Act has politically and financially empowered the districts. Recent water legislation (Water Act, 2002) and the impending land bill coupled with the development policies targeting poverty alleviation (Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, 2001; National Extension Policy, 2001; Kenya Rural Development Strategy, 2002; Economic Recovery Strategy, 2003) are indicators of Government commitment to bring the ASAL into the economic mainstream of Kenya. However the challenge is to make a real difference in the drylands by addressing root causes rather than symptoms, and so be more successful than previous attempts at addressing dryland issues, which applied technical fixes to externally perceived problems that, in reality, were more social than technical.

The GOK has placed a strong emphasis on rural development, especially to agriculture, so as to achieve food security, create employment, and reduce poverty at national and household levels. In the context of the country’s Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS, (Kenya Republic of 2003), livestock is of strategic economic importance not only as a means of increasing household incomes, but also satisfying household nutritional needs and being the main basis for food security in dryland areas of the country. The agricultural sector goal is to contribute to poverty reduction at the national and household levels, consistent with the government's policies of mainstreaming the drylands areas in the economic framework of the country. The specific objective is to improve sustainable rural livelihoods and food security through improved livestock productivity, marketing and support for drought management and food security initiatives in the drylands (Kenya Republic of 2003).

There is a growing interest on locally based planning, and so greater space for rural empowerment based on more participatory approaches for the development of the drylands of Kenya, something that the recent ASAL policy documents increasingly support (Kenya Republic of 2005). Given the relative lack of external technical fixes to dryland problems, this policy shift offers real opportunities for the people in the drylands to drive their own sustainable development, guided by their own knowledge, strategies and institutions.

1.3 Conclusion The drylands of Kenya, despite representing over 80% of the country and 25% of the population, remain under-invested in – both in terms of financing and policy incentives, and under-recognized for their potential value in national development and poverty reduction. Past technical fixes ignored the harsh realities of climate-imposed limitations on the productivity of the drylands. On average the people of the drylands are poorer, with proportionally fewer social services and less infrastructure than their counterparts in high potential areas. Many pastoralist have had their critical dry season grazing areas expropriated for other land uses (e.g. irrigation, rain fed cultivation, as reserved areas for wildlife or forests), thereby undermining one of the few integrated land use systems capable of supporting life in such harsh lands. Yet the potential is now increasingly being recognized, especially in the livestock sector. There are also many other economic opportunities, for instance the importance of non-timber tree products and benefits from tourism.

15


2 Estimating the Value of Kenya’s Drylands

2.1 Introduction In this section we summarize some of the economic and statistical literature (which is sparse, but improving) for the drylands of Kenya. While this analysis will not give a detailed total economic value for the drylands of Kenya, it will provide a more accurate idea of the role of Kenya’s drylands in terms of poverty reduction and livelihood improvement, the attainment of environmental objectives, and in terms of current market value and future market potential.

Dryland ecosystems provide a range of services (Safriel et al. 2002):

1. Supporting services – including soil formation, soil conservation, and nutrient cycling;

2. Regulating services – including water management, local climate regulation through surface reflectance and evaporation, regulation of global climate through carbon sequestration, and pollination and seed dispersal;

3. Provisioning services – including provisions derived from biological production (food and fiber, woodfuel, biochemicals), and freshwater provisioning; and

4. Cultural Services – including cultural identity, ascetically pleasing landscapes, heritage values, spiritual services, recreation and tourism.

Many of these services can be valued quantitatively, while others are more intangible. This study documents the economic value of some of these services.

2.2 Livestock Kenya’s national livestock herd is estimated at 33.4 million head, with 46% of this herd (or 15.2 million livestock) being kept by pastoralists. Pastoral livestock holdings have a capital value of approximately $860 million with an annual off-take for meat and hides worth $69.3 million for subsistence and sale. As pastoralists in Kenya generally manage livestock for milk not meat, the total value of the milk production for drylands (approximately $134.6 million per annum) is nearly twice that of the value of slaughter off take (Table 5, 6). Most dairy products are locally consumed, as milk is either drunk directly or processed for storage. Blood is also an important product, but there are few estimates of its economic importance.

It is very difficult to get accurate measures of livestock numbers in Kenya. There has been no systematic livestock surveys carried out for the ASAL since 1995 when the Kenya Range Ecological Monitoring Unit (KREMU) stopped collecting data. Government estimates (GOK

Table 5: Value of Pastoral Herds and Off-take Livestock National

Herd - Numbers

‘000’s

Value in

Million Kshs

Value in US$s

(70/=), in millions

% Off take

Average Off take

(Numbers)

Average Value of off take Kshs (billions)

Average Value of

off take $s (millions)

Cattle 3,668,800 36,688 $524 10 366,880 3,668 $52.4Camels 925,000 9,250 $132 2 18,500 185 $2.6Goats 5,758,300 8,637 $123 7 403,081 604 $8.6Sheep 3,749,000 5,624 $80, 7 262,430 393 $5.6 Total values 14,101,100 60,199 $860 1,050,891 4,852 $69.3Source: adapted from Nyariki 2004. Based on livestock prices of Kshs 10,000/= for indigenous cattle ($143), Kshs 10,000/= for camels ($143), Kshs 1,500/= for indigenous goats ($21), and Kshs 1,500/= for indigenous sheep ($21).

16


2000) indicate that 60% of Kenya’s livestock are found in pastoral areas and are worth approximately $6 billion, with an annual milk output valued at between $67-$107 million (although it is not certain whether these estimates include subsistence production or just marketed milk). While these milk yield estimates are of a comparable order of magnitude with Nyariki (2004) figures, official (GOK 2000) livestock asset values are very different.

Table 6: Value of Dryland Milk Production Livestock National

Herd No’s ‘000’s

Approx % in drylands

Contribution to Milk supply

%

% attributable to drylands

Approx Value ($’s) of

Dryland milk production1

Cattle – Improved 3,120 0.00% 59.80% 0% Cattle – Zebu 9,067 40.00% 24.60% 9.95% $55,435,714Camels 800 100.00% 12.50% 12.50% $69,642,857Goats – indigenous 9,975 58.00% 3.00% 1.70% $9,471,429Goats – improved 34 0.00% 0.10% 0% Total values $134,550,000Source: Adapted from Nyariki 2004. Based on a per litre milk value of Kshs 15.00 per litre to the producer (approx US $0.20), and national milk production of 2.6 billion litres worth $557 million per annum.

Table 7: Asset and Offtake Values of the Kenya Drylands Livestock Herd

Dryland Herd

(millions)

Asset Value ($’millions)

Annual Off-take value

($millions)*

Annual Milk Value

($’millions)

Total Annual Value

($’millions) Cattle 3.7 524 52.4 55.4 107.8 Camels 0.93 132 2.6 70.0 72.6 Goats 5.8 123 8.6 9.5 18.1 Sheep 3.8 80 5.6 5.6 Donkeys Total 14.1 860 69.3 134.6 204.1 Source : Muthee 2006; Nyariki 2004. * includes meat and hides

Nyariki (2004) estimates a total annual value for livestock production of over $200 million derived from slaughter off take and milk production from the livestock herds of the drylands (Table 8). National estimates like these may be disaggregated at the district level, but they are rarely disaggregated at the land use level. As a result the value of output from dryland livestock cannot be easily isolated and identified.

2.3 Dryland Cultivation (Rainfed and Irrigated) While rain fed agriculture is important for many of the drylands, especially those bordering the higher potential lands, it is difficult to quantify the value of dryland cultivation. Yields from rain fed agriculture are significantly lower than for higher potential areas, and a reduced variety of crops (sorghum, some pulses for example) are suited to such lands. The risks of crop failure increase with aridity, and harvests may fail in two or three of every five years.

Irrigated agriculture has been much supported by the Kenyan government, NGOs and donors. However the economic returns are often meagre and the development costs alone can be enormous. In the 1980’s, the Ministry of Agriculture carried out a study of small scale irrigation schemes and found the investment costs to be in the order of $20,000 per irrigated hectare (Asmon et al. 1984). Two decades later, many of these irrigation schemes have been abandoned, e.g. Bura on the Tana river, or operate at very low levels of efficiency, or are used to cultivate subsistence crops, as in Turkana.

17


Machakos is one of the best documented cases in Kenya of the importance of sound land use management in a semi-arid area with a reasonable crop potential2. In Machakos District (semi-arid but suitable for dryland cultivation, with a population of approximately 1.5 million people), there was a seven fold improvement in the value of agricultural output per sq.km between the 1930’s and 1980’s under rapidly increasing populations densities. On a per capita basis, a doubling of yield took place. There was also a dramatic reversal of erosion, a closer integration of crop-livestock production systems, the introduction of new technologies, increased labour inputs, and increased private investment supported in part from off-farm incomes. By far the greater part of this intensification was financed by farming families from their own resources. Profitable markets for fruit and vegetables in Nairobi provided cash and incentives for further investment. It is interesting to note that the Machakos achievements were found to hold true when the northern and more humid (new) Machakos district was excluded from a follow-up study in southern and drier (new) Makueni district3.

The most common farm investments were conservation terraces, trees, clearing land, housing, and livestock. The key factors responsible for these changes included (Tiffen et al. 1994):

• Customary land tenure provided sufficient security to encourage investments and was later reinforced by formal title registration;

• Trading, travelling and education gave access to incomes outside the district – some of which were used for farm investment; and

• New knowledge and technologies became available – better integration of crops and livestock, soil conservation, access to local and overseas markets.

Table 8 summarizes some of the on-farm investments that contributed to this success.

Table 8: Some examples of on-farm micro investments Investments on the farm Investments in livestock

• Clearance and enclosures • Tree planting and protection • Regular soil amendments • Storage structure • Wet or dry compost pits • Crop drying floors • Threshing floors • Field drains • Erosion checks – terraces and vegetation

strips • Wells • Locally made tools • Seed selection, storage and purchase

• Animal pens and hen houses • Tethering equipment • Riding gears and yokes • Watering vessels and well lifting gear • Milk containers • Ceremonial artefacts • Salt cures • Bull service fees • Immunization • Purchase of young animals

Source : Knowler et al. 1998.

Farmers are encouraged to invest by changes in prices which alter the profitability of an investment by changing the anticipated value of future outputs, and by regulatory or institutional enabling conditions that affect the strategies open to an investor, e.g. land tenure reform. By lowering transport costs, infrastructural improvements can also improve the prices farmers receive and are therefore another incentive for closer market integration. Improved education may enable people to access incomes outside their area and to invest their earnings in improvements at home.

Sectoral policies (e.g. input subsidies) tend to target a particular sector (e.g. agriculture) and have impacts on producer investment decisions. While macroeconomic policies (e.g. 2 Much of this section is based on Mortimore and colleagues, see for example (Mortimore 2005, 2006; Tiffen & Mortimore 1994a, b; Tiffen et al. 1994). 3 Source: www.drylandsresearch.org.uk

18

http://www.drylandsresearch.org.uk/


exchange rates, tenure) take into account political interests and go beyond sectoral confines, and so may seem to have less of a relationship with drylands but may actually be more important in the long term.

2.4 Dryland Natural Resources (forests, rangelands) Forests and catchments can be valued economically according to their direct and indirect values. But, again, the data is patchy, and depends on studies carried out for particular forests and woodlands rather than national data sets. These case studies help to demonstrate the importance of the wide variety of goods that people use for subsistence or for sale, but it is difficult to aggregate these isolated studies into meaningful estimates at a national scale.

The value of forest outputs can be very considerable, as the Shinyanga study for a region of 830 villages (2.25 million people) south of Lake Victoria in Tanzania shows (Table 9; Monela et

Table 9: Key Finding from Forest Restoration4 in Shinyanga, Tanzania Issue Outcome

Total area restored 300,000-500,000 ha over 830 villages, 2.3 million people. Shinyanga Region covers an area of 50,764 km2 (31,140 km2 is arable,12,079 km2 grazable, and 7,544 km2 forest reserves.

Economic value of restored forest in $USD per person per month

$14 (which is higher than the national average rural consumption of $8.50/month/person)

Costs of wildlife damage as a result of the restored forest

Approximately $65 per family per year (or about $0.70/ person/month)

Per annum average value of the 16 natural resource products used

Per household $1,200 per annum Per village $700,000 per annum Per district $89,620,000 per annum

Species of tree, shrub and climbers found in restored forest

152

Other flora found (dry season) Up to 30 different families of grass, and herbs Bird species recorded (dry season only) and mammals

145 bird species and 13 mammals

Reduction in time for collecting various natural resources

Reduced collection time Fuelwood 2 to 6 hours Pole 1 to 5 hours Thatch 1 to 6 hours Water 1-2 hours Fodder 3-6 hours

Percentages of households using forest products for various reasons in the 7 districts

Education 36% (10% to 61%) Diversify nutrition 22% (7%-55%) Fodder and forage 21% (10%-37%) Medicinals (over 30 spp) 14% (5%-36%) Fuelwood 61% (54% to 63%)

Source: Monela et al. 2005.

al. 2005). While not in Kenya, this case study establishes an order of magnitude for the economic value of restored woodlands in an area characterized by President Julius Nyerere as “the desert of Tanzania” in 1986.

This study demonstrates that the restored woodlands are very important livelihood and economic assets that will repay investment. Environmental and natural resource assets provide important livelihood options for many rural people to meet their cash needs

4 The term restoration focuses on restoring the goods, services and ecological processes that [forests] can provide at the broader landscape level and involves negotiating such changes at the landscape, not just the site, level (Barrow et al. 2002)

19


20

(education, building), for fuel and building timber, medicines and by improved the ground water supply.

Table 10: Economic Value of Kenya’s Forests To the National Economy 1. Contribution to GDP 2. Foreign Exchange Earnings

$4 mill p.a. $0.22 mill p.a.

For Forest Adjacent Communities 1. Kenya Indigenous Forests 2. Aberedares Forest 3. Arabuko Sokoke forest 4. Kakemega forest 5. Mau forest 6. Mount Kenya forest 7. Oldonyo Orok forest

$94 mill p.a. $165 per household p.a. $135 per household p.a. $160 per household p.a. $350 per household p.a. $212 per household p.a. $100 per household p.a.

To commercial and industrial firms 1. Formal sector industry 2. Indigenous timber, Kenya 3. Indigenous timeber, Kakemega forest 4. Indigenous timber, Mau and TransMara forests

$2mill p.a. $7.3 mill p.a. $1.2 mill p.a. $0.3 mill p.a.

To Tourists Forests in National Parks and Reserves Mount Kenya Forest

$34.7 mill p.a. $0.3 mill p.a.

Watershed catchment protection values 1. Southwest Mau, Ol Pusimoru, Trans Mara 2. Mount Kenya 3. Aberdares 4. Mt. Elgon 5. Nandi 6. Cherangani 7. Loita Hills

$0.12 mill p.a. $20.4 mill p.a. $7.4 mill p.a. $3.7 mill p.a. $1.6 mill p.a. $0.4 mill p.a. $2.1 mill p.a.

Agroforestry values 1. Fuelwood and crop productivity 2. Fuelwood 3. Timber 4. Saved chemical inputs 5. Dairy

$330 per ha per year $0.6 per ha per year $23 per ha per year $9 per ha per year $144 per ha per year

Economic Costs to the Forest Department $1.6 mill p.a. Economic Costs to the Forest Department 1. Animal damage around Shimba Hills National Park 2. Animal damage around Mt. Kenya forest 3. Opportunity costs of agriculture forgone, all Kenya’s forests 4. Opportunity costs of agriculture forgone, Mt. Kenya forest

$0.45 mill p.a. $1.04 mill p.a. $307 mill p.a. $72 mill p.a.

Source: Emerton et al. 1998.

Table 10 summarizes some of the values of forest assets, some of which are important assets for dryland management, e.g. the Loima Hills, Oldonyo Orok and the Mau forest. Tables 11 and 12 compare the value of different types of forests and woodlands. Direct comparisons are difficult because different goods and services were measured in different studies and details concerning forest areas and household numbers are sometimes missing. The figures in Table 11 refer to recurrent or use values, and do not include the asset values (either present or potential) of the forests surveyed. Nor do these estimates provide an indication of the total recurrent use value since timber has not been fully included (though fuelwood values may be included).

Table 11: Summaries of Some forest Economic Values in the Drylands of Kenya Forest Type Households Area of Total value per Total value


21

in sample sample or forest (Ha)

household per annum ($s)

for forest area ($s)

Tana Riverine Reserved riparian forest in dryland

17,000 3,658 $5 $86,190

Tharaka forest patches

Small areas of dry forests

4,690 $109,040

Oldonyo Orok (Namanga)

Dry & drought season hill forage forest area

1,000 12,000 $99 $99,000

Mau forest high potential lands ? ? ? $326,290 Mt. Kenya High potential $234 $10.5 mill Loima High potential but in

very dryland – critical dry season area

8000* 30,000 $5,578 ??

Sources: Brown & Emerton 1997; Emerton 1996a; Emerton 1996b, 1997a, b; Mogaka 2001, 2002; Mogaka et al. 2001. *But during the dry and drought time this figure may more than double

The Tana Riverine, Tharaka forest patches, Oldonyo Orok and the Loima Hills are all found in the drylands. Oldonyo Orok and Loima are critical pastoralist drought and dry season grazing areas. To estimate the importance of these rich patch areas to pastoralists and dryland users is difficult, but important. For example during the 2005/06 drought, many thousands of pastoralists (and tens of the thousands of livestock) were permitted to graze in the Mt. Kenya forest area, which helped livestock survive and maintenance of their condition through that drought.

ands – Wastelands or an Undervalued National Economic Resource

22

Table 12: Economics of Selected Dry and High Forests in Kenya

Kenya’s Dryl

Mt Kenya Mau Forest

Tana Riverine Forest

Tana Riverine

forest

Tharaka Patches (dry)

Tharaka Patches

(dry)

Oldonyo Orok

Oldonyo Orok

Item Value per HH

- $s

Total Value- $s (@ 75/=) in '000


Total Value- Kshs '000

Total Value- $s (@

75/=) in '000

Total Value- Kshs '000


Value per HH –

Kshs

Total Value-

Kshs '000

Value per HH -

$s


Fuelwood $46 $3,601.48 $56.67 2,839 $37.85 432.00 $5.76 900 900.00 $12 $12.00 grazing/fodder $57 $2,460.19 $26.67 3,230.00 $43.07 1,800 1,800.00 $24 $24.00 construction $35 $1,825.23 1,125 1,125.00 $15 $15.00 Wildlife $19 $872.35 Timber $31 $786.81 170 $2.27 19.40 $0.26 medicines $15 $630.17 $0.00 825 825.00 $11 $11.00 honey/hives $17 $232.83 $4.93 457 $6.09 1,633.60 $21.78 525 525.00 $7 $7.00 charcoal $13 $73.72 $4.00 hunting $1 $11.68 $116.33 0.00 1,050.00 $14.00 300 300.00 $4 $4.00 Thatch 1,538.00 $20.51 water 1,575 1,575.00 $21 $21.00 poles $72.39 2,569 $34.25 240.00 $3.20 fibres $45.31 $0.00 35.20 $0.47 Wild foods 150 150.00 $2 $2.00 Other 429 $5.72 225 225.00 $3 $3.00 totals 234 $10,494.45 $326.29 6,464 $86.19 8,178.20 $109.04 7,425 7,425.00 99 $99.00 No. households in sample

1700 HH, 3,658 Ha sample

approx 4,690 Ha of forest approx 1000 forest adjacent HH, 12,000Ha

Sources (Emerton 1997a, b) (Emerton 1996b) (Mogaka 2001; Mogaka et al. 2001)

(Emerton 1996a)

Notes:

1. Mt Kenya and Mau Forests are high altitude Montane forests, and are included for comparison; 2. Tana River gives some idea of the importance of riparian river systems which flow through large dryland areas; 3. Oldonyo Orok provides an example of the importance of rich patch vegetation – in this case hills and small mountains – as critical dry season refuges for livestock; and 4. The data collected come from different surveys at different times, and so are not directly comparable, as the values researched were not necessarily the same in each

case. For example the data collected for Mt. Kenya was more detailed than for the Tana river. The point of the table relates more to the overall value (in terms of orders of magnitude), and the variety of products that the forests provide.


Virtually all gums and resins produced in Kenya come from the drylands, and most are associated with silvo-pastoralism (Table 13, 14). The official figures, averaged over 6 years (1994-1999) show that over 4,871 tons of gums and resins were exported from Kenya (approximately 812 tonnes per year) at an overall value of $3.6 million (or $609,000 per annum). These figures are for gums and resins exported, and do not take into account the national and local markets. There is little data concerning the actual area of potential gum and resin trees in Kenya, but they are widespread. For instance the gum Arabic (Acacia senegal) woodlands in the western part of Turkana district cover an area of over 2,000 sq.km.

Table 13: Estimated Value of Dryland Gums & Resins to the Economy of Kenya Year Tonnes of Gums and

Resins Exporoted1 Approximate value of

gums & resins to collectors2

Approximate value of gums and resins to

marketers3 1994 959.7 $479,850 $719,7751995 710.3 $355,150 $532,7251996 762.2 $381,100 $571,6501997 837.2 $418,600 $627,9001998 1,128.9 $564,450 $846,6751999 473 $236,500 $354,750

Total 1994-1999 4,871.3 $2,435,450 $3,653,475Average per year 812 $405,942 $608,913Source: Chikamai & Odera 2002. Notes: 1. Based on Customs Department, Kenya Revenue Authority, and for a combination of gums and

resins including Gum Arabic (dominant – Acacia senegal and Acacia seyal), Myrrh (Commiphora myrrha), Hagar (Commiphora holtziana), Frankincense (or Olibanum – Boswellia neglecta)

2. Based on an average price to the collector of Kshs 35/= ($0.50) – price range varies from Kshs 20/= to Kshs 50/=

3. Based on an average price to the exporter/marketer of Kshs 55/= ($0.75) – price range varies from Kshs 40/= to Kshs 80/=

4. This is likely to be an under-estimate as much trade is based on the informal Markets.

Table 14: Production Costs for Gums and Resins in Kenya Item Gum Arabic &

Talha Myrrh

(Malmal) Hagar Olibanum or

Frankincence Acacia senegal,

& A. seyal Commiphora

myrrha Commiphora

holtziana Boswellia neglecta

Average per person per day (Kg) 5 5 5 3Average collected per month in Kg 100 150 150 90Sale price Per Kg ($’s) $0.35 $0.75 $0.25 $0.35Income per month per individual collector ($’s)

$34 $110 $40 $30

Source: Chikamai & Odera 2002; Note: exchange rate of Kshs 75/= to US$1.00

Dryland forest products in addition to gums and resins include Henna (Lawsonia inermis, which is widespread throughout northern Kenya but un-exploited), other dyes, various ingredients in the soap industry (neem, Lelishwa), medicinal plants well as the more direct values of foods, fruits and forage for people and their livestock. These products may not yield much on their own in economic terms, but taken in combination with pastoralism they provide much needed additional income and help to spread risk.

2.5 Charcoal – a Special Case A major national study on charcoal (Mutimba & Barasa 2005) was undertaken for Kenya in 2005 and raised a number of issues relating to the drylands, as well as demonstrating the large economic value that charcoal production has for the drylands. Over 40% of the charcoal producers surveyed come from the drylands. There are approximately 200,000

23


charcoal producers in Kenya (76 districts), either on part time (49%) or full time (51%) basis (Table 15). Over 100 species used, though Acacia (6 species) is preferred for ease of availability and for its quality charcoal – especially the more hard wooded Acacias (such as A. tortilis, Table 16). Acacia trees are both the most commonly used trees (38.6%), the most preferred for charcoal production (44.7%, Table 16), and the trees most commonly found in the drylands.

Charcoal is often produced as a by-product of other forms of land use change (e.g. clearing), and whole trees, rather than branches are used which may not be sustainable.

Table 15: Charcoal Producers in ASAL Districts (surveyed) District No. of Producers

(estimated) West Pokot 2850 Baringo 1660 Kajiado 4650 Mbeere 435 Mwingi 2140 Makueni 5375 Taita Taveta 5600 Garissa 2485 Total ASAL districts 25,195 (40% of sample) Total All districts surveyed (24)

63144

Source: Mutimba & Barasa 2005.

Table 16: Commonly Used and Preferred Species for Charcoal Production Tree Species Most commonly used Most preferred

Acacia 38.6% 44.7% Terminilia 1.2% 1% Mangifera 2.1% Ficus 1.8% 2% Euclea 2.2% 1% Olea 5.7% 9.5% Manikara 5.4% 4.1% Eucalyptus 4.5% 2.2% Croton 5.1% 7% Balanites 1.2% Other 33.4% 27.3%


Table 17: Charcoal Vital Statistics for Kenya Number of producers 200,000 Estimated No. of people involved in charcoal trade 500,000 Amount of charcoal produced annually 1.6 million tons Annual total income from charcoal Kshs 32 bill ($0.4 bill) Estimated government lost revenue per annum (VAT – 16%) Kshs 5.1 bill ($63.7 mill)Average gross monthly income from charcoal

• Producers 4,496/=

24


• Vendors 7,503/= • Transporters 11,298/= • Average price of • Bag of charcoal at productions 201/= • Bag of charcoal at vending 700/=


Table 18: Gross Revenue from Charcoal compared to other crops Crop Revenue (Kshs Mill)

Tea 34.63 Charcoal 32.21 Livestock (and related products) 18.98 Sugar Cane 7.57 Coffee 5.96 Cereals 5.47

Source: Kenya Republic of 2004; Mutimba & Barasa 2005.

Sustainability can be assessed by comparing the estimated off-take (for charcoal or for other products such a fuelwood and timber for housing) with estimated regeneration (of the woody vegetation) on an annual basis. While it is relatively easy to get estimates of growth of “plantation type” forest species, getting similar data for the woody vegetation from the drylands is difficult as the variety of species and differential growth rates makes analysis more complex. If the dryland ecosystems are to continue to provide such a large proportion of the nation’s charcoal then sustainable management (including regeneration) will be a key issue. At present the real costs of the charcoal trade are under-estimated

If 40% of sampled charcoal producers come from ASAL, and approximately half of the preferred and commonly used tree species also come from ASAL, a crude estimate of the value of the charcoal trade from the drylands can be made of Kshs 16 billion ($0.2 billion). Produced on a sustainable basis, this is an important contribution to local livelihoods, but sustainability is not assured. While there are a large economic gain associated with the trade, it is open to question as to how much of this trade actually benefits the dryland user or undermines the viability of pastoralism and sustainable environmental management. The externalities of the production process (loss of trees, grazing, browse, and ecosystem resilience) has not been taken into account in simple calculations of profit.

2.6 Wildlife and Tourism Pastoralism and artisanal fisheries are among the few land use systems that should be compatible with wildlife conservation, but this is not the case despite the fact that 75% of Kenya’s wildlife are found in the drylands (Kenya Republic of 2005) and 92% of Kenya’s Protected Area estate (Parks and Reserves), and 50% of Kenya’s gazetted forests are found in the drylands. Wildlife impose large costs on livestock-based land use, yet with relatively few benefits in return. As a result there has been a large reduction of wildlife from all the rangeland districts of Kenya.

There are cases where pastoralists and dryland users can benefit from wildlife conservation, for instance the various ecotourism ventures on both community and private (company) lands and ranches. Examples are found in Samburu (Il’Ngwesi Group Ranch), Narok and Trans Mara (the various group ranches), Shompole in the Rift valley, and some of the group ranches around Amboseli. In addition many private ranches engage in ecotourism based on wildlife (Laikipia, Isiolo, Machakos). Robust economic data are difficult to find for most of these enterprises in terms of actual benefits to land users. While benefits are derived (and often well publicised) from lease fees, bed nights, and conservation fees, it is not clear how the wildlife complement, and indeed provide greater economic benefits to sustainable land

25


use than livestock management on its own, or (as in the case of the Maasai Mara) to land conversion for wheat. The possibility of deriving economic benefits from wildlife is clearly only possible where there are wildlife. Given the overall reduction of wildlife in the country, such areas are becoming fewer, and include the rangelands around the Amboseli and Maasai Mara systems, and the Laikipia-Samburu areas in particular.

The 8,100 ha. Game Ranching Co. on the Athi Plains has provided detailed analysis (Table 19), where returns of $24,182 were realized per annum (1987-1990), or $3 per ha. (dollar rates of the time, (Sommerlatte & Hopcraft 1992). However these returns do not include the domestic livestock which are also found on the ranch (wildlife biomass exceeded livestock biomass by about 27%). During the 1990’s a number of commercial and group ranches were allowed to crop wildlife. However during the past six years wildlife cropping has decreased and is no longer an important economic option for land users.

Table 19: Economics of Game Ranching in Kenya Total 1987-

1990 in Kshs Average per

annum in Kshs

$ value - 4 years $ value per annum

Sale of game meat 3,132,624 783,156 $187,022 $46,756Sale of hides etc. 171,754 42,939 $10,254 $2,564Sub total 3,304,378 826,095 $197,276 $49,319 Expenses of ranching 1,684,200 421,050 $100,549 $25,137Net income 1,620,178 405,045 $96,727 $24,182

Net income per ha 50 $3 Source: Sommerlatte & Hopcraft 1992.

Norton-Griffiths (Norton-Griffiths 1996, 1997, 2006; Norton-Griffiths et al. 2006; Norton-Griffiths & Southby 1995) provides compelling evidence of the high opportunity costs to Maasai land users for maintaining wildlife, particularly on the group ranches around the Maasai Mara. (Table 20). Here the opportunity costs refer to what the Maasai might be able to obtain from the same land if it was converted for cultivation (wheat, crops) or managed as part of a livestock-cultivation system.

The Mara area is part of the Serengeti ecosystem which covers an area of about 40,000 sq.km. It is comprised of the Reserve (1368 sq.km. under the management of Narok and Trans Mara County Councils), and surrounded by 4,556 sq.km of group ranches owned and managed by the pastoral Maasai. If it is possible anywhere in Kenya, the Mara region with its world famous wildlife spectacle should be able to provide benefits, either solely based on wildlife management or in conjunction with livestock, to the Maasai land users that exceed the opportunity costs. Yet this does not seem to be the case.

Table 20: Gross and Net Revenues in the Mara Area Land Use Gross and net revenues to Kenya Net revenues to Maasai landowners

Gross Revenue ($ million)

Net Revenue ($ million)

Over the total area of group

ranches

Per hectare devoted to each

land use Tourism 30.0 9.6 0.2 0.35 Agriculture 3.8 1.4 0.2 6.25 Livestock 2.4 0.9 0.9 1.99 Totals 46.2 11.9 1.3 Source: (Norton-Griffiths 1996)

Wildlife and livestock can live in “harmony” provided the incentives are right. However in Kenya this is not the case, and wildlife censuses between 1974-1995 demonstrate a catastrophic loss of wildlife density and diversity, with the Maasai developing their land for large scale wheat and maize farming so that this area is now one of the major grain growing

26


areas of Kenya. There are a number of ranches that do invest in both livestock and wildlife, but the incentives for dryland communities to invest in wildlife conservation need improvement. Otherwise wildlife competes for forage, water and salt and cause increased levels of disease among domestic livestock.

Table 21: The Economic Costs of Wildlife Damage to Agriculture in Kenya Type of wildlife Cost Value (US $) Source

Laikipia – diseases transmission to livestock $37 per sq.km. (Grootenhuis 1996) Maasai Mara – agricultural production costs 35-45% (Norton-Griffiths 1997) Maasai Mara – livestock disease, kills and injury

$104 per sq.km (Mwangi 1995)

Maasai Mara – crop damage $200-400 per household (Omondi 1994) Shimba Hills Elephant crop damage $100 per household (PDS 1997) Source of Table: (Emerton 2001)

The message is clear: Wildlife conservation in Kenya provides great benefits as part of tourism and income to the nation. At a local land level, however, rural people do not benefit in a proportionate manner (Table 21), which has resulted in significant losses in wildlife as lands are converted to other forms of land use such as wheat and maize cultivation that do offer immediate benefits for rural livestock owners and farmers. This situation may be slowly changing with greater equity in lease arrangements between the private sector and community groups. Many community groups are also setting up their own ecotourism ventures based on sound business management. Wildlife policy needs to recognize these changes and grant greater authority to land users to manage wildlife for greater sustainable economic benefit to themselves, to the nation, and to conservation.

2.7 The Economic Costs of Drylands – Droughts and Calamities Pastoralists employ risk management and coping strategies to survive the inevitable droughts that occur in drylands. Yet, if there are such indigenous knowledge and management systems, why do the effects of droughts continue to cause widespread and massive hardship, and loss of life? It is appropriate here to summarize some of the lessons from the 1999-2000 drought in Kenya which has been well documented (UNEP & Government of Kenya 2000). The direct economic costs of that drought were huge (Box 1, Tables 23, 24). The UNEP/GOK study then analyzed many of the contributing factors that allowed a drought to become a famine (Box 2) – most of which reflect long term policy and political failures that affect the dry lands (UNEP & Government of Kenya 2000).

Box 1: Some Impacts of the 1999-2000 Drought

• GDP fell from 1.4% (1999) to 0.7% (2000), while inflation rose from 7.6% to 9.8% from August 1999 to August 2000;

• By September 2000, 4.7 million were affected by drought, representing 16% of population of Kenya, and all needed famine relief food;

• 25-30% of people suffering from malnutrition, which is two to three times higher than rate in other developing countries;

• In October 2000 the water deficit of 704,552 cu.m. for the country; • September 2000 the mean discharge from streams in Muranga dropped by an average of 60%;

Masinga dam water level dropped by 98%; Nairobi water supply decreased by between 55% and 70%;

• This resulted in economic losses of about $2 mill per day, and a total of between $400-$635 million by the long rains of April 2001 which is equivalent to between 3.8 and 6.5% of GDP;

• Massive increase in time spent collecting water and so a huge labour cost, especially on women; • Increase in charcoal burning in ASAL as economic opportunity to supplement food. This resulted

in increased degradation of the very resources needed for livestock and human sustenance in the drylands;

• Hydro-power dropped 20% of normal costing losses of $2 million in lost opportunity costs per day, as well as the need to import expensive oil based power generating plants;

27


• El Nino event of 1997-1998 caused much flooding damage, and the effects were exacerbated by La Nina event from 1998-2000;

• Forest Fire losses 1999-2000 were approximately 3,807 Ha (plantation, natural, and bush), costing approximately $50,000 in suppressions, and causing approximately $0.53 million worth of damage; and

• The drying of wetlands, so important for human life, especially in the medium and marginal land areas.

Source: UNEP & Government of Kenya 2000.

The costs were harrowing and impacted on the peoples of the drylands of Kenya (especially the north). The costs of policy failures (of many types – policy, law, incentives, perverse incentives, infrastructure etc.) allowed the 1999-2000 drought (a natural phenomenon – droughts being part of the natural cycle in the drylands of the Horn of Africa) to proceed to famine. Some of the direct economic costs are summarized in Tables 22 and 23, and total a staggering $1.5 billion (about Kshs 110 billion). These figures are of a similar order of magnitude to the 2005-06 drought, where the number of people affected increased dramatically from 2.5 million in 22 districts in mid-December 2005 to 3.5 million in 37 district by mid-January 2006 (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2006).

Box 2: Some of the contributing factors to the severity of 1999-2000 Drought • Prolonged (rains failed for at least 4 seasons) affecting most of the country; • Lack of national drought policy and strategy, and lack of policy for managing water and drought; • Deforestation (so lost resilience); • Ineffective enforcement of forest rules, and inadequate enforcement of water act and other

legislation; • Breakdown of traditional weather forecasting and coping mechanisms; • Blockage of wildlife migratory routes; • Floods prior to drought; • Inadequate water storage, inequitable distribution of water, and inefficient water schemes; • Poor management of water catchments; • Cultivation of unsuitable areas, poor crop choice and inappropriate technologies; • Lack of, or inadequate marketing and credit systems; and the • Recurrence of droughts (1992, 1994, 1998-2000) combined with El Nino event of (1997-1998)

meant a focus on relief not development. Source: UNEP & Government of Kenya 2000.

Table 22: Livestock Deaths for Oct 1998 to October 2000 Species Population Mortality % mortality Approx Value of Mortality

Cattle 8,900,000 1,725,000 19.4% Sheep and goats

13,600,000 2,184,000 16.1%

Camels 800,000 8,000 10%

Kshs 12.2 Billion ($162 mill)

Source: UNEP & Government of Kenya 2000.

Table 23: Economic costs of the 1999-2000 Drought to Kenya Cost of: Value (Kshs millions) Value US$ millions

Livestock deaths (direct costs, not include future costs associated)

12,200 $162

Economic losses of about $2 million per day 28,000 to 44,450 $400 to $635 Forest losses 37 $0.53 4.7 million people on famine relief (estimate of value based on 6 months at $1 per day)1

59,220 $846

Total 99,457 to 115,907 1,408.5 to 1,643.5

28


Source: Adapted from UNEP & Government of Kenya 2000; 1This is an estimate. The number on famine relief may have been less than this estimate, but relief could also have been received for a longer period (for example 12 to 18 months). The $1 figure is the basic minimum required.

A clear lesson emerges from the 1999-2000 drought. The resilience of drought affected ecosystems and the coping mechanisms of the inhabitants are gradually being eroded. In Kenya, the impact of drought is increasingly getting more pronounced, and the number of livestock lost and people affected has steadily increased over the last three drought periods experienced in 1992/1994, 1999/2000 and 2005 (Mogaka et al. 2005).

With the predictions of climate change for the Horn of Africa and Kenya, having practical measures in place is obvious. They would need to include such areas as

• Drought monitoring and early warning systems (including good meteorological data analysis). This is largely in place and has been functioning reasonably well for at least two decades now. It is one important tool, but not enough;

• Asset loss (livestock and livelihoods in particular) is key result of drought proceeding to famine. Therefore protection of assets should be a goal of drought management policies. This can best be achieved through various safety net systems. Pastoralists and other dryland users are already well aware of some of these safety nets (wet-dry season grazing, the importance of critical vegetation areas, keeping of multi-species of livestock including at increasing focus on browsers, and being able to invest in a wide range of activities). Others are less well used, for example having financial resources available at a national or sub-national level to buy livestock early in a drought situation before they loose condition; and

• Improved markets for dryland products (livestock and non-livestock based). Traditionally livestock or dryland cropping have been the focus. There is great opportunity to diversify (for example gums and resins) and so increase the variety of options open to land users to better secure their lives under changing conditions.

Managing variability is the basis for pastoralism as a viable land use. But over the past decades the ability of the inhabitants of drylands to continue to be able to adapt to variability is in question, given the many changes that have taken place, for example the expropriation of the best lands and population increase. While the valuation of drought losses is very relevant (as this section has shown), the recovery costs and benefits are rarely looked at. The response of policy makers needs to include both facilitating recovery as well as prevention of asset loss, which is never likely to be entirely successful in such a risky environment.

2.8 Knowledge gaps – Towards a better understanding of the economic contribution of drylands Valuing the drylands does not lend itself easily to conventional economic models based on reasonably stable biophysical and land use systems. As discussed in this chapter, much of the data that we need to document dryland ecosystem goods and services is unavailable, insufficiently detailed, appears in isolated case studies or is aggregated in ways that make it difficult to identify the contribution of the drylands. Thinking on these issues is summarized in Table 25 as work in progress, which will continue to be explored under the global UNDP-GEF-IUCN World Initiative on Sustainable Pastoralism (WISP). Table 24 is also adapted from a regional study by IIED in East Africa (IIED 2006).

Table 24: Conceptualizing the Economic Contributions of Drylands

VALUE Data source DIRECT VALUES – Measured

Livestock sales for breeding, fattening and slaughter

Available, but data accuracy is an issue as there is tremendous variation from different data sources. Up until 1995, good statistically viable data from regular surveys by KREMU. Use of detailed case studies (e.g. at district level) help corroborate national data sets. Care needed as to what the price is – to the producer, or at the market (Market chain analysis, also see Kenya

29


livestock sector review 2006). Milk sales Available, but we need to triangulate data sources with case study, and separate subsistence

milk use (consumption, preserved and stored for dry times), and that which is marketed. Possible to use benefit transfers from where data is available (e.g. Turkana to other pastoralists landscapes).

Hides and skins Tends to be put in with livestock sales, and imputed from animals slaughtered. Importance of subsistence value (for houses, use in the home etc.) and how to value (use of proxy values e.g. plastic sheeting or corrugated iron sheets for skins used for roofing).

Subsistence Rarely trapped in national data (though national data will trap these values for crops), so there is a large under-valuation of livestock and the subsistence economy, which IS the economy for pastoralists! Use of case studies to estimate subsistence meat/milk use, informal transfers of animals for slaughter (ceremonies), value of blood (some communities only), role of hides and skins in subsistence.

Cultivation - crops Types, importance to livelihoods, to pastoralism, opportunism, role of stover as livestock feed – all rarely measured, yet can be an important additional opportunity. Also the costs in terms of lost resilience. In the semi arid lands cultivation is often the predominant activity (e.g. Machakos). Cost implications of increased cultivation in increasingly drylands and the implications of climate change (which predicts that the dry lands will be drier and more exposed to drought and floods).

Use of Non-timber tree products

Fruits and foods for livelihoods (with increasing importance in dry and drought times. Role of medicinals (human, livestock), efficacy and reduced expenses on formal drugs. Little data except at the case study level. Case studies (especially from forest valuations) suggest that the value of non-timber products is very high, and important for the provision of many assets (foods, medicines), which may be valid substitutes for commercially available products (especially for medicinals). Also importance of products with a high market value (gums, resins, henna etc.) which maybe common in many of the drylands, but are not harvested or marketed to their potential and are often not valued because their trade is hidden

Use of timber products

Housing, livestock enclosures, value of products (wooden bowels for household, for milk, for carrying, spoons etc.), fuel (wood, charcoal) – currently not adequately valued or acknowledged in economics but form the basis for the household economy in drylands. Case studies show the importance of such values

DIRECT VALUES -Unmeasured Risk and Resilience Rarely measured though may be described, and it is usually a negative value or cost. Complex

as for pastoralist lands relates to the overall management of the system (wet, dry, drought times) which is both spatial and temporal. Also use of natural products with increased dryness (e.g. wild fruits which are less and less palatable used the drier the conditions become). Central role of rich patch vegetation areas (communal or private, for instance family owned areas of important trees). Critical to gain a more robust economic understanding of risk and resilience in such systems, especially with the predictions of climate change, and so the increased importance of risk management, resilience enhancement, and adaptation. Resilience is more difficult to value and understand because of its variable usage. But the vale of the resilience of an ecosystem is only measurable in terms of the losses that would be incurred if it transited to a different (presumably less productive) state (i.e. lost its resilience).

Employment At present labour costs for pastoralism not calculated, and should be done in the same way as for cultivation based agriculture – labour inputs for herding and livestock management, labour inputs for other household activities. This will allow for better comparability with higher potential landscapes.

Transport Maybe a substitution value (kilometres travelled per year multiplied by a vehicle rental costs from the same sort of services). This could be subsumed within the system as a production cost. In addition income generated through rental of livestock for transport and other services not measured.

INDIRECT VALUES - Measured Inputs to tourism Values accrued from eco-tourism to people, groups and local governments, from revenue and

benefit sharing. Costs of land lost from dryland and pastoral land use to reserved (Parks, forests) lands and lost opportunities. Comparison as to who benefits (local people or outside and national interests).

Inputs to services Roads (paved, unpaved), health and education services. Can get gross measure of such services in terms of the costs, but not necessarily the effectiveness of such services (e.g. health centres with no drugs, or schools with too few teachers).

Input to agriculture (manure, traction, transport)

Manure – very variable around the country. Traction (cultivation, water, fodder, other goods)- if for rental, then link to direct value (transport) above. If self traction, then link to direct un-measured value.

Inputs to dryland products e.g. gum Arabic

Provision of labour? Manuring? Improving water cycling? These are the sorts of values that need to be given a qualitative description at least to understand what is meant Also include Aloes, sisal, dryland honey, incenses, gums, henna, dyes.

Forward and Opportunity for ‘benefit transfer’ from Namibia, where can multiply GDP by 1.8 to show the

30


backward linkages effects of secondary spending in the economy based on pastoralist-generated income from livestock (e.g. shops selling radios, products so that the monies are recycled out of pastoralism). Very little analysis in Kenya.

Taxes and levies Difficult to get picture of how and to what extent dryland products are taxed and levied, and whether it is official and formal (and so could be disaggregated at the district level) or that it is informal and corrupt (so hidden). Need to include taxes from all links in the market chain (and not just at either end!).

INDIRECT VALUES - Unmeasured Ecological and rangeland services

Protecting and enhancing water sheds (but do downstream users benefit?); Carbon sequestration (perhaps an option value) potential – can be calculated based on IPCC (Inter governmental Panel on Climate Change) findings for different land use systems and vegetation types. Desertification – what is the cost? More importantly are the direct costs associated with droughts proceeding (politically) to famine – which are more measurable and are very high,

Agricultural services – including financial

‘Financial’ role of livestock – perhaps only anecdotal. In group ranches there may be data on loans issued and how used. Other values of insurance (livestock – maybe on private and company lands, but not in pastoralists lands). Investment – increasingly an value that can be determined, especially for the increasing number of ecotourism ventures in dryland areas.

Global goods Value of dryland natural resources, biodiversity, and scenery (much of tourism value trapped here, as not benefit local people). Value of system resilience and risk managing and coping strategies.

Socio-cultural values Link to some of the measurable values (e.g. managing diverse livestock using difference ecological niches).

Indigenous knowledge and institutions for management

Probably a productive input rather than a value per se , so need to focus on ‘value’ in terms of ‘output’, for example the value of the traditional in managing wet/dry season grazing to produce livestock (livestock are what is valued, but is supported by description of the management system.

Animal husbandry knowledge and skills

Productive input.

Dryland environmental management knowledge and skill

Productive input.

Source: Adapted from (Hesse & MacGregor 2006), as basis for discussion in UNDP-GEF WISP project (implemented by IUCN)

2.9 Summary This section reviewed some of the economic and statistical literature for the drylands of Kenya. This analysis has not provided a total economic value for Kenya’s drylands, but it does provide a clearer idea of the role of Kenya’s drylands in poverty reduction and livelihood improvement, the attainment of environmental objectives, and in terms of market value and future potential. Notable results of this review include:

• Some of the most important economic assets from the drylands are livestock products and services. Kenya’s national livestock herd has been estimated at 33.4 million head, with 46% of this herd (or 15.2 million livestock) being kept by pastoralists. Pastoral livestock holdings may have a capital value of approximately $860 million with an annual off-take for meat and hides worth $69.3 million for both subsistence and sale. As pastoralists in Kenya generally manage livestock for milk not meat, the total value of the milk production for drylands (approximately $134.6 million per annum) is nearly twice that of the value of slaughter off take. Blood is also an important product, but there are few estimates of its economic importance. The accuracy of the above figures is, however, subject to doubt because no systematic enumeration of ASAL livestock numbers has been carried out since 1995, and reasonable projections of herd output are very sensitive to estimates of total herd size.

• We discovered few economic studies of dryland crop agriculture and horticulture in Kenya. The primary exception was Machakos District (semi-arid but suitable for dryland cultivation, with a population of approximately 1.5 million people), where there was a seven fold improvement in the value of agricultural output per sq.km between the 1930’s and 1980’s and a doubling of yield per capita, accompanied by a

31


dramatic drop in rates of soil erosion. We found no adequate studies of the long-term economic costs and benefits of irrigation, despite donor and government involvement in many of these schemes.

• This review uncovered examples of the economic importance of dryland forests and forest products – including timber, gums and resins and charcoal – but no comprehensive estimate of the national value of these outputs. Probably about 40% of all charcoal producers come from ASAL, and approximately half of the preferred and commonly used tree species for charcoal also come from ASAL. A crude estimate of the value of the charcoal trade from the drylands is Kshs 16 billion ($0.2 billion), a figure that does not incorporate the costs of charcoal production in terms of environmental degradation and negative impacts on other production systems such as pastoralism.

• Wildlife conservation in Kenya provides great benefits as part of tourism and income to the nation, but rural people do not benefit in a proportionate manner which has resulted in significant losses in wildlife as lands are converted to other forms of land use such as wheat and maize cultivation that do offer immediate benefits for rural livestock owners and farmers. This situation may be slowly changing with greater equity in lease arrangements between the private sector and community groups.

3 Valuation of Dryland Goods and Services: The Example of Turkana District

3.1 Background information With a total area of about 77,000sq Km.,Turkana District is the largest district in Kenya. The district borders with Ethiopia, Uganda and Sudan to the north, west and north-west respectively (Map 1). The District’s total population is estimated at 485,627 with an annual growth rate of 3.3% (Kenya Republic of 2002c). This represents a large change from a 1982 survey (Ecosystems 1985), which suggested the population of the district at 232,740 people (comprising 162,409 in the pastoral sector and the remaining 30.2% in urban areas). The District is one of the driest districts in Kenya with over 70% classified as arid. Livestock production is the mainstay of the economy being the main source of income and livelihood for about 80% of the population. Rainfall is erratic over space and time, with the long and short rains occurring in March-April, and September-October. Rainfall varies from 150 mm to 800 mm. The district is subdivided into four main livelihood zones based on their sources of income – pastoralism (64%), agro-pastoralism (16%), fishing based (12%), and peri-urban and urban (8%).

The principal natural resource-based management strategy of the Turkana pastoralists is mobility. Turkana pastoralists move in relation to environmental conditions of forage and water availability and to a lesser extent to social factors. Where pastoralists move throughout the year is related to their ekitela and ere membership. All the Turkana are members of one of 19 territorial sections or ekitela. An ere, or home area, is the area a pastoralist normally utilizes during the wet season. Who moves with whom is related to the adakar, or grazing association membership, and the awi, or homestead affiliation. An adakar is composed of households moving together; the size is directly related to the perceived security situation. The awi is the basic economic and management unit consisting of a herd-owner and his dependants—wives, children and frequently brothers, sisters and mothers. Movement and management decisions are made at the adakar and awi levels.

There are no fixed migration routes and the frequency varies. Since each year presents a changing mosaic of forage conditions, water availability, labour requirements, herd sizes and

32


security risks, a herd-owner never precisely repeats a migratory orbit (Norconsult 1990). This relates to the need to retain a relationship with people who control an area and who may want or need to use an alternative route. Such relations are based on stock sharing, an important factor in maintaining relations with in-laws and relatives, and the influence of the local emuron or ekadwaran (traditional prophet and sacrificer (Barrett 1986) as well as to risk spreading. These are important factors in maintaining flexibility in grazing to cope with different disease, raiding and drought risks (Broch-Due & Storas 1981; Gulliver 1955).

The Turkana silvo-pastoral system makes optimal use of the vegetation in time and space through this transhumant system of wet- and dry-season grazing combined with the setting aside of specific dry-season grazing reserves (epaka or amaire). Such a system of resource management is made more complex by a variety of social controls concerned with sharing, flexibility and mobility (Barrow 1986; Norconsult 1990). However, general patterns do exist based on the environment. The pastoralists and their livestock come together during the wet season in their ere, the area where sorghum may be planted and a stand of trees, or ekwar, may be owned (Barrow 1990; Norconsult 1990). As conditions become drier, herd-owners begin to separate their herds by species and production characteristics.

33


Map 2: General Map of Turkana District

Source: Norconsult 1990.

34


When resources are abundant, livestock and people are most densely concentrated; when resources are limited, livestock and people are scattered over a large area. During a prolonged dry spell, Turkana subdivide the herds into as many units as the situation necessitates and the labour availability allows, thereby reducing stress on the vegetation and forage as much as possible. Grazing land is not owned, but controlled. Rights to forage in certain areas are usually not enforced if it is perceived that the environment, particularly forage and water availability, is not threatened by increased usage. During times of stress, the elders may deny “outsiders” access to the area or extract a toll, in livestock. In addition, certain areas are reserved by the elders for use only during times of stress; a stiff fine can be imposed on violators (Norconsult 1990).

3.2 Livestock Production in Turkana District Livestock production in Turkana District supports nearly the entire population directly (as livestock keepers) and indirectly (trading in livestock and inputs). It is a source of income, indicator of social status, source of food and means of establishing social ties. The main types of stock are cattle, goats, sheep, camels and donkeys (Table 25). Though it is difficult to get accurate figures for the numbers of livestock over time, Table 25 demonstrates the effects of drought (1999-2000) where approximately 58% were lost, and how livestock numbers can build up again. Livestock inputs have improved over the years, i.e. water availability and veterinary services through vaccination campaigns and formation of community animal health workers which are aimed at improving herd quality and expansion. Livestock sales occur all year round (Table 28). However if livestock are sold during the dry season, the body condition of the animals are likely to be poorer, especially as the effects of drought increase, and so fetch poor prices. In addition during drought times, the number of livestock sold outside of the District is low (Table 27). It is interesting to note that a detailed resource inventory of Turkana (1982-1984) had similar orders of magnitude for livestock in the district, though goats and sheep were much higher (over 200%, Table 26, (Ecosystems 1985).

Table 25: Livestock population 1997 – 2004 Year/Livestock

spp 1997 1998 1999 2000 % loss

1999/2000 drought

2001 2002 2003 2004

Cattle 200,000 200,000 234,420 175,815 25% 175,815 193,600 193,600 197,700 Goats 2,600,000 2,750,000 3,252,150 1,626,000 50% 1,626,000 1,951,200 1,951,200 2,021,000 Sheep 916,667 916,667 1,084,050 813,027 25% 813,027 975,600 975,600 1,054,400 Camels 115,000 115,000 144,960 138,000 5% 138,000 140,760 140,760 172,400 Donkeys 33,000 33,400 42,830 32,000 25% 32,000 32,640 32,640 35,160 Poultry 9,760 9,851 9,856 10,030 9,920 12,056 11,651 10,368 Hives 727 727 8,964 9,407 9,472 10,114 10,132 10,134

Source: Turkana District Livestock Office

Camels are least affected by drought as they survive better on the remaining browse which lasts longer and provides higher quality feed in such drought times, and the gradual but steady increase in the number of camels in the district could reflect shifting management strategies by the Turkana as an adaptation mechanism to increased dryness and the relative importance of browse. Goats, also browsers, are more likely to have been slaughtered during the drought as they are far more numerous, while cattle would have been sent to the dry and drought time rich patch vegetation areas (such as the Loima Hills and the Turkwell riverine forest). It is not sure why so (relatively) few sheep were lost. It is interesting to note that bee-keeping has become relatively much more important, perhaps indicating the effects of projects supporting bee-keeping, though no figures are available for the actual honey production.

35


Table 26: Livestock and Widlife Estimates for Turkana District 1982- 1984 Nov/Dec 1982 March 1984

Species Population Density per sq.km

% Livestock

Population Density per

sq.km.

% Livestock

% Population change 1982-1984 (per annum)

Cattle 155,089 2.5 10.8 158,581 2.5 8.9 +1.7 Camels 97,650 1.6 6.8 93,634 1.5 5.2 -3.2 Sheep & Goats

1,112,080 17.7 77.2 1,480,661 23.6 82.6 +25.5

Donkeys 75,754 1.2 5.2 59,097 0.9 3.3 -16.9 Total Livestock

1,440,573 22.9 100 1,791,973 28.5 100 +18.8

Total Wildlife 32,532 0.5 33,569 0.5 +2.5 Source: Ecosystems 1985.

Table 27: Livestock off-take to other districts Year/Livestock spp 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total Cattle 1,972 2,510 5,478 4,514 2,809 1,110 4,044 22,437 Goats 23,225 51,641 25,411 16,036 8,623 17,891 56,910 199,737


Table 28: Numbers of livestock sold and slaughtered locally Year/Livestock spp 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total Cattle 985 710 1,253 1,737 1,117 418 514 6,734 Goats 67,551 52,127 63,127 67,748 80,359 83,912 102,806 517,630 Sheep 1,573 1,621 2,066 3,475 7,801 8,521 10,501 35,558 Camels 51 56 247 582 340 247 396 1,919


3.3 Forestry and Vegetation Resources Forests with a canopy cover of over 12% are limited to the mountain ranges, especially the Loima Hills, which are relatively humid, and along the main rivers (Turkwell and Kerio), which have significant areas of riverine forest. The shores of Lake Turkana are dominated by Acacia spp and Doum palm (Hyphene compressa). Forestry resources support a wide range of household activities – livestock production, honey, traditional medicines, shelter, charcoal production and foods. In some areas where infrastructure is better developed, forestry resources are becoming an important source of household income particularly through the sale of charcoal, gums and resins. They play key service functions, including soil stabilisation particularly along riverbanks and flood plains, climate amelioration and wind-breaking. Indeed, the woody vegetation is the district’s most valuable resource, the Turkwell riverine forest and an area of mist forest being the most important. This importance is supported by an ecological study (Ecosystems 1985), which stated that “In 23% of the district, woody vegetation is virtually confined to riparian strips. These areas coincide with the driest eastern parts of Turkana and dry-season grass cover was found to fall consistently along a gradient of increasing importance in the riparian component. . .

36


. Despite the acute shortage of grass, areas of exclusively riparian woody vegetation supported over 30% of all livestock in the district during the dry season, underlining their extreme importance as a dry season forage resource”.

Over 103 plant species in Turkana District are used as fruits, vegetables, food, and medicine processing. H. compressa for example produces edible fruits, is used for local brew production and blood preservation. Honey production in Turkana District is increasing rapidly, as the number of modern beehives has increased by over 1,000% in the last 9 years, though indigenous methods of honey production are still used. The upper region of Turkwel River has considerable potential for honey production. Despite the increase in honey production, proper marketing of honey is still a challenge, due to poorly developed marketing infrastructure and a general lack of quality control.

Dryland forests are a critical part of the livestock management systems in Turkana. The highlands such as the Loima Hills are a critical dry season pasture particularly during dry times. Many pastoralists sought grazing refugee for their livestock at Loima, Songot, Ngarite, Pelekech, Mogilla and Lokwanamoru Hills during the last drought (2005/2006). Availability of pasture in these hills, which are under customary management, during the 2005/2006 drought resulted in relatively low livestock deaths in Turkana District. This demonstrates the centrality of such rich patch vegetation systems to the much wider land use systems. It is estimated that Loima Hills (approx 30,000 Ha) alone supported about 45,000 heads of livestock for six months during the 2005/06 drought (5,000 cattle, 10,000 goats, 30,000 sheep and 200 donkeys) all valued at about US$1.4 million.

This demonstrates the importance of rich patch vegetation to such a dry district as Turkana. However the overall primary productivity (from trees, browse, grass and herbs) is what determines the ability of the Turkana pastoralists to keep livestock. Table 29 summarizes this productivity for the district (Ecosystems 1985), and shows the relative importance of browse (267 Kg per ha per year). The value of this browse productivity is particularly important in the dry and drought times. The total fodder availability is 1,146 Kg per ha per year for the whole district, which represents approximately Kshs 11,000/ ($160) per ha per year (based on figures from (Mogaka 2002).

Table 29: Summary of Primary Productivity in Different Fodder Classes in Turkana Fodder

Component Mean Production

(kg/ha/yr) % Woody Browse

production

% Total Browse Production

% Total Fodder Production

A. tortilis foliage 34 17 13 3 A. tortilis fruit 68 35 25 6 Total A. tortilis 102 (52) (38) (9) Other species foliage

95 48 36 8

Total foliage 129 (65) (46) (11) Total woody browse

197 100 74 (17)

Dwarf shrubs 70 26 6 Total browse 267 100 (23) Total graze 879 77 Total fodder 1,146 100 Source: Ecosystems 1985.

While the woody vegetation is critically important for the livestock sector, it is also an essential source of products for households in terms of fuel (99.3% of energy use in Turkana District comes from fuelwood and charcoal, Table 30 (Norconsult 1990). This represents nearly 80,000 tons of fuelwood per annum – a value of approximately $2.9 million per annum (at a value of approximately Kshs 2.50 per Kg of wood fuel equivalent). In addition, while large amounts of timber (posts and poles, and thinner connecting beams and rafters) are required for building traditional Turkana houses as well as other forms of building. For

37


example over 4 cu metres of wood are used for an average sized residential house in an urban area (or approximately 1 cu.m. per 4.8 sq.m. of floor space, Table 31) which is a distressingly high price (Norconsult 1990).

Gums and resins are important dryland products whose potential is yet to be fully exploited in Kenya. Arid Lands Resources Limited has established collection and processing centre in Turkana. Over the last two years, the various participating communities have earned about Kshs. 350,000 (approx US$ 5,000) from the sale of gum Arabica, a very low value, compared to the potential as north of Kakuma, towards the Uganda border, there is over 2,000 sq.km. of 70% Acacia senegal dominated woodland, which is the preferred species for gum arabic.

Table 30: Estimates of Energy Use in Turkana District (1989-1990) Per capita

Gigajoules Total in Terajoules for

the district % of total

Fuel Firewood – rural areas (325 kg/capita 5.2 624 37.9 Firewood – settlemens (325 kg/capita 3.3 132 8.0 Charcoal settlements, 37 kg/capital – as wood burned equivalent (5% yield)

22.0 880 53.4

Gas – settlements and institutions 2 0.7 Paraffin settlements and institutions 7 Electricity (Lodwar) 2 Total 30.5 1647 100 Source: Norconsult 1990; Okolla 1990. Notes: Gigajoule = 109 joules; Terajoule = 1012 joules ; 44.2 gigajoules = ton oil equvalent ; 16 gigajoule = ton wood energy equivalent. Rural population 120,000, settlement population 40,000.

Table 31: Wood use and Type of Wood used in Buildings Surveyed in Turkana Type of Building Sample Wood

used (cu.m.)

Total amount of poles (running

metres)

Total amount of other connecting

rafters etc. (running metres)

Total amount of timber used

(running metres)

Residential 61 4.29 221 905 1126 Kitchen 3 2.77 28 1121 1149 Hotel 15 5.17 94 1143 1237 School 20 5.09 140 1042 1182 Shop 17 2.95 126 484 610

Total/Average 116 5.12 259 873 1132 Source: Norconsult 1990.

3.4 Agricultural production It is estimated that 30% of the soils in Turkana District can support limited agricultural production, but this is limited by the low and variable rainfall (250-500 mm per annum). Such areas include the Lotikipi plains, upper parts of the Loima Hills, the lowlands of Turkwel, Nakaton and Kawalathe drainage, lower parts of Kalakol and the Kerio Valley. Most cultivation is based on low-input sorghum farming (where the Turkana have some of the fastest maturing, though low yielding, varieties of Sorghum in Kenya). It is low input, so if the crop fails the losses are not large as such crop production complements the livestock sector, and people do not necessarily depend on the crop.

Irrigation has been tried for many years with huge financial inputs from both the Government and donors. Yet success has been meagre. The main crops grown are sorghum, bananas, cassava, green grams, cotton and maize. The irrigation schemes have had large management and administrative problems and their economic potential has never been realised. It may still be possible to learn from past mistakes and improve existing schemes by increasing the acreage of stable food crops (e.g. sorghum, maize, pulses), improve the local capacity for management, and provide farmers with germplasm selection, bulking, dressing, storage of drought adapted seed varieties and marketing (Gamba 2005). Ministry

38


of Agriculture estimates for the total development costs of such irrigation schemes to be about $20,000 per irrigated hectare (1985 figures) – indicating the huge development costs for relatively marginal returns (Asmon et al. 1984). Despite much support from Government, NGOs and donors, the irrigation schemes in Turkana (and indeed in many of the drylands of Kenya) have failed to perform. For example the large Bura irrigation scheme on the Tana river has failed and reverted to bush. The Turkana cluster have never reached their potential, though current cost-benefit figures are not available. It is clear that the problem with such schemes is not the technology per se, but how the technology was contextualized and made appropriate to local level management and ownership.

3.5 Tourism and Ecotourism activities in Turkana District Tourism development in Turkana District has declined over the years due to increasing insecurity and poor infrastructure. Some of the tourism sites include Sibiloi, South Turkana and Nasalot National Parks. Here, the South Turkana and Nasalot Reserved areas were important dry season grazing areas for the pastoralists before they were alienated as Reserves. Their alienation has meant that the pastoralists are no longer able to use them which increases their livelihood risks and forces them to over-use other areas. During the gazetting of the reserved areas, the local pastoralists were neither consulted, nor did they approve of the alienation of their important dry season grazing. Such actions act as a further perverse incentive for sound pastoralist land management. Realisation of the tourism potential in the area depends on the security situation and the state of infrastructure, and since the gazetting of these areas, there have been relatively few visitors to the protected areas, and virtually no benefits have accrued to the local people for their opportunity costs forgone.

3.6 Summary Existing studies on Turkana district support the following conclusions regarding the probable economic value of the districts environmental goods and services:

• Livestock production in Turkana District supports nearly the entire population of over 486,000 people, either directly (as livestock keepers) or indirectly (trading in livestock and inputs). It is a source of income, indicator of social status, source of food and means of establishing social ties. The main types of stock are cattle, goats, sheep, camels and donkeys.

• It is estimated that 30% of the soils in Turkana District can support agricultural

production, but this is limited by the low and variable rainfall. Most cultivation is based on low-input sorghum farming, so if the crop fails the losses are not large as such crop production complements the livestock sector, and people do not necessarily depend on the crop. Irrigation has been tried for many years with huge financial inputs from both the Government and donors but has failed to perform. The problem with irrigation schemes is not the technology per se, but how the technology has been contextualized and made appropriate to local level management and ownership.

• Total fodder availability is 1,146 Kg per ha per year for the whole district, which represents approximately Kshs 11,000/ ($160) per ha per year. In addition, over 103 plant species in Turkana District are used as fruits, vegetables, food, and medicine processing. Honey production in Turkana District is increasing rapidly, as the number of modern beehives has increased by over 1,000% in the last 9 years.

• Forests with a canopy cover of over 12% are limited to the mountain ranges, which are relatively humid, and along the main rivers, which have significant areas of riverine forest. Forestry resources support a wide range of household activities – livestock production, honey, traditional medicines, shelter, charcoal production and

39


foods – and in some areas are becoming an important source of household income particularly through the sale of charcoal, gums and resins. They play key service functions, including soil stabilisation particularly along riverbanks and flood plains, climate amelioration and wind-breaking.

• 99.3% of energy use in Turkana District comes from fuelwood and charcoal, which represents nearly 80,000 tons of fuelwood per annum – a value of approximately $2.9 million per annum (at a value of approximately Kshs 2.50 per Kg of wood fuel equivalent). In addition, large amounts of timber are required for building traditional Turkana houses as well as other forms of building.

• Tourism in Turkana District has declined over the years due to increasing insecurity and poor infrastructure.

40


References Asmon, I. E., P. C. Njoroge, and B. M. Wandurwa. 1984. Evaluation of the Turkana Irrigation

Cluster. Development and Planning Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, Nairobi.

Barrett, T. 1986. Sacrifice and Prophesy in Turkana Cosmology. Department Of Anthropology. Chicago, Chicago.

Barrow, E., and W. Mlenge. 2003. Trees as Key to Pastoralist Risk Management in Semi-Arid Landscapes in Shinyanga, Tanzania, and Turkana, Kenya. Page 12. International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forest and Biodiversity. CIFOR, Bonn, Germany.

Barrow, E., D. Timmer, S. White, and S. Maginnis 2002. Forest Landscape Restoration. Building Assets for People and Narture - Experience from East Africa. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Barrow, E. G. C. 1986. The Value of Traditional Knowledge in Present Day Soil Conservation Practice: The Example of the Pokot and Turkana. Pages 471-485 in D. B. Thomas, E. K. Biamah, A. M. Kilewe, L. Lundgren, and B. Mochoge, editors. Soil Conservation in Kenya: Proceedings of the Third National Workshop. Dept of Agricultural Engineering, Univeristy of Nairobi and Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA), Nairobi.

Barrow, E. G. C. 1990. Usufruct Rights to Trees: The Role of Ekwar in Dryland Central Turkana, Kenya. Human Ecology 18:163-176.

Broch-Due, V., and F. Storas. 1981. The Relationship between Nomadic adaptation and laternative economic forms with specific reference to the organization of work and productive relations. Department of Social Anthropology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Brown, K., and L. Emerton. 1997. Where there are no Markets: Adding to Non-Wood tree Product Values in Dryland Kenya. Fifteenth Commonwealth Forestry Conference.

Chambers, R., and M. Leach. 1987. Trees to meet contingencies: Savings and security for the rural poor. ODI Social Forestry Network Paper 5a.

Chikamai, B. N., and J. A. Odera, editors. 2002. Commercial Plant Gums and Gum Resins in Kenya - Sources of Alternative Livelihood and Economic Development in the Drylands. Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Nairobi.

Ecosystems, L. 1985. Turkana District Resources survey 1982-1984. Page 261. Report for Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Energy and Regional Development, Turkana Rehabilitation Project, Nairobi.

Elliott, J., and M. Mwangi. 1997. Making Wildlife "Pay" in Laikipia, Kenya. Page 13. AWF, Laikipia Wildlife Economics Study Discussion Paper, Nairobi.

Elliott, J., and M. Mwangi. 1998. The Opportunity Cost of the Hunting Ban to Landowners in Laikipia, Kenya. Page 21. Laikipia Wildlife Economics Study Discussion Paper. African Wildlife Foundation, Nairobi.

Emerton, L. 1996a. Maasai Livelihoods, forest Use Values and Conservation in Oldonyo Orok, Kenya. Page 10. African Wildlife Foundation, Nairobi.

Emerton, L. 1996b. Valuing the Environment: Case Studies form Kenya. Page 45. African Wildlife Foundation, Nairobi.

Emerton, L. 1997a. Livelihood Values and Conservation in Mount Kenya Forest. Pages 134-139 in S. Dolan, editor. African Rainforests and the Conservation of Biodiversity. Earthwatch Europe, Limbe, Cameroon.

Emerton, L. 1997b. Mount Kenya: The Economics of Community Conservation. Page 20. Institute of Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, England, Manchester.

Emerton, L. 2001. The Nature of Benefits and the Benefits of Nature. Why Wildlife Conservation has not Economically Benefited Communities in Africa. Pages 208-226

41


in D. Hulme, and M. Murphree, editors. African Wildlife and Livelihoods - The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation. James Currey, Oxford.

Emerton, L., N. Ndugire, and C. Bokea. 1998. The Costs of Environmental Degradation to the Kenyan Economy - a Review of Literature. Policy Research Group, Nairobi.

Environment Liaison Centre International. 2006. Pastoralism as a Conservation Strategy and Contributor to Livelihood Security. Kenya Country Study. Page 30. IUCN Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi.

Gamba, P. 2005. Policy Analysis Study for Improving Market Access for Dryland Commodities Project. UNDP - The Drylands Development Centre, Nairobi.

Ghazi, P. w. t. a. o., E. Barrow, G. Monela, and W. Mlenge. 2005. Regenerating Woodlands: Tanzania's HASHI Project. Pages 131-138 in W. R. Institute, editor. World Resources 2005: The Wealth of the Poor - Managing Ecosystems to to Fight Poverty. World Resources Institute in collaboration with UNDP, Washington.

Grootenhuis, J. 1996. Wildlife, Livestock and Animal disease Resevoirs. Workshop on Costs and Benefits of Wildlife in Africa, Lewa Downs, Kenya.

GTZ. 2005. Incentives for Sustainable Resource Use. GTZ Natural Resources and Governance Department.

Gulliver, P. H. 1955. Family Herds. Kegan and Paul, London. Hesse, C., and J. MacGregor. 2006. Pastoralism: Drylands' Invisible Asset? Developing a

Framework for Assessing the Value of Pastoralism in East Africa. Page 31. IIED Issues Paper 142, London.

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. 2006. Operations Update. Page 7. Kenya Red Cross Society, Nairobi.

IUCN - The Eastern Africa Regional Office. 2006. Country Environmental Profile for Somalia. Report produced for The European Comission Somalia Operations Office, Nairobi, Kenya. Page 60. IUCN Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi.

Kenya Government of. 1994. Kenya Forestry Master Plan: Development Programmes. 2. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Nairobi.

Kenya Republic of. 2000. Livestock Marekting from Pastoral Areas: A Strategy for Pastoral Development. A Report by Arid Lands Resources Management Project (ARLMP) in Conjunction with SNV, OXFAM and World Concern. Office of the President, Nairobi.

Kenya Republic of. 2001a. Kenya Dairy Development Population and Consumption Projections to the Year 2025. Draft Technical Paper. Ministry of Agriculture, Nairobi.

Kenya Republic of. 2001b. Kenya Rural Development Strategy. Government Printer, Nairobi. Kenya Republic of. 2002a. Economic Survey. Central Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of

Planning and National Development, Nairobi. Kenya Republic of. 2002b. Kenya Rural Development Strategy 2002-2017 - Draft.

Government Printer, Nairobi. Kenya Republic of. 2002c. Turkana District Development Plan 2002-2008. Government

Printer, Nairobi. Kenya Republic of. 2003. Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment

Creation, 2003-2007. Ministry of Planning and National Development, Nairobi. Kenya Republic of. 2004. Economic Survey 2004. Central Bureau of Statistics Ministry of

Planning and National Development, Government Printer, Nairobi. Kenya Republic of. 2005. Sessional Paper on Sustainable Development of Arid and Semi

Arid Lands of Kenya (Draft). Page 30. Office of the President, Nairobi. Knowler, D., G. Acharya, and T. van Rensburg. 1998. Incentive Systems for Natural

Resource Management: the Role of Indirect Incentives. FAO Investment Centre, Rome.

Matiru, V., and A. Mwangi. 2005. UNCCD for Beginners. Page 8. Environment Liaison Centre International, Nairobi.

Mittermeier, R. A., P. R. Gil, M. Hoffman, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C. G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoureux, and G. A. Da Fonseca 2004. Hotsports Revisited: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX, Mexico City.

42


Mogaka, H. 2001. Valuation of Local Forest Conservation Costs and Benefits. Innovation 8:17-19.

Mogaka, H. 2002. Economic Instruments for the Reduction of Forest Biodiversity Loss in Kenya. Page 36. GEF/UNDP/FAO Cross Border Biodiversity Project "Reducing Biodiversity Loss at Selected Cross-Border Sites in East Africa" Economics Component Technical Report No. 16, Nairobi.

Mogaka, H., S. Gichere, R. Davies, and R. Hirji 2005. Climate Variability and Water Resources Degradation in Kenya: Improving Water Resources Development and Management. World Bank Working Paper No. 69, Washington.

Mogaka, H., G. Simons, J. Turpie, F. Karanja, and L. Emerton 2001. Economic Aspects of Community Involvement in Sustainable Forest Management in Eastern and Southern Africa. IUCN - The World Conservation Union, Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi.

Monela, G. C., S. A. O. Chamshama, R. Mwaipopo, and D. M. Gamassa. 2005. A Study on the Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts of Forest Landscape Restoration in Shinyanga Region, Tanzania. Page xvii +205. Forestry and Beekeeping Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania, and IUCN - The World Conservation Union Eastern Africa Regional Office, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.

Morgan, W. T. W. 1974. Sorghum Gardens in South Turkana: Cultivation amond a Nomadic Pastoral People. Geog. J. 140.

Mortimore, M. 2005. Why Invest in Drylands? Page 48. Global Mechanism of the UNCCD, Rome.

Mortimore, M. 2006. Why Invest in Drylands? Synergies and Strategy for Developing Ecosystem Services. Drylands' Hidden Wealth: Integrating Dryland Ecosystem Services into National Developmnet Planning. IUCN, Amman, Jordan.

Muthee, A. M. 2006. Kenya Livestock Sector Study: An Analysis of Pastoralist Product Market Chain and Potential External Markets for Live Animals and Meat. Page 216. Deloitte Consulting Ltd for AU-IBAR and NEPDP, Nairobi.

Mutimba, S., and M. Barasa. 2005. National Charcoal Survey: Exploring the Potential for a Sustainable Charcoal Industry in Kenya. Page 74. Energy for Sustainable Development AFRICA, Nairobi.

Mwangi, S. 1995. An Economic Assessment of Group Ranching in the Dispersal Areas of the Maasai Mara National Reserve, Kenya. Moi University, Eldoret.

Norconsult. 1989. A Needs Assessment Survey for Water Harvesting in Kakume. Report to Oxfam. Norconsult, Nairobi.

Norconsult. 1990. Environmental Study of Turkana District, Kenya. Norconsult, Nairobi. Norton-Griffiths, M. 1996. Property Rights and the Marginal Wildebeest: an Economic

Analysis of Wildlife Conservation Options in Kenya. Biodiversity and Conservation 5:1557-1577.

Norton-Griffiths, M. 1997. Why Kenya Conservation is Failing. Pages 6-8. Swara. Norton-Griffiths, M. 2006. The Survival of Wildlife on Kenya's Rangelands - An Economic

Perspective. Page 21. 1st National symposium on Wildlife Policy and Legislation Review Process, Nairobi.

Norton-Griffiths, M., M. Y. Said, S. Serneels, D. S. Kaelo, M. Coughenour, R. H. Lamprey, D. M. Thompson, and R. E. Reid. 2006. Land Use Economics in the Mara Area of the Serengeti Ecosystem (ch. 13). Page 32. Serengeti 3: Human Wildlife Interactions. Chicago University Press (in press), Chicago.

Norton-Griffiths, M., and C. Southby. 1995. The Opportunity Costs of Biodiversity Conservation in Kenya. Ecological Economics 12:125-139.

Nyariki, D. M. 2004. The Contribution of Pastoralism to the Local and National Economies in Kenya. RECONCILE/IIED, Nairobi.

Okolla, G. 1990. Asessment of Wood Resources Utilization among the Sedentary and Semi-Nomadic Settlements in Turkana District. Postgraduate Dissertation.

Omondi. 1994. Wildlife-Human Conflict in Kenya. McGill University, Montreal.

43


PDS. 1997. A Socio-Economic Survey of Communities Bordering the Shimba Hills National and Forest Reserves. Report prepared for GTZ/Forest Department Integrarted Natural Resources and Conservation Project, Nairobi.

Pearce, D., and D. Moran 1994. The Economic Value of Biodiversity. Earthscan, London. Safriel, U., Z. Adeel, D. Neimeijer, J. Puigdefabregas, R. White, M. Lal, M. Winslow, J.

Ziedler, S. Prince, E. Archer, and C. King. 2002. Dryland Systems (Chapter 22). Pages 625-662. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, New York.

Shepherd, G. 2004. The Ecosystem Approach: Five Steps to Implementation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Sommerlatte, M., and D. Hopcraft. 1992. The Economics of Game Cropping on a Kenyan Ranch. Page 15. 3rd International Wildlife Ranching Symposium, Pretoria, South Africa.

Thornton, P. K., K. R.L., N. Henninger, P. M. Kristjanson, R. E. Reid, F. Atieno, A. N. Odero, and N. T. 2002. Mapping Poverty and Livestock in the Developing World. International Livestock Research Institute, Nariobi.

Tiffen, M., and M. Mortimore. 1994a. Environment, Population growth and Productivity in Kenya: A Case Study of Machakos District. IIED Drylands Networks Programme Issues Paper:27.

Tiffen, M., and M. Mortimore. 1994b. Malthus Controverted: The Role of Capital and Technology in Growth and Environmental Recovery in Kenya. World Development 22:997-1010.

Tiffen, M., M. Mortimore, and F. Gichuki 1994. More People, Less Erosion - Environmental Recovery in Kenya. ODI and ACTS, London and Nairobi.

UNEP, and Government of Kenya 2000. Devastating Drought in Kenya: Environmental Imacts and Responses. UNEP and Government of Kenya, Nairobi.

44

kenya’s drylands – wastelands or an undervalued national

Documents