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 sub- divided; 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 ( 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 ,000 hectares. Land speculation. Population of Kajiado increased 74% between  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 one- half 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 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).