Kenya’s livestock
production accounts for
24% of total agricultural
output. Over 70% of the
country’s livestock and
75% of the wildlife are
found in the ASALs.
Despite this, pastoralist
areas have the highest
incidences of poverty and
the least access to basic
services of any in the
country. The highest
poverty levels remain in
the northern pastoralist
districts.
Historical processes

Colonial policies and ‘agreements’ – Maasai treaties 1904 and 1911
lead to loss of 50-70% of lands.

The Land Groups (Representatives) Act 1968 – establishment of
group ranches to settle ASAL communities in Laikipia, Samburu,
Narok and Kajiado. Sub-division of ranches started as early as the
mid-1970s.

WB (and other) funded KLDP – development of grazing blocks for
fattening livestock, holding grounds and stock routes. Though the
interventions in northern rangelands were eventually abandoned,
the damage had been done – land fragmentation and areas opened
up to agriculturalists.

Corrupt allocation of land including pastoral lands leading to
dispossession.

Establishment of protected areas.
Current political context

Drive for industrial transformation based on agriculture, minerals,
natural resources including foreign investment – increased
demand for land.

Pastoral land continues to be managed by local council. Access to
this land has been undermined by corrupt allocation, illegal
alienation and abuses of authority.

New Land Policy 2009 – ‘trust’ land to ‘community’ land
supporting the development of mechanisms to allow a group to
hold title to it. Community-elected land boards will be established.
All public land will be identified, registered and handed over to a
National Land Commission. Restrictions on holdings of land by
non-Kenyans.

New Constitution 2010

Establishment of Ministry for Development of Northern Kenya
and Other Arid Lands, national policy for development of arid
lands and increased funding.
Northern rangelands: causes/processes of
fragmentation

Development of a semi-sedentary pastoralism in some parts e.g. Samburu
due to provision of group and individual titles on e.g. Leroghi Plateau in
early 1970s.

Prime grazing areas along rivers are national resrerves or conservation
areas (e.g. Samburu, Saba and Basnadi) – create revenues for local
Councils but few benefits to communities.

Development of large dams and irrigation schemes e.g. Turkwell Gorge
project, Pokot.

Invasion of such as Prosopis juliflora.

NGOs/development agencies establishing enclosures and water points
without considering the impacts on the whole rangeland and pastoral
systems.

Land allocations, influx of agriculturalists, sedentarisation e.g. Marsabit
Mountain and Hurri Hills.

Conflicts – complex, politicised. Customary/government fail to resolve.
Central rangelands
Collapse of ranching system
land allocated to white
settlers and agriculturalists.
Today, in Laikipia 48
individuals control 40.3% of
the land (937,583 hectares) as
commercial ranches or
conservancies. Some subdivided; 23 large farms
(1.48%); 27.21% as
smallholder agriculture.
Most pastoralists limited to
13 group ranches in drier
areas. Conflicts with other
land users though
agreements made with some
(Letai 2011).
Tana Delta
Target for development
including large irrigated
commercial schemes, ranches
(5-6000 km sq Galana ranch),
resettlement, invasion of
Prosopis juliflora, protected areas
including Tsavo. Investment in
large schemes continues and
others in the pipeline including
deals up to 120,000 hectares. It is
predicted that 25,000 people
from 30 villages will be evicted.
This is despite the fact that in
2009 drought the area provided
grazing for 3 million heads of
cattle from as far as Wajir
(Nunow 2010).
Southern Rangelands

Today, only one group ranch remains undivided in Kajiado –
Eselenki (74,794 ha).

Kitengela group ranch for example originally covered 18,292 ha
was subdivided in 1988 giving roughly 250 acres to 215
landowners. Land sales in 1990s = some plots 2 acres. Though
many plots are fenced, agreements between some landowners
established to allow movement of livestock.

Those allocated good lands have benefited. Overall the
community is poorer.

Agriculture expanding at 8.5% pa over last 30 years. 2001- 120,000
hectares. Land speculation. Population of Kajiado increased 74%
between 1969-79.

Flower farms etc. around Naivasha. Soda mining in Lake Magadi.
National parks and conservation areas. Frenzied grabbing of
remaining plots.
Impacts

Unequal accumulation of wealth. In Kitengala for example onehalf of cattle are owned by 20% of households.

Marginalisation of women.

Reduced livestock numbers due to lack of access to resources.

“Enclosure begat enclosure….” (Behnke 2008).

During drought situation is critical. The wealthy can purchase
fodder. If labour available will take cattle to far-off grazing.
Encroachment of protected areas. Others just wait for livestock to
die. In 2009 drought pastoralists in Kajiado said to have lost 90%
of livestock. Poor in particular are vulnerable.

Rangeland fragmentation increased food insecurity, vulnerability
to drought and improverishment. If current trends continue then
people will need massive economic support to survive.
Impacts

Northern areas: grazing pressure leading to degradation. High
poverty levels. Pastoralist wealth in north-eastern province
declined by more than 50% over past ten years.

Stocklessness – the areas with fewest stockless are in highly
mobile pastoral areas.

Strength and authority of customary institutions and social
support systems weakened. Rangeland management practices
compromised.

New distinct social and economic class. More outsiders – loss
community and identity. Youth little interest. More vulnerable in
times of drought.

Conflicts at different levels.

Threats to wildlife and wildlife-based industries.

Reconsolidation and new partnerships.
Conclusions
As land fragmentation progresses
there are some winners and many
losers. New types of pastoralists are
emerging. Those without assets
have lost out and seen their
vulnerability to drought has
increased. With stresses due to
climate change likely to increase,
this can only get worse.
LAPSET corridor and others.
2009 drought showed how
important mobility is still. Where
movement was restricted result was
catastrophic e.g. estimated that 1
million cattle would die in Kajiado
and 3 million worldwide = US$1
billion loss (Western 2009)
Cost of interventions in 6 districts
was US$4.6 million (ILRI 2010).
Conclusions

Encouraging trends: consolidation of holdings, taking down of
fences, and agreements between new ‘partners’.

Pastoralism has comparatively strong support in Kenya.

Strong pastoral representative CSOs. Strong village and district
pastoral associations with links to national decision-making
processes through MPs. Pastoral representation in Parliament and
Pastoral Parliamentary Groups.

Pastoralists are centre of National Policy for Sustainable
Development of Arid and Semi-Arid Lands, and Ministry –
US$195 million programme on ASAL development. Hoped some
the funds will be used to support implementation if provisions
under new Land Policy and Constitution and development of
appropriate legislation.
General recommendations
1.
A better understanding of the causes, trends and impacts of
land fragmentation are required.
2.
A better understanding and recognition of the benefits of
pastoral systems is required.
3.
Provision of greater security to land, resources and mobility
for pastoralists is needed.
-
-
Governments upholding rights that exist.
Governments improving rights through better pro-poor
gender-sensitive land tenure systems.
Governments improving land use planning and drought
management systems that work at
landscape/watershed/rangelands scale and recognises that
pastoralism is a livelihoods system that relies on complete
ecosystem or set of resources.
Governments introducing conditions (guidelines, legislation)
that encourage investors to provide benefits to communities.
General recommendations
- Governments providing political space for pastoral
groups/CSOs to build capacity, advocate etc.
Governments ensuring NAPAs include ways to support
pastoralism
Governments working with local communities to develop
national strategy for invasive species
Donors encouraging governments to implement above
African Union working with governments to support
development of tenure policies and legislation pro-pastoralist
African Union and regional bodies working to resolve
conflicts.
NGOs and CSOs better working together
NGOs and CSOs better aware of long-term impacts of
interventions and how best to mitigate negative impacts.
NGOs and CSOs working with communities to raise
awareness on rights under current legislation
General recommendations
Pastoral leaders appropriate representing communities and
needs/priorities
Pastoral communities taking greater responsibility for the
resolution of conflicts, recognising authority of local leaders
and working together as powerful, united voice.
Pastoral communities discussing collectively about land
fragmentation; mapping of resources, migration routes etc.
4. Secure cross-border movement and regional pastoral
development should be facilitated.
5. Communities indigenous knowledge needs to be understood
and built upon.
6. Land issues need to be incorporated into vulnerability
assessments, and drought crisis preparation, management and
response processes.
7. Filling research gaps.
-
Implications for development and e.g. drought
interventions

Land and resource issues are rarely considered in development
interventions and in particular, rapid response interventions such as in
times of drought.

A report by ILRI (2010) highlighted the importance and effectiveness of
interventions that focused on facilitating mobility and access to resources
e.g. in Turkana discussions were held either side of Kenya/Uganda
border which resulted in movement of 38,000 cattle, 68,000 sheep/goats,
18,000 camels and 12,000 donkeys.

Need to consider interventions in relation to their impact on the whole
rangeland: land use planning at a rangeland scale.

Security of rights to resources and land reduce the vulnerability of
pastoralists to drought.

Mobility remains highly important for overcoming drought – the
facilitation of mobility should be a key part of development and
emergency interventions (long/short term).