8/2/2019 Policy Brief Template

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/policy-brief-template 1/2

ILRI Policy Brief—July 2011ILRI Policy Brief—July 2011

ILRI research charts ways to better livestock-relateddrought interventions in Kenya’s drylands

 Jan de Leeuw, Polly Ericksen, Jane Gitau, Lammert Zwaagstra and Susan MacMillan

 F  e b  r  u a r  y

 2  0  1  1  

www.ilri.org

P O Box 30709, Nairobi 00100, KenyaPhone: + 254 20 422 3000Fax: +254 20 422 3001Email: ILRI-Kenya@cgiar.org

P O Box 5689, Addis Ababa, EthiopiaPhone: +251 11 617 2000Fax: +251 11 617 2001Email: ILRI-Ethiopia@cgiar.org

New Delhi 110 012, IndiaPhone: +91-11 2560 9800Fax: +91-11 2584 7884Email: ILRI-Asia@cgiar.org 

‘Better lives through livestock’ILRI is a member o the Consortium o International Agricultural Research Centers

The brie has a Creative Commons license. You are ree to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.

 f         

 F  e b  r  u a r  y

 2  0  1  1  

Drought and its management in Kenya

Drought is the prime recurrent natural disaster in Kenya.

It is reportedly now aecting 10 million mostly livestock-

dependent people in the country’s arid and semi-arid lands.

While reducing the cou ntry’s economic perormance, recur-

ring droughts particularly erode the assets o the pastoral

poor, who herd cattle, camels, sheep and goats over dry-

lands. This repeated erosion o animal assets is underminingthe livelihoods o Kenya’s pastoral communities, provoking

many households into a downward spiral o chronic hunger

and severe poverty.

Since 1996, the Oce o the President in Kenya, supported

by the World Bank, has been implementing an Arid Lands

Resource Management Project (ALRMP) to support the

country’s drought-prone communities. The ALRMP, ur-

ther supported by the European Union, unded a Drought

Management Initiative and consolidated a national drought

management system with structures at the national (Ke-

nya Food Security Meeting, Kenya Food Security Steering

Group), district (District Steering Group) and community

Repetitive drought has recently ravaged the arid and semi-

arid parts o the Horn o Arica, resulting in great numbers

o deaths o livestock and malnutrition in many livestock

keeping communities. Appropriate drought relie needs to

target livestock specically, because pastoralists depend on

livestock or their basic needs; losses o signicant numbers

o livestock undermine their economic and ood security

and makes them even more vulnerable to uture drought

events.

Two recent ILRI studies distinguish eective ways to miti-

gate the eects o drought on the pastoral livestock sector

in this region. A study unded by the European Union (EU),

‘ An Assessment of the Response to the 2008–2009 Drought

in Kenya,’ which reviews the eectiveness o livestock-

based interventions during Kenya’s devastating 2008–2009

drought, suggests improving the country’s current drought

management system and incorporating climate change

into Kenyan drought management policies. A study unded

by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO) designed a prototype o a livestock drought manage-

ment decision support tool.

anomalies trigger drought, other actors worsen its eect

ar beyond the shortall o rain. The most important con-

tributing actor is insucient high-potential grazing lands,

caused by relentlessly increasing demographic pressure

along with insecure land tenure rights. The resulting scarcity

o livestock resources is leaving whole populations increas-

ingly vulnerable to drought and other shocks.

Lesson 1—The most eective interventions were those that

acilitated mobility to provide access to disputed and un-

derutilized grazing lands and water resources.

Lesson 2—Centrally organized ad hoc commercial de-

stocking remains the least cost-eective drought interven-

tion in Kenya. Poor and heavily delayed implementationdue to complications in up-scaling interventions organized

rom outside make this kind o de-stocking unviable. But

more than anything else, lack o connection to existing mar-

ket systems precludes such ad hoc commercial de-stocking

operations rom being cost-eective.

Lesson 3—‘Livestock-odder-aid’ comes a close second in

terms o poor cost-eective-ness. Shipping substantial quan-

tities o hay to remote locations is extremely costly and has

had little i any measurable impact.

Lesson 4—Slaughter o-take, preerably carried out on the

spot, with the meat distributed rapidly to needy amilies, is

an intervention popular with beneciaries and can provide

substantial benets. Those that sell a live animal oten ben-

et also rom the distribution o its meat. And the availabil-

ity o this high-protein ood can benet household nutrition

while allowing the selling households to maintain a littlepurchasing power a little longer.

A livestock drought management

decision support tool

Following on rom the EU study, in mid-2010 the FAO Sub-

Regional Emergency and Rehabilitation Oce or East and

Central Arica (REOA) commissioned IRLI to develop a pro-

to-type ‘Livestock Drought Management’ (LDM) decision-

support tool or use by emergency and relie planners and

practitioners throughout the region. The tool is aimed at im-

proving the timeliness o interventions to support livestock,

thereby saving the assets crucial to pastoralists. Timeliness

o interventions is critical because interventions should

be implemented beore livestock are so weak they will

die. Pastoralists have a number o coping and adaptive

strategies to protect livestock assets, which they typically

implement during droughts: chiefy moving the animals to

areas with better orage and water, selling some animals,

splitting herds or exchanging animals, or over time chang-

ing herd species composition. Interventions aimed at

supporting these strategies have to be timely.

The LDM tool, which is still conceptual rather than opera-

tional, links the concepts o Drought Cycle Management

(DCM) with the best practice in livestock-related interven-

tions throughout all phases o a drought, rom normal

through the alert and emergency stages to recovery2. The

DCM is designed to ensure that appropriate interven-

tions are implemented at the ‘right time’ over the drought

cycle. The LDM tool denes the phase o the drought

cycle while combining data indicating the severity o the

drought (hazard) and the ability o livestock to survive the

drought (sensitivity). The hazard inormation is based on

the NDVI index captured by the NOAA AVHRR system,

while livestock body condition is used as the indicator

or sensitivity. The hazard data has currently been param-

eterized or Kenya but can be used in any o the REOA

countries. The inormation in the tool helps to estimate

livestock condition and orage availability. It can be used

to identiy high-priority areas and potential hotspots. This

inormation is useul or deciding how the drought is pro-

gressing and which phase o a drought cycle an area is in.

ReerencesZwaagstra, L., Shari, Z., Wambile, A., de Leeuw, J., Said, M.Y., Johnson,

N., Njuki, J., Ericksen, P. and Herrero, M., 2010. An assessment o the response to the 2008 2009 drought in Kenya. A report to theEuropean Union Delegation to the Republic o Kenya. Nairobi:International Livestock Research Institute.

Ericksen, P.E., de Leeuw, J., Quiros, C., 2010. Livestock Drought Man-agement Tool. Final report or FAO project OSRO/RAF/915/RFFPR44865.Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute.

2. It was noted during these two studies that there are ew interventions aimed at

the recovery period.

8/2/2019 Policy Brief Template

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/policy-brief-template 2/2

ILRI Policy Brief—July 2011ILRI Policy Brief—July 2011

The report’s ndings in a nutshell

A twelve-month running average o a remotely sensed

NOAA-AVHRR NDVI1 index accurately detected historic

droughts. This index, which could have been available

during the progression o the 2008 – 2009 drought, re-

vealed that Kajiado and Laikipia districts were aected

more severely than any other district. A 12 month running

average o NDVI revealed that Kadjiado (see gure below)

and Laikipia suered the worst drought since the start o the

NOAA AVHRR data in 1982.

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

1980 1990 2000 2010

NDVI

Monthly NDVI (-) or Kadjiado district show seasonal patterns in vegetation green-

ness; the 12 month running average o NDVI (-) reveals the 1998 and 2007 El Nino

events and the 1984, 2000-2001, 2005 and 2008-2009 droughts.

The drought was extreme not only in meteorological and

rangeland production terms, but also because o its devas-

tating impact on livestock. Some 57 per cent o cattle and

65 per cent o sheep, or example, perished in Samburu

Central, while 64 per cent o cattle and 62 per cent o 

sheep died in Laikipia North.

The satellite imagery also revealed heterogeneity in drought

intensity in northern Kenya, with drought in the lowlands

accompanied by better vegetation conditions in mountains

and across borders. Satellite imagery thus allows real-time

screening o opportunities or migration and could provide

in such cases evidence to support the need or remedial

confict resolution in areas o high insecurity.

1 NDVI: Normalized Dierential Vegetation Index, a remote-sensing index that tracks the greenness o vegetation. Low values refectbare soil and dry vegetation, higher values refect increasingly greenervegetation.

The number o livestock interventions increased dramati-

cally between the 2000/2001 drought (21 projects in 10

districts) and the 2008/2009 drought (474 interventions

in 6 districts). The total expenditure was also greater

in 2008/2009 (USD4.6 million or 6 districts) than in

2000/20001 (USD4 million in 10 districts). Unortunately,

most livestock-related interventions began very late in the

last big drought, in early to mid-2009, well past the earlier

phase where interventions like or example destocking

would have been more eective.. Lack o unds constrained

most agencies, apart rom ALRMP, which responded early

as it had unds available when the drought emerged. That

an emergency classication in the early-warning bulletins

tracked social rather than biophysical conditions o the

rangelands may have urther delayed a timely response.

More than 1.5 million people beneted rom interventions

during 2008 and 2009 such as destocking, animal health

and eeds. The cost per individual reached was KSh3,362,

ranging rom KSh163 or water trucking to KSh8,652 or

emergency destocking. An estimated 15,873 tropical

livestock units were purchased as part o emergency o-

take and over 5.7 million animals were reached by health

interventions.

The importance o markets and mobility

Without exception, all interviewed pastoralists consider

mobility and access to natural resources as the most potentmechanisms or coping with drought. Ironically, mobility is

also the activity that is increasingly impeded, with conficts

over access to land and water remaining unresolved. Inter-

ventions that acilitate maintenance o migratory movement

and that allow access to unused grazing areas remain the

most cost-eective ways to mitigate livestock losses during

droughts.

Markets are also important or mitigating the impacts o 

droughts. Participants o a one-day workshop on destocking

in Marsabit District said that a successul commercial de-

stocking would be next to impossible without a unctioning

dynamic livestock trade during ‘normal’ times. ‘Emergency’

commercial de-stocking, they said, should not be neces-

sary because a unctional commercial livestock trade sector

should be capable to up-scale its activity i a drought-relat-ed surplus o stock appears.

Drought responses are alling behind

The drought responses in 2008–2009 appeared to be more

eective and timely than those in previus years. Yet the

increased eectiveness o these responses is not keeping

up with a decline in livestock assets and coping capacity

among many pastoral households. Furthermore, poor gover-

nance and mismanagement o unds plague eorts to move

rom relie to longer term development interventions.

Involvement o local communities

Local communities were not involved in the design and

implementation o interventions to help them cope with

drought, with exception o one community in Laikipia,

where consultation was restricted to livestock o-take. Yet,

the local communities were clear about what they thought

they should do to increase their resilience to drought. A

Kajiado Naserian community that wanted to reduce its

reliance on ood relie considered its community-driven

goat project more eective than any relie program. A com-

munity in Merti, Isiolo, preerred a viable livestock market

to government-unded livestock o-take projects and saw

investments in pasture management as one way to solve

eed shortages during droughts.

Lessons learned

The good news—An increased presence o non-govern-mental organizations in drought-prone areas substantially

improved the speed o inormation and response, allow-

ing or better and locally embedded management o the

drought cycle. This, in combination with improved coordi-

nation and collaboration between agencies, enhanced o 

both the quality and timeliness o responses to droughts. A

careully chosen bundle o appropriate preparedness activi-

ties remains the most cost-eective approach to reduce the

impacts o shocks. Activities such as those implemented by

ECHO (the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid de-

partment) and ELMT (Enhanced Livelihoods in the Mandera

Triangle) are beginning to show marked impacts.

The bad news—But this good news is largely negated by

other actors, such as reduced line ministry capacity, ad-

ministrative and institutional changes such as the creationo new districts, and conficts. Moreover, whereas rainall

levels. This drought management system includes policies

and strategies, an early warning system, a contingency plan

and an overall drought coordination and response struc-

ture. The main stakeholders involved, in addition to the

Government o Kenya and its line ministries, are various

development partners and non-governmental organizations

(NGOs).

To date, the Kenyan drought management system has been

subject to ad-hoc review and improvement. The most ar-

reaching changes to it since its inception are now under

way, including major institutional changes through the cre-

ation o a Drought Management Authority and a National

Drought Contingency Fund.

 The EU study on drought interventions

Late in 2009, at the end o the 2008–2009 drought, the

Delegation o the European Union to Kenya commissioned

ILRI to undertake a review o the NGO and government

responses to the drought. The purpose o the review was

to help Kenya make its drought management system more

eective, recommending more appropriate, eective and

timely livestock-based interventions.

The report rst characterizes (Chapter 3) the two-year

drought and assesses the severity o its impacts. Chapter

4 assesses the drought responses in six arid and semi-arid

districts o Kenya (Kajiado, Isiolo, Samburu, Laikipia, Tur-kana and Marsabit), with eedback on 474 livestock-based

interventions rom a variety o stakeholders at district and

national levels. Chapter 5 provides a checklist or drought-

response scenarios; Chapter 6, guidelines or monitoring

and evaluating responses to drought; and Chapter 7, a plan

or commercial destocking in one o the districts. Chapter

8 summarizes climate change orecasts or Kenya and as-

sesses the need or incorporating climate change adapta-

tion into Kenyan drought management strategies. Chapter 9

discusses the implications o the ndings and makes recom-

mendations. The nal chapter distills lessons learned and

reviews whether recommendations made by an evaluation

o the response to the 2000–20 01 drought in Kenya have

been implemented.