Research

INTRODUCTION

Socioeconomic importance of pastoralism

Pastoralism is a livestock production strategy of extensive grazing in arid and semi-arid regions, traditionally associated with a nomadic lifestyle (Blench 2001). In the 40-50% of the world’s drylands that are not amenable to conventional farming, pastoralism is one of the most viable livelihood alternatives (McGahey et al. 2014, Malabo Montpellier Panel 2020). Globally, it is estimated that over 180 million pastoralists raise nearly one billion head of camel, cattle, and smaller livestock (FAO 2016, Krätli et al. 2022) and produce approximately 10% of the world’s meat (Jenet et al. 2016). In arid and semi-arid regions of the world, pastoralists make even greater contributions to the local food system. For instance, in East and West Africa, it is estimated that pastoral and agropastoral systems produce over 30% of total milk and over 50% of total meat (Guthiga et al. 2017), and that pastoralist activities contribute 5–40% of total gross domestic product (GDP) and upwards of 40–60% of agricultural GDP (De Haan et al. 2016, Guthiga et al. 2017, Krätli et al. 2022).

Climate challenges

Despite the significant contributions pastoralists make to food security and agriculture globally, most pastoralists live below the poverty line and are challenged by numerous climate-related constraints (Herrero et al. 2014, De Haan et al. 2016, Jenet et al. 2016). In northern Kenya, worsening drought, natural resource depletion, and environmental degradation have resulted in numerous challenges for pastoralists (Government of the Republic of Kenya 2016b, Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries 2017). Although pastoralists have historically managed these harsh conditions through resource management and migration (Jenet et al. 2016, Krätli et al. 2022), the continued and worsening resource constraints that emerge from these environmental conditions limit pastoralists’ access to food, pasture, and water. Limited access to these essential resources makes it difficult for pastoralists to sustain their livelihoods (Ripkey et al. 2021) and contributes to conflict and destabilization in the region (Lind et al. 2016, Little 2016). As a reaction to worsening environmental conditions, many pastoralists globally are adapting and diversifying their livelihoods (Herrero et al. 2016a).

However, not all pastoralists are able to adapt and/or diversify their livelihoods. Pastoralists’ adaptation and diversification strategies are often dependent on the resources they have access to. Some pastoralists are able to maintain their herds through adaptive diversification strategies as they have access to expanding livestock trade, marketing, and commercialization opportunities which permit them to continue practicing pastoralism in the context of changing environmental conditions (Lind et al. 2016). Other pastoralists sedentarize (i.e., are no longer nomadic) by incorporating farm and off-farm livelihood alternatives to manage climate-related shocks and stresses, avoid poverty, and cover household expenses (Radeny et al. 2007, Lind et al. 2016, Ripkey et al. 2021). However, both of these livelihood alternatives require additional training, education and/or access to capital for start-up costs, making them inaccessible to many resource-poor pastoralists (Dorward 2009, Lind et al. 2016). For those pastoralists who have limited access to resources, they often are unable to adapt their livelihoods, or they diversify to maladaptive and unsustainable livelihoods (e.g., charcoal burning; Little et al. 2014, Bushby and Stites 2016, Little 2016, Mahmoud 2016).

Policy gaps

The impact of worsening climate realities on pastoralist livelihoods raises questions about the role of pastoralism in sustainable development and leads many governments and international institutions to ask: “What is the future of pastoralism?” There is a need to raise awareness about challenges faced by pastoralists and to identify climate-resilient strategies and priorities that ensure that all pastoralists are resilient to climate-related risks and consequences. Globally, there is momentum to understand the shared experiences of pastoralists around the world, as is demonstrated by United Nations General Assembly declaration of 2026 as the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (UN General Assembly 2022, IYRP 2024). Identifying policy priorities that can support pastoralist communities and sustainable management of rangeland resources by pastoralists is needed.

At present, many countries do not prioritize policies, systems, and safety nets that support resilience of pastoralist communities (African Union 2018, Malabo Montpellier Panel 2020). For instance, in Kenya, there are several policies that are intended to specifically support pastoralists, yet they are poorly coordinated and often fail to meet pastoralists’ needs (Jenet et al. 2016, Scoones 2023). Kenya has attempted to increase representation of herders through pastoralist parliamentary groups, but representatives are often disconnected from pastoralists in practice (Jenet et al. 2016). Although the Kenyan government is on track for establishing agricultural development policies and for some commitments related to agricultural investments (e.g., enhancing access to finance), the government is not on track for having policies that ensure resilience to climate-related risks nor is it on track for investments in resilience building (African Union 2018). Furthermore, it is also unclear how and whether policies that do exist for governance and land management are operating at the county-level (Government of the Republic of Kenya 2010a, Government of the Republic of Kenya 2016a), as macro-level policies targeting pastoralists often fail when not contextualized to local experiences (Roe 2020).

Many policies to support pastoralist communities have failed because they do not center pastoralists’ perspectives and experiences. In Kenya, historical colonial and post-colonial policies related to privatization of land, sedentarization, intensification, taxation, and economic integration favored more urban and agricultural stakeholders (Mkutu 2001, Galaty 2021) and impeded pastoralist communities’ ability to practice traditional nomadic practices (Waller 2012, Nori 2022, Oricho 2024). These policies aimed to support pastoralists’ through progress and development in the “process of civilization” rather than approaching issues “from the margins” (i.e., from the pastoralists’ perspective; Catley et al. 2013:22, Scoones 2023). More recent Kenyan national policy (2012) has aimed to recognize pastoralism, improve pastoralists’ access to resources, and to decentralize power to the local level to better represent the interests and needs of pastoralist communities (Nori 2022). However, over the past decade, limited political commitment, weak enforcement mechanisms, and persistent bias toward sedentarized stakeholders have resulted in poor implementation of such policies (Nori 2022). By shifting to understand issues faced by pastoralists from their perspectives, it provides an opportunity to identify opportunities that would allow pastoralists to manage the issues they are faced with more effectively.

Study rationale and objectives

Working with pastoralist communities and ensuring their participation is necessary for understanding outstanding challenges and identifying opportunities to support pastoralists. However, the integration of pastoralists with external institutions is often not done and, as has been demonstrated in Kenya, there are can be competing and complex tensions between pastoralists communities and development agendas (Sharamo 2014). This study contributes to the question about the future of pastoralism by highlighting the constraints and perspectives of pastoralist communities from pastoralists’ point of view and documents how they are experiencing their “new” climate realities. Studies that incorporate community perspectives, such as this study, are critical if governments are to design better interventions and policies that allow for adaptation in a timely, community-driven way. Local pastoralists are most aware of their community systems, including what works and what does not, and their local knowledge and socio-cultural values are critical in determining how to leverage and adapt different strategies to be relevant and impactful in their communities (Wang et al. 2022, Nori and Scoones 2023).

The overall goal of the proposed research is to understand the challenges pastoralists face and the resources and conditions they need to secure climate-resilient livelihoods from their perspective (i.e., based on how they see the world and what they experience). Specifically, this study used photo elicitation and semi-structured interviews to (1) identify the constraints, conflicts, and trade-offs experienced by pastoralist communities, and (2) identify relevant climate-resilient opportunities and considerations in policy formulation that can help to effectively reach all pastoralist communities such that those who are most marginalized are not left behind.

METHODS

Study design

The research was conducted in a sequential study design. As we were interested in understanding the experiences of pastoralists from their perspective, we first used participatory photo elicitation to give participants the opportunity to literally share their perspectives about pastoralism through photographs. Photographs serve as a “point of departure” in understanding participants’ perceptions as they can help participants reflect on topics in new ways that they might not have considered or articulated before and which might have “remained dormant” in normal interviews alone (Clark-Ibáñez 2004:1513, Bignante 2010:13). The photo elicitation methods were subsequently followed by semi-structured interviews to triangulate findings and gain more in-depth information about key challenges and opportunities that emerged from the photo elicitation interviews. Both methods were selected to center the narratives and lived experiences of pastoralists and to capture in-depth information about the constraints and trade-offs pastoralists faced, unintended consequences they observed, and relevant opportunities they believed could better support their communities.

Ethical approval for the project was granted by the Ethics and Scientific Review Committee of AMREF Health Africa in Nairobi, Kenya and by the Institutional Review Board at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Informed consent was obtained from all study participants prior to conducting the research, including consent for permission to share photographs taken during the photo elicitation project. All participants received a basket of local goods after the completion of the interview.

Study context

The study was conducted in Isiolo County, Kenya. Isiolo covers approximately 25,700 square kilometers with 95% of the land classified as arid or semi-arid (Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries 2017). Over 60% of the population lives below the poverty line (Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis 2016). Additionally, over 80% of inhabitants rely on livestock to support their livelihoods (Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries 2017), although drought in recent years has contributed to crop and livestock loss, natural resource depletion and degradation, income loss, famine, and malnutrition (Government of the Republic of Kenya 2016b, Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries 2017). Changes in land use related to development and conservation tourism, and increasing population size have resulted in restricted livestock movement and degradation of natural resources in Isiolo (Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries 2017). These changes have placed stress on pastoralist livelihoods in the region.

The population of Isiolo includes the Borana, Turkana, Samburu, Somali, Meru, and other ethnic communities (County Government of Isiolo 2012, Menkhaus 2015). The Borana are the largest and most politically powerful community in Isiolo (Boye and Kaarhus 2011, Menkhaus 2015). Other ethnic groups, including the Turkana, have less political representation. In addition to political power, the Borana also have greater control over land and water access points. Ethnic conflict has a long history in Isiolo (particularly between the Borana, Turkana, and Samburu ethnic groups; County Government of Isiolo 2012), and ethnic groups not part of the Borana majority (e.g., the Turkana) often perceive greater levels of marginalization due to differing approaches to conflict management, higher levels of poverty, and underdevelopment in their communities (Boye and Kaarhus 2011, Menkhaus 2015).

Study population and sampling

The study team purposively sampled ethnic Borana and Turkana pastoralists over 18 years of age. We selected from these ethnic groups to capture experiences of pastoralists that were part of the majority (i.e., Borana participants) as well as from those who were historically politically marginalized (i.e., Turkana participants) to determine the similarities and differences between these groups in experienced and/or perceived constraints, conflicts, trade-offs, and opportunities.

Participants were recruited from six communities in Isiolo County, capturing a range of perspectives from Borana and Turkana pastoralists in rural, periurban, and urban contexts. Given their important role as gatekeepers in these communities, community leaders and elders were identified by SWACEDA (the study team’s local partner organization in Isiolo Town) to support with recruitment. Community leaders and elders were invited to attend a gathering to discuss the research project objectives and to garner buy-in for the project and were then asked to identify 5–10 individuals from each community who would be well-placed to speak to the project’s objectives. The study team subsequently invited these individuals to participate in the project.

We anticipated needing 50–60 participants for the photo elicitation project (25–30 participants from each ethnic group) and ultimately recruited 57 participants for the photo elicitation project (27 Borana participants and 30 Turkana participants). For the semi-structured interviews, the study team determined sample size estimates based on expected thematic prevalence and saturation in salience to capture the most important ideas rather than finding the point of complete thematic saturation in the interviews (Fugard and Potts 2015, Weller et al. 2018). We anticipated needing 30–40 participants for the semi-structured interviews (15–20 participants from each ethnic group) and ultimately recruited 38 participants (18 Borana participants and 20 Turkana participants). Of these 38 participants, the study team recruited 19 participants from the photo elicitation project based on participants’ expressed interest in participating and identified an additional 19 new participants through snowball sampling to ensure a diversity of perspectives across the data collection methodologies.

Data collection

To document the experiences of pastoralists, the study team used photo elicitation techniques from March to April 2017. Photo elicitation is an ethnographic technique that uses visual aids to elicit participants’ social and personal meanings of a specific context (Wang and Burris 1997, Tolley et al. 2016). Participants attended a 60-minute group orientation session facilitated by a trained local field team in Boran or Turkana language. Participants were asked to take pictures of “the story of pastoralism” and to consider the benefits experienced and challenges faced by their communities. The instructions were open-ended to preserve participants’ freedom to determine the number, content, and focus of the photographs in relation to the study goals. Participants were provided with digital cameras and trained in basic techniques and ethical considerations in photography. Participants took their photographs during the course of two weeks, after which they each participated in a 30-minute individual interview with data collectors from the local field team to review the photographs. In the interview, the participants provided demographic information, selected the photograph or set of photographs that was/were most salient to them and that they wanted to discuss as part of the project, and described (i) the content of the photograph, (ii) its meaning, (iii) its relation to community life, (iv) the causes of the described situation, and (v) related future opportunities (Appendix 1). The data collectors also asked participants to provide a title and caption for their selected photograph(s). The data collectors took notes to document the interview.

To further describe challenges faced by pastoralists and possible opportunities, the trained data collectors conducted individual semi-structured interviews with participants from May to August 2017 in Boran or Turkana language. The interview guide was designed to complement the photo elicitation project; the interviews expanded on key findings from the photo elicitation project and further documented the experiences of pastoralists including questions about changes over time and across generations, challenges and opportunities related to the pastoralist livelihood, and adaptation and diversification strategies (Appendix 2). Sociodemographic information was collected at the beginning of each interview. Interviews lasted 30–60 minutes and were audio recorded.

Data analysis

All interview notes and recordings were translated and transcribed into English by the data collectors, and the transcriptions were reviewed for fidelity by the local Kenyan field team. A preliminary codebook was developed deductively using issues that the study team was familiar with from the literature; this served as an initial coding scheme to help organize the data around existing knowledge and our research questions. As we reviewed the transcripts and new ideas and/or subcodes emerged, we inductively added additional codes to the codebook using issues that were identified from the interviews. The codebook included 23 descriptive and pattern codes (Saldaña 2013). Line-by-line coding of the transcripts was completed using NVivo version 11.4.3 (QSR 2017). The team rereviewed the transcripts as new concepts emerged in an iterative process. Each interview was coded by two members of the study team and any coding uncertainties/discrepancies were discussed during bi-weekly team meetings. The codes were summarized into key themes using thematic analysis (i.e., by examining patterns among the codes and reviewing them for accurate representation of the data). Themes were discussed with the local field team in Kenya, including the trained data collectors. Photographs that participants selected as part of the photo elicitation project and that reflected the key themes were selected by the study team as examples.

RESULTS

Participant characteristics

The study team recruited a total of 76 participants (Table 1). Of those participants, 19 participated in both the photo elicitation project and semi-structured interviews, 38 in the photo elicitation project only, and 19 in the semi-structured interviews only. Between the ethnic groups, there were no major differences between the Borana and Turkana participants in terms of gender, area of residence, marital status, household size, level of education, and livestock holdings. However, more Turkana participants self-assessed their economic status as poor or very poor compared to the Borana participants (70% versus 22.9%).

Climate-related resource shortages pose challenges for pastoralists

Adaptive practices that account for resource constraints are central to traditional pastoralist practice (e.g., nomadic nature of moving herds to where resources are, destocking, etc.), including in the context of harsh environmental conditions. However, current environmental conditions were viewed as worse compared to participants’ prior lived experiences and those of prior generations, which resulted in more limited access to and availability of key resources.

Participants cited resource shortages of water and pasture as critical challenges to sustaining pastoralist livelihoods. As one participant explained,

Pastoralism has no future because grazing land has become scarce and there is severe drought. [A] lack of pasture and water has also made pastoralism difficult. In the future, one will be forced to keep [only] one or two cows or goats for milking because of the many challenges facing pastoralism. Turkana, female, 23y

Scarcity of these critical resources resulted in “struggle and scramble” (Turkana, female, 45y). Lack of water was of particular concern. Lack of water was often attributed to drought and unreliable rainfall (e.g., Figs. 1a–b). Participants described that water points were often shared between humans and animals for drinking as well as other activities (e.g., washing, bathing, irrigation, etc.). This raised concerns about sanitation and its impacts on human and animal health (e.g., Figs. 1c–d), as well as conflict between neighboring communities (e.g., Fig. 1e).

Conflict was central to participants’ descriptions about lack of resources. As one participant shared, “When your side has no pasture and water, and mine has [pasture and water], and you decide to move to my side, and I refuse to let you, that is how conflicts arise, so basically food [pasture], water and livestock are the root causes of the conflict” (Borana, female, 32y). Participants described conflict with farmers and landowners, the stealing and killing of livestock by individuals from other communities, as well as the killing of community members during livestock raids. One participant described how limited resources (land, pasture, water) resulted in these conflicts:

Most of the land have been taken up by settlement and farming, pastoralists are faced with hard task grazing their livestock because they are caught up in the middle of human settlement and farms, if you graze in the farms these will lead to conflict. There is also insecurity since there are frequent raids from the neighboring community due to droughts and famine. Herding of livestock possesses risks like loss of life due to raids; one can easily be killed while herding. Borana, female, 48y

One participant explained that it was a norm for pastoral communities to engage in conflicts as an initiation into adulthood and to gain respect in the community. However, he explained that the lack of resources exacerbated conflict. He stated, “These conflicts therefore might not entirely be resource based though limited resources play a major role in escalating them” (Turkana, male, 71y).

The lack of resources was attributed to changes in climate, which was cited as a major challenge to pastoralist livelihoods. As one participant shared, “...due to climate change, there is not enough pasture and there is [drought] and both people and animals are dying of hunger and starvation” (Borana, male, 25y). These changes in climate directly impacted livelihoods. As one participant noted, “Changes in climate have become harsh on pastoralists such that there is no option but to shift to something else” (Turkana, female, 31y). Among participants who diversified their livelihoods, such as practicing pastoralism alongside agriculture, environmental conditions also posed major constraints. As one participant who practiced agriculture stated, “due to the weather conditions, the land is dry and so the fields are of no use to us as they just lay barren” (Borana, male, 75y).

Pastoralists have historically dealt with resource constraints and challenging environmental conditions; however, these resource constraints were perceived as worsened in the present day compared to in the past. As participants shared,

A lot has changed since our parents’ time. During our parents’ time, there was no shortage of rain like there is now and there was [an] abundance of grass and grazing pasture and there was a lot of milk and meat, and droughts and famines came around less frequently than now. But now due to the climate change there isn’t enough pasture and there is a lot of drought, and both people and animals are dying of hunger and starvation. Borana, male, 25y

During the days of my parents and grandparents, they had livestock in plenty. Rain was abundant. But now look! The last time we saw rain was the end of last year. They [my parents and grandparents] were not burning charcoal, but they were comfortable. Food was in plenty because they had rain and pasture in plenty. Today, everything is scarce. Land is shrinking. This has forced people to look for alternatives... The changes are a result of change in climate. Turkana, female, 38y

In comparison to the past, participants cited that the lack of access to critical natural resources was pronounced, and they described needing to employ alternative strategies (e.g., charcoal burning) that prior generations did not.

Pastoralist communities are marginalized and lack representation

Participants described that they felt that their communities were not viewed as important, and as a result, not prioritized by policymakers and other leaders. They felt that policymakers and other leaders did not provide focused efforts and resources to pastoralists in ways that represented what pastoralists needed to sustain and/or adapt their livelihoods.

For example, participants described poor maintenance of infrastructure in the region. They explained that many water points were not well-maintained by responsible parties and were often neglected. They believed this to be related to their identity as pastoralists; they viewed that pastoralists were marginalized by politicians and other leaders. As one participant explained,

It is sad to say that there is no program or service to support us or the community in general. Pastoralists in general face the same challenges. They are marginalized since Kenya gained independence. We do not feel recognized as Kenyans, that’s why we do not receive the same treatment as other Kenyans. Water is a necessity here. We need water for human and animal consumption. If boreholes were drilled here, some of the major conflicts like clashes at water points will reduce. Turkana, male, 40y

Limited and unmanaged infrastructure was frequently mentioned, including multiple examples of infrastructure that were incomplete and/or abandoned (e.g., Fig. 1f).

Most participants felt that their elected leaders did not advocate for their needs. Participants mentioned elected leaders at the county and national level government, including the Governor, Members of Parliament, and Members of the County Assembly. They expected their leaders “to represent [them] in advocating for [better or more services]” (Borana, female, 65y) and “to fight for [their] needs and represent [them] in the government” (Turkana, male, 71y), but explained that they “have done nothing so far” (Borana, female, 65y), “are not aware of their roles to the community” (Turkana, male, 71y), and “have no interest in highlighting our problems” (Turkana, female, 31y). Although participants were hopeful that decision-makers, including government officials, would provide opportunities and services that aligned with their needs (e.g., Fig. 1g), most realized that did not occur in practice. As one participant shared,

[Leaders] should be responsive but unfortunately after election there is nothing they are doing... They just disappear after election and that’s how they have been doing year after year. They just lie to us during campaigns and after getting in we never see them. And this has become our way of life with them, and we are used to it... We don’t know what is to be done as we are not educated and even when the next election comes, they will just lie to us and we will vote them in. Borana, female, 65y

Participants described their elected leaders as “not people-minded” and as people who did not “take care of the weak in society” (Borana, female, 32y) and who “stay[ed] in urban cities without coming to the people” (Turkana, male, 40y).

All participants (both Borana and Turkana) described poor representation of pastoralist communities, generally. However, compared to their Borana counterparts, the Turkana pastoralists often described feeling more marginalized in comparison to other ethnic groups. They explained that lack of ethnic representation resulted in disparate receipt of programs and services. As one participant explained, “Negative ethnicity is impeding service delivery. If you do not come from the ethnic background of a leader in power, you are likely not to get services” (Turkana, female, 45y).

Pastoralists also described numerous projects in their communities that did not necessarily align with their communities’ needs, suggesting a disconnect between decision-makers’ understanding of needs and pastoralists’ actual needs. As one participant explained,

Programs and services [from government and NGOs] are brought to diversify livelihoods. Some of the services and programs relate to our family’s needs, especially provision of dairy goats. Others do not. Sometimes, we need water for farming, but we get support for seedlings. What do you need seedlings for if there is no water? We need programs and services that are reliable. In the year 1997, the development office supported restocking of cattle. Even today the beneficiaries own those cattle and have those breeds. Borana, male, 42y

Understanding what pastoralist communities need (and want) involves including them in discussions and decision-making processes; when top-down decisions are made by international agencies and the government without inclusion of pastoralists, employed strategies and policies are less likely to be effective.

Current political and social conditions make it difficult to employ traditional strategies

Compared to prior generations, participants explained that it was challenging to employ traditional adaptation strategies, including transhumance. They cited numerous political and social conditions such as land policies and conflict management strategies that had shifted from the past and which made it challenging to adapt effectively in the present day.

Land-related constraints inhibited pastoralists ability to engage in traditional grazing strategies. Participants explained that land was communally owned in the past, but that currently “land is shrinking” (Turkana, female, 32y) as many areas have been taken up for human settlement, farming and conservation. Participants explained that “enclosure of land hinder[ed] free movement of livestock” (Borana, male, 45y), resulting in lack of land and pasture for pastoralists’ animal and conflicts. As one participant shared, “pastoralists are faced with [the] hard task [of] grazing their livestock because they are caught up in the middle of human settlement and farms; if you graze on the farms this will lead to conflict” (Borana, female, 48y).

One participant highlighted that land policies and ownership conflicted with entitlements noted in the Kenyan constitution that permitted pastoralists to move and graze (Government of the Republic of Kenya 2010b, Schrepfer and Caterina 2014).

Dissolution of traditional practices to manage conflict, including conflicts stemming from resource constraints, had also changed. Participants explained that “the main reason of conflict between communities is brought up by one community trying to forcefully enter without seeking permission from proper channels” (Borana, female, 65y) or “without consulting our communities” (Borana, male, 37y). Although traditional approaches to dealing with conflict were mentioned (e.g., peace meetings with elders), participants described them as not effective. This was predominantly attributed to different approaches taken by youth: “youth do not adhere to elders’ decisions and do not respect them like it used to be in the old days when the word of the elders was law” (Borana, female, 32y). As one participant explained,

The younger generation of pastoralist are illiterate [and] mostly [engage] in activities like raiding. They do not understand the rules and regulations governing all citizens of a country... The challenges faced [by] this young generation are drought, and most of the times they move from one place to another in search of pasture and water. In the process of moving, they cause conflicts with other communities which results [in] loss of livestock, injuries and loss of life... Elders’ peace meetings are not very effective; personally, I would suggest a young generations peace meeting with politicians because it’s the youth who are the ones causing conflicts, and political leaders too. The youth are the ones that usually fight. Turkana, male, 50y

This suggests that challenges experienced by younger generations of pastoralists may need to rely on different strategies to conflict management.

The shift in role of elders and chiefs in pastoralist communities had implications beyond conflict management (or lack thereof). Some pastoralists reported that village elders and chiefs were known to distribute services “according to the proportion of one’s needs... [where] the vulnerable ones are considered first and the rest considered depending on the magnitude of their problem” (Borana, female, 34y). However, a subset of participants shared that relationships with their social networks were changing in present day. As one participant noted, “Nobody helps each other. Communities are not as closely knit as they used to be in the old days. So, when the day breaks, people go on with their day-to-day activities. They don’t care about others” (Borana, female, 32y). These shifting social dynamics contrasted from prior dynamics where pastoralists relied on their community networks during times of need.

Another major difference cited by participants related to increased living expenses. Participants explained that milk and meat from livestock and hunting was no longer a norm, as “now meat and milk are for sale. The types of food which people eat have also changed ... The life of today depends on money” (Borana, female, 28y). Participants described that “today the cost of living [was] very high [compared to] the past” (Borana, male, 45y). Participants viewed these increasing expenses as difficult to maintain with traditional pastoralist livelihoods. As participants shared:

In the past there [was] no greed, we used to feed on meat, milk and spent less on buying food. Currently you see things that you can’t afford to buy, you develop greed that you never had before... Some people sleep on a bed, in the past there were no beds; some will feed on Chapatis. You see this and would wish to have these things even though you can’t afford [them]... In the past someone owning number of livestock that I own currently is well off and the same number of livestock could sustain a livelihood. Currently, such number of livestock cannot sustain one’s needs; things have become expensive. Borana, male, 66y

Present life is hard, it is difficult to earn a living, the price of basic commodities are high-Kshs 1000 buys little; life is difficult. In the past things were good, prices of things were affordable, there were livestock to sell and slaughter for consumption. If food gets inadequate, you may slaughter goats and eat. The current life is difficult, earning a living is difficult. Borana, female, 34y

Many participants described increased costs of living, including for food, education, and housing. The traditional pastoralist livelihood was described as “not able to cater for [these] needs” (Turkana, male, 24y) and “cumbersome compared [to] the past one of our parents as the price of everything has gone up” (Borana, male, 25y).

Pastoralists are moving away from traditional pastoral livelihoods

Although elements of pastoralist culture continued to be important to all participants, many felt forced to transition away from traditional pastoralist practices, including transhumance and livestock keeping. For some pastoralists, what they could transition to was limited based on their social and economic conditions.

Livestock keeping was still culturally significant to many participants, particularly in terms of household finances. Participants explained that “pastoralism is like my bank” (Borana, male, 37y) and that livestock “help in every situation of life... even if you have everything else, without animals you are regarded as useless person in the community” (Turkana, female, 32y). Participants explained that livestock “help to provide for emergency expenses; it is better to invest in livestock than holding funds in the bank idle” (Borana, male, 42y). A few participants described selling milk and other by-products from their livestock, but many described selling their livestock to buy food, clothes and other commodities (e.g., sugar, flour) and to pay for school fees and health and medical expenses, particularly when there were no other “casual labor jobs available” (Turkana, female, 23y).

However, despite the high cultural relevance of livestock, many pastoralists described shifting away from traditional pastoralist livelihoods given the challenges noted in the subsections above. Some pastoralists shifted their livelihoods completely (e.g., going into business, moving to other towns and not retaining livestock), whereas others diversified, maintaining some livestock alongside other sources of income. They explained:

Not far from now, pastoralism will phase out. This is the painful truth. I can see it coming. The fierce clashes, the persisting drought, the shrinking land, formal education and western culture are some of the factors likely to finish pastoralism. Turkana, male, 40y

The future for pastoralists is dark unless something is done. Given the trend of events, pastoralism has no future. I see people switching to other things. This is because land is becoming scarce, lack of pasture and water is also an impediment and simply put, everything is working against the pastoralist. People have started taking children to school and looking for employment in towns. This shift in the long run will definitely finish pastoralism. Pastoralism in the modern world, although we are afraid to say, has been overtaken by events. Unless I find something else, pastoralism is challenging. Turkana, male, 71y

Participants viewed pastoralism as more unpredictable compared to other livelihoods or formal education “that can never be removed from your head, unlike pastoralism, that can be ended in drought” (Turkana, male, 54y). As one participant shared, “because of the insecurity situation nobody wants to accumulate animals only to be stolen by the bandits... [or to have them] all die because of drought” (Borana, female, 50y). For some participants, this volatility “rendered livestock valueless” (Turkana, male, 54y), and resulted in “livestock hav[ing] no meaning nowadays” (Turkana, male, 50y).

Education was viewed as driving the cultural shifts away from pastoralism. As one participant stated, “Formal education is another factor that will wipe out pastoralism” (Turkana, female, 31y). Participants explained, “This younger generation, most of them are going to school and are not interested in looking after animals. Thus, in the future, there will be no pastoralism” (Turkana, female, 57y) and “you hardly find our children who will be willing to herd; they all want to go to school or do some other manual work to earn a living other than herding” (Borana, male, 66y). They explained that younger generations who were educated “do not know much about livestock keeping. To them, the wild animals and domestic ones may be the same thing, because they may not even be able to tell the difference between the two” (Borana, female, 65y) and that “it may even be hard for some to tell the difference between a goat and a sheep” (Borana, male, 75y).

Formal education was viewed positively for pastoralist communities when it secured good jobs or when those who were schooled gave back to the community, supported their families financially, transformed living standards of the community, and/or encouraged peaceful solutions to issues (e.g., Fig. 1h). Educated children secured good jobs that were more climate-resilient, like becoming teachers, businesspeople, etc. However, not all youth and pastoralists were able to benefit from formal education. As one participant shared,

The one who is lucky to be educated will be okay, but those who are not educated will always have problems. Those who may not be educated will have to move around and look for manual work. It is said that some may even indulge in drugs and substance abuse. Borana, female, 65y

Children who did not progress well academically were encouraged to “help in livestock keeping, otherwise they might engage in illegal activities” (Turkana, male, 50y). A more sedentary lifestyle was viewed as having a “bad effect” as “when they [children of a family that stay in one place] grow up, they become less constructive and get indulged in social vices” (Turkana, male, 40y). Less education was also associated with less lucrative job alternatives that “disregard[ed] the dignity of a person” (Turkana, male, 54y), like casual labor and charcoal burning (e.g., Figs. 1i–j). Opportunities to own a business or advance in life were perceived as limited to individuals with capital and/or education and training.

Ensuring that there are opportunities for those who continue to practice pastoralism, including those who are unable to successfully pursue formal education, was important. This is particularly true given the continued value of pastoralists’ livestock in society. As described by participants,

The meat and milk from pastoralism is being used in cities by everyone. There is a lot to gain. Animal products such as meat and milk are essential to human health and development when consumed. Turkana, female, 30y

The government should ensure that our livestock have [a] good market. I haven’t said that livestock are of no value; the government has failed pastoralists, there are international markets which [the] government ought to encourage. Currently there is demand for cow and cattle meat internationally. [Through] introduction of group ranches and other modern grazing ways, pastoralist should embrace commercial pastoralism rather than keep[ing] livestock for prestige. Borana, male, 66y

Many participants described the need for interventions to support opportunities for “pastoralism [to] become better” (Turkana, female, 31y). Many of the interventions described were aspirational, but many reflected activities that were perceived as successful from past experiences (e.g., restocking of cattle, noted above, and genetic diversification noted in Fig. 1k). The participants identified the following policies and programs to support sustainable and adaptive pastoralist livelihoods (Table 2): sustainable intensification, resource management, market engagement and value addition, training in record-keeping and capital management, and livestock-sensitive diversification strategies (e.g., Fig. 1l). Many participants described these interventions in terms of how they impacted the quantity and quality of existing physical resources. However, most participants also emphasized the relevance of these interventions for fostering more supportive personal, social and environmental conditions that would enable pastoralists to leverage their physical resources and turn them into sustainable opportunities for maintaining their livelihoods.

DISCUSSION

Climate-related resource challenges and limited support have made it difficult for pastoralist communities to employ traditional mechanisms in dealing with environmental shocks and changes. As a result, many pastoralists are being forced out of traditional pastoralist livelihoods and/or are opting for alternative livelihoods. Supportive social, political, and economic conditions are needed to enhance pastoralist communities’ abilities to leverage resources they do have access to and to use those resources in a way that allows them to realize opportunities that are important to them. The participants of this study highlighted that creating these enabling conditions involved implementation of climate-resilient policies, including those that allow pastoralists to engage with pastoralist traditions, improved representation, and support for those who “leave” pastoralism, including youth and community members with limited access to resources and education.

The resource constraints experienced by pastoralists in this study (e.g., water, pasture, etc.) are well-documented in the literature (Smith et al. 2001, Barrett and Luseno 2004, Little et al. 2014, Jenet et al. 2016, Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries 2017, Jensen et al. 2018, Ripkey et al. 2021). Pastoralists have historically used nomadic patterns, shifts in herd composition, and their networks to address limited resources and survive under harsh environmental conditions (Scoones 2023). However, the findings from this study emphasized that current social, political and economic conditions made it difficult to employ these traditional practices. For instance, many participants highlighted how intergenerational social relations (which enabled sharing of resources and/or resolution of conflict in the past) were shifting and impacting pastoralist networks, and/or they described the need to destock or sell their livestock rather than migrate with them. This aligns with existing literature that suggests that many policies, and specifically those that restricted mobility, create conditions that force pastoralists to use “distressed coping mechanisms” (Jenet et al. 2016:57, Nori and Scoones 2023, Scoones 2023) and limit pastoralists’ abilities to adapt (Krätli et al. 2022). A focus on systems-level interventions to address the conditions and contexts that impede pastoralists’ abilities to leverage resources can better support pastoralists’ livelihoods (Little et al. 2014, Little and McPeak 2014).

The participants in this study highlighted multiple interventions that addressed concerns about resources and conditions, including those related to intensification, water and land use management, market engagement, and diversified employment opportunities. Many of the interventions and policies that were noted by participants in this study align with those recommended for sustainable development and sustainable livestock production (Herrero et al. 2011, Herrero et al. 2016b, Guthiga et al. 2017, Malabo Montpellier Panel 2020, Wang et al. 2022, Scoones 2023). More recent literature argues that some of the interventions that were proposed and described by this study’s participants (and prior literature) are counter to effectively supporting pastoralist communities. For instance, they attempt to control and restrict pastoralists’ movement (e.g., use of corridors rather than “land mosaics”) or focus on “uniform ideal animal[s]” through breeding programs rather than herd-level genetics and behaviors (Nori and Scoones 2023, Scoones 2023:69). However, the noted interventions and policies have shown success in some regions (Malabo Montpellier Panel 2020), despite numerous implementation challenges.

This study highlighted some of these implementation challenges. For example, historically, colonial and post-colonial policies emphasized agricultural development, ranching practices and privatization of land, and isolated pastoralists by disrupting their traditional movements within and across borders (Mkutu 2001, Catley et al. 2013). More recent Kenyan policies recognizing community land holding and management are intended to allow for recognition of land management practices aligned with pastoralist communities’ traditions (Government of the Republic of Kenya 2016a). However, in this study, participants did not discuss successful experiences with community land management and more often shared experiences of conflict with landowners and other pastoralist communities. This aligns with other studies in Kenya (Mkutu 2019, Hassan et al. 2022) that found limited knowledge about community land ownership and enforcement procedures, and that found that membership decisions about communally owned land often excluded access and increased risks for more marginalized pastoralists. Other implementation challenges noted in this study are also documented in the literature, including the tendency for targeting to urban settings (Ancey et al. 2020, Dupar and Lovell 2021), limited equipment or financial support for individuals from lower socioeconomic status (Shiferaw 2020), and failure to improve the welfare of those who are most marginalized, including women and youth (Guthiga et al. 2017, Weldegebriel and Kebede 2022). Intentional service delivery, skill development, integration, and investments are needed to ensure that those who are interested in traditional practices have the ability and tools to manage limited resources and poor conditions in the context of climate change.

Representation was an important concept discussed by this study’s participants, but they noted that pastoralists were often not included in the decision-making process. This resulted in perceived disparities for pastoralist communities as well as programs and resources that did not always align with their needs. Good governance and participatory planning are linked to resilience of pastoralists (Krätli et al. 2022); capacity building and empowerment efforts are critical for pastoralists to engage with decision-making processes that affect their communities, including as representatives themselves, in engagement with leaders and civil societies, and in implementation of existing policies (African Union 2013, Brownhill et al. 2016, McCollum et al. 2018, McCollum et al. 2019). Recent decentralization efforts in Kenya were intended to strengthen local community governance and accountability in policy decisions, including addressing concerns related to exclusion of marginalized groups and corruption (Government of the Republic of Kenya 2010a). However, the present study shows that pastoralists do not feel they are well-represented, and that concerns about exclusion continue to exist at the county-level. Furthermore, in the present study, despite the diversity of culture and political standing of the two ethnic groups (i.e., Borana and Turkana), pastoralists from both groups consistently perceived a lack of inclusion of pastoralists in political decision-making processes. Pastoralists of the present study also noted that more grassroots approaches to supporting one another in the community were becoming less common. This aligns with research highlighting that even though social relationships and networks were important for pastoralist communities, including differences by age, gender and ethnic groupings, larger social and political contexts were more critical to pastoralists’ abilities to respond to uncertainty (Scoones 2023).

Participants in this study also highlighted the need to consider the heterogeneity of what it means to be a pastoralist. The present study found that many pastoralists were adapting to different livelihoods but still trying to integrate elements of pastoralism into the practices they pursued (e.g., owning goats and smaller livestock, opening butcher shops, etc.). This aligns with recent descriptions of pastoralism as a “reliability profession” where pastoralists diversify their livelihoods (including herd composition) and employ other income-generating strategies when faced with uncertainties and variability, such as those brought on by changes in climate (Roe 2020:19). However, some of the participants in this study described feeling “forced” into other livelihoods that were not related to pastoralism. While supporting pastoralists who continue with traditional practices is important, it is also relevant to provide climate-resilient support to pastoralist community members who transition away from traditional practices, those who pursue education as well as those who are not successful with or did not have access to education. This latter point is particularly salient in the context of climate-resilience. Those who are most marginalized are often most negatively and severely impacted by changes in climate, and often have the fewest options since climate-related risks and shocks manifest through existing sensitivities (Ford 2012) and groups that are already marginalized face greater burdens (Little et al. 2001, Little and McPeak 2014). This makes these populations important targets for climate-resilient policies and programs.

Finally, many participants in this study described these livelihood shifts in the context of younger generations who were moving toward non-pastoral opportunities. Other studies in Kenya and the region also find that pastoral youth desired alternative livelihood opportunities, particularly given increasing climate-related challenges (Enns and Bersaglio 2016, Ancey et al. 2020, Weldegebriel and Kebede 2022). The present study emphasized that those who pursued education and secured other opportunities were viewed as successful, particularly when they gave back to their communities (e.g., financially, improved living standards, etc.). However, this study’s participants also highlighted critical challenges for those who did not receive formal education; they were not able to pursue goals of value to them, were often restricted to livelihoods that they did not aspire to due to lack of options (e.g., casual labor), and were perceived as more susceptible to “social vices” and “illegal activities” (including substance abuse and conflict). Other research affirms that impoverishment, dispossession, and exclusion may attract youth to partake in illegal activities and organizations (Nori and Scoones 2023). Studies with pastoralist youth in other settings find that many training activities miss the mark in meeting the diversity of youths’ aspirations and needs, particularly for youth from both rural and urban settings who have limited access to resources (Ancey et al. 2020, Weldegebriel and Kebede 2022). This suggests a need to provide climate-resilient opportunities that support a range of livelihood aspirations such to avoid exacerbating or perpetuating existing inequities and such that all pastoralists feel like they have a future.

This study is not without limitations. The recruitment of participants is reflective of the subset of participants who were interested in participating in the research and is not representative of all pastoralists in the region. It is also not representative of all age groups, including pastoralist youth, given the focus to recruit adults in the present study. More specific engagement with youth would be an area for future research given the study findings. Similarly, a more explicit engagement with other subpopulations within pastoralist communities (e.g., by gender, education level, etc.) would help to identify other dimensions of marginalization. The study also is limited in self-reported information (e.g., self-assessment of economic status, access to services), which might not be an accurate representation of true status/access; however, the capturing participants’ perspectives and experiences-even perceived experience-is relevant for the goals of the study. Although the study team did not systematically ask about every challenge faced by pastoralists, the findings represent content that arose during the interviews because study participants found that they were important to share. Consequently, the results are limited to the themes and experiences that emerged from the study sample and may underestimate the range and prevalence of those experiences across all study participants since they were not systematically elicited for each participant. Despite these limitations, the qualitative research, which captures the experiences and perspectives of pastoralist communities aligns with findings from other studies, as noted above. The study team also practiced reflexivity throughout the study through notes and team discussions to ensure that the presented findings reflected participants’ responses (rather than a reflection of the study team’s own beliefs and assumptions).

CONCLUSION

A focus on equity when considering climate-resilience, in terms of representation and agency, distribution of resources, establishment of interventions that address underlying structural conditions, and inclusion of the most marginalized, can improve the ability of all pastoralist stakeholders to participate and contribute to a range of sustainable livelihoods. Pastoralists are already well-equipped to navigate complex environments; climate-resilient policies and strategies can provide opportunities for pastoralists to thrive, and not at the expense of pastoral traditions and heritage. Policies that support those who are the most marginalized and that provide adaptation strategies and alternatives that allow pastoralist communities to retain their values and live their lives with dignity can support sustainable and climate-resilient food systems.

LITERATURE CITED

African Union. 2013. Policy framework for pastoralists in Africa: securing, protecting and improving the lives, livelihoods and rights of pastoralist communities. African Union, Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

African Union. 2018. Inaugural biennial review report of the African Union Commission on the implementation of the Malabo declaration on accelerated agricultural growth and transformation for shared prosperity and improved livelihoods. Assembly of the Union, African Union. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ancey, V., C. Rangé, S. Magnani, and C. Patat. 2020. Young pastoralists in towns and cities - summary report. Supporting the economic and social integration of young pastoralists-Chad and Burkina Faso. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Barrett, C. B., and W. K. Luseno. 2004. Decomposing producer price risk: a policy analysis tool with an application to northern Kenyan livestock markets. Food Policy 29(4):393-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.07.008

Bignante, E. 2010. The use of photo-elicitation in field research. EchoGéo 11. https://doi.org/10.4000/echogeo.11622

Blench, R. 2001. You can’t go home again: pastoralism in the new millennium. Pastoral Development Network, ODI. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Boye, S. R., and R. Kaarhus. 2011. Competing claims and contested boundaries: legitimating land rights in Isiolo district, Northern Kenya. Africa Spectrum 46(2):99-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/000203971104600204

Brownhill, L., T. Moturi, and G. M. Hickey 2016. Accountability and citizen participation in devolved agricultural policy-making: insights from Makueni County, Kenya. In L. Brownill, E. Njuguna, K. L. Bothi, B. Pelletier, L. Muhammad, and G. M. hickey, editors. Food security, gender and resilience: improving smallholder and subsistence farming. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315745855

Bushby, K., and E. Stites. 2016. Resilience and risk in pastoralist areas: recent trends in diversified and alternative livelihoods, Karamoja, Uganda. USAID, Washington, D.C., USA.

Catley, A., J. Lind, and I. Scoones 2013. Development at the margins: Pastoralism in the Horn of Africa. In A. Catley, J. Lind, and I. Scoones, editors. Pastoralism and development in Africa: dynamic changes at the margins. Routledge, Abingdon. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203105979

Clark-Ibáñez, M. 2004. Framing the social world with photo-elicitation interviews. American Behavioral Scientist 47(12):1507-1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764204266236

County Government of Isiolo. 2012. Isiolo County: county integrated development plan 2013-2017. Government of the Republic of Kenya, Nairobi.

De Haan, C., T. Robinson, G. Conchedda, P. Ericksen, M. Said, L. Robinson, F. Flintan, A. Shaw, S. Kifugo, A. Wane, I. Touré, A. Ickowicz, C. Corniaux, J. Barr, C. Martignac, A. Mude, R. Cervigni, M. L. Morris, A. Mottet, P. Gerber, S. Msangi, M. Lesnoff, F. Ham, E. Filliol, K. Nigussie, A. Paolantonio, and F. Alfani. 2016. Livestock production systems: seizing the opportunities for pastoralists and agro-pastoralists. In C. Raffaello and M. Michael, editors. Confronting drought in Africa’s drylands: opportunities for enhancing resilience. World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0817-3_ch5

Dorward, A. 2009. Integrating contested aspirations, processes and policy: development as hanging in, stepping up and stepping out. Development Policy Review 27(2):131-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2009.00439.x

Dupar, M., and E. Lovell. 2021. Resilient generation: supporting young people’s prospects for decent work in the drylands of East and West Africa. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.

Enns, C., and B. Bersaglio. 2016. Pastoralism in the time of oil: youth perspectives on the oil industry and the future of pastoralism in Turkana, Kenya. The Extractive Industries and Society 3(1):160-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.11.003

FAO. 2016. Guidelines for the enumeration of nomadic and semi-nomadic (transhumant) livestock. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Ford, J. D. 2012. Indigenous health and climate change. American Journal of Public Health 102(7):1260-1266. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300752

Fugard, A. J. B., and H. W. W. Potts. 2015. Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: a quantitative tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 18(6):669-684. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453

Galaty, J. G. 2021. Chapter 1: Modern mobility in East Africa: pastoral responses to rangeland fragmentation, enclosure and settlement. In E. C. Gabbart, F. Gebresenbet, J. G. Galaty, and G. Schlee, editors. Lands of the future: anthropological perspectives on pastoralism, land deals and tropes of modernity in Eastern Africa. Berghahn Books, Inc., New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781789209914-005

Government of the Republic of Kenya. 2010a. The Constitution of Kenya. Nairobi: Nairobi National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney General.

Government of the Republic of Kenya. 2010b. The Constitution of Kenya, article 39. Nairobi: Nairobi National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney General.

Government of the Republic of Kenya. 2016a. The Community Land Act. Special Issue: Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 148 (Acts No. 27). Nairobi: Republic of Kenya.

Government of the Republic of Kenya. 2016b. Isiolo County: 2015 Short Rains Food Security Assessment Report. Nairobi: Kenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSSG) and Isiolo County Steering Group (CSG).

Guthiga, P., J. Karugia, S. Massawe, M. Ogada, L. Mugweru, S. Ongudi, M. Mbo’o-Tchouawou, and L. Mulei. 2017. Mapping livestock value chains in the IGAD region. CTA Discussion Paper. ILRI, Wageningen, Netherlands.

Hassan, R., I. Nathan, and K. Kanyinga. 2022. Will community rights secure pastoralists’ access to land? The Community Land Act in Kenya and its implications for Samburu pastoralists. The Journal of Peasant Studies 50(5):1735–1756. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2022.2119847

Herrero, M., J. Addison, C. Bedelian, E. Carabine, P. Havlík, B. Henderson, J. Van De Steeg, and P. K. Thornton. 2016a. Climate change and pastoralism: impacts, consequences and adaptation. Scientific & Technical Review 35(2):417-433. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.35.2.2533

Herrero, M., P. Havlik, J. Mcintire, A. Palazzo and H. Valin. 2014. African Livestock Futures: Realizing the Potential of Livestock for Food Security, Poverty Reduction and the Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa. Office of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Food Security and Nutrition and the United Nations System Influenza Coordination (UNSIC), Geneva, Switzerland.

Herrero, M., B. Henderson, P. Havlík, P. K. Thornton, R. T. Conant, P. Smith, S. Wirsenius, A. N. Hristov, P. Gerber, M. Gill, K. Butterbach-Bahl, H. Valin, T. Garnett, and E. Stehfest. 2016b. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nature Climate Change 6(5):452-461. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2925

Herrero, M., S. Macmillan, N. Johnson, P. Ericksen, A. Duncan, D. Grace, and P. K. Thornton 2011. Improving food production from livestock: innovations that nourish the planet. State of the World 2011. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.

IYRP. 2024. International Year of Rangeland and Pastoralists (IYRP) 2026. https://iyrp.info

Jenet, A., N. Buono, S. Di Lello, M. Gomarasca, C. Heine, S. Mason, M. Nori, R. Saavedra, and K. Van Troos. 2016. The path to greener pastures. Pastoralism, the backbone of the world’s drylands. Vétérinaires Sans Frontières International (VSF-International), Brussels, Belgium. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3888381

Jensen, N. D., A. G. Mude, and C. B. Barrett. 2018. How basis risk and spatiotemporal adverse selection influence demand for index insurance: Evidence from northern Kenya. Food Policy 74:172-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.01.002

Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis. 2016. Kenya Economic Report 2016: Fiscal Decentralization in Support of Devolution. Nairobi: KIPPRA.

Krätli, S., C. Lottje, F. Mikulcak, W. Foerch, and T. Feldt. 2022. Pastoralism and resilience of food production in the face of climate change. Technical background paper. Sector Project Rural Development, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Bonn and Eschborn, Germany.

Lind, J., R. Sabates-Wheeler, and S. Kohnstamm. 2016. Changes in the drylands of east Africa: understanding and mapping livelihood dynamics and resilience within pastoralist systems. Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, UK.

Little, P. D. 2016. Overview: recent trends in diversified and alternative livelihoods among pastoralists in Eastern Africa. USAID, Washington, D.C., USA.

Little, P. D., D. N. Debsu, and W. Tiki. 2014. How pastoralists perceive and respond to market opportunities: the case of the Horn of Africa. Food Policy 49:389-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.10.004

Little, P. D., and J. G. McPeak. 2014. Resilience and pastoralism in Africa South of the Sahara, with a particular focus on the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, West Africa. 2020 Conference Paper 9. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Little, P. D., K. Smith, B. A. Cellarius, D. L. Coppock, and C. Barrett. 2001. Avoiding disaster: diversification and risk management among East African herders. Development and Change 32(3):401-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00211

Mahmoud, H. A. 2016. Resilience and risk in pastoralist areas: recent trends in diversified and alternative livelihoods in Garissa, Kenya. USAID, Washington, D.C., USA.

Malabo Montpellier Panel. 2020. Meat, milk and more: policy innovations to shepherd inclusive and sustainable livestock systems in Africa. International Food Policy Research Institute, Dakar, Senegal.

McCollum, R., R. Limato, L. Otiso, S. Theobald, and M. Taegtmeyer. 2018. Health system governance following devolution: comparing experiences of decentralisation in Kenya and Indonesia. BMJ Global Health 3(5):e000939. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000939

McCollum, R., M. Taegtmeyer, L. Otiso, R. Tolhurst, M. Mireku, T. Martineau, R. Karuga, and S. Theobald. 2019. Applying an intersectionality lens to examine health for vulnerable individuals following devolution in Kenya. International Journal for Equity in Health 18(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-0917-2

McGahey, D., J. Davies, N. Hagelberg, and R. Ouedraogo. 2014. Pastoralism and the Green Economy - a natural nexus? Nairobi: IUCN and UNEP.

Menkhaus, K. 2015. Conflict assessment 2014 / Northern Kenya and Somaliland. Danish Demining Group, Danish Refugee Council, Copenhagen. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2589109

Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries. 2017. Climate risk profile for Isiolo County. The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MoALF), Nairobi.

Mkutu, K. 2001. Pastoralism and conflict in the Horn of Africa. Nairobi: Africa Peace Forum/Saferworld/University of Bradford.

Mkutu, K. 2019. Pastoralists, politics and development projects: understanding the layer of armed conflict in Isiolo County, Kenya. Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC).

Njuki, J., J. Poole, N. Johnson, I. Baltenweck, P. Pali, Z. Lokman, and S. Mburu. 2011. Gender, livestock and livelihood indicators. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi. https://www.ilri.org/knowledge/publications/gender-livestock-and-livelihood-indicators

Nori, M. 2022. Assessing the policy frame in pastoral areas of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). European University Institute, E. San Domenico di Fiesole. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4071572

Nori, M., and I. Scoones. 2023. Rethinking policies for pastoralists - governing the rangelands. The Rangeland Journal 45(2):53-66. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ23010

Oricho, S. O. 2024. Effects of colonial policies on pastoralism among the Pokot communities of Kenya, 1920-1963. Social Science and Humanities Journal 8(11):5881-5892. https://doi.org/10.18535/sshj.v8i11.1468

QSR. 2017. NVivo qualitative data analysis software, Version 11. QSR International Pty Ltd.

Radeny, M., D. Nkedianye, P. Kristjanson, and M. Herrero. 2007. Livelihood choices and returns among pastoralists: evidence from Southern Kenya. Nomadic Peoples 11(2):31-55. https://doi.org/10.3167/np.2007.110203

Ripkey, C., P. D. Little, P. Dominguez-Salas, J. Kinabo, A. Mwanri and A. W. Girard. 2021. Increased climate variability and sedentarization in Tanzania: health and nutrition implications on pastoral communities of Mvomero and Handeni districts, Tanzania. Global Food Security 29:100516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100516

Roe, E. 2020. A new policy narrative for pastoralism? Pastoralists as reliability professionals and pastoralist systems as infrastructure. STEPS Working Paper 113. STEPS Centre, Brighton, UK.

Saldaña, J. 2013. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Second edition. SAGE Publications, Ltd., Los Angeles, California, USA.

Schrepfer, N., and M. Caterina. 2014. On the margin: Kenya’s pastoralists. From displacement to solutions, a conceptual study on the internal displacement of pastoralists. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Geneva, Switzerland.

Scoones, I. 2023. Confronting uncertainties in pastoral areas: transforming development from control to care. Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale 31(4):57-75. https://doi.org/10.3167/saas.2023.04132303

Sharamo, R. 2014. The politics of pastoral violence: a case study of Isiolo County, Northern Kenya. Working Paper 095. Future Agricultures Consortium, Brighton, UK.

Shiferaw, R. M. 2020. Effects of short-term training on pastoral community employment creation and livelihood improvement: a study on selected Ethiopian pastoral areas. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 9(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020-00128-2

Smith, D. R., A. Gordon, K. Meadows, and K. Zwick. 2001. Livelihood diversification in Uganda: patterns and determinants of change across two rural districts. Food Policy 26(4):421-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(01)00012-4

Tolley, E. E., P. R. Ulin, N. Mack, E. R. Robinson, and S. M. Succop. 2016. Collecting qualitative data. Qualitative methods in public health: a field guide for applied research. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., San Francisco, California, USA.

UN General Assembly. 2022. Seventy-sixth session Agenda item 15: 76/253. International Year of Rangeland and Pastoralists, 2026. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 15 March 2022. United Nations, New York, NY, USA.

Waller, R. 2012. Pastoral production in colonial Kenya: lessons from the past? African Studies Review 55(2):1-27. https://doi.org/10.1353/arw.2012.0039

Wang, C., and M. A. Burris. 1997. Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior 24(3):369-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400309

Wang, X., C. Liao, S. M. Brandhorst, and P. E. Clark. 2022. Sedentarization as an adaptation to socio-environmental changes? Everyday herding practices in pastoralist communities in southern Ethiopia. Ecology and Society 27(3):39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13503-270339

Weldegebriel, Z. B., and G. F. Kebede 2022. Chapter 6. The implications of social protection for pastoral youth: vulnerability, mobility and aspirations. In Z. Fre, B. Tsegay, A. M. Teka, N. Kenton, and J. Livingstone, editors. Social protection, pastoralism and resilience in Ethiopia. Routledge, London, UK.

Weller, S. C., B. Vickers, H. R. Bernard, A. M. Blackburn, S. Borgatti, C. C. Gravlee, and J. C. Johnson. 2018. Open-ended interview questions and saturation. PLoS ONE 13(6):e0198606. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198606