| Livestock Research for Rural Development 30 (6) 2018 | Guide for preparation of papers | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
A cross section exploratory study was conducted to understand the changes in livelihood strategies of rangeland communities in face of climate change and restricted mobility. Data collection relied on a mixed-method approach, including household surveys and rural rapid appraisals. Results indicated that agriculture is the main source of livelihood and households have a range of livelihood activities. Major coping strategies varied with production system and resource availability and access. Livestock species diversification), destocking and off-farm income engagement activities dominated livestock dominant system; while crop species diversification , shifting cropping calendars ; use of improved varieties and establishment of food stores were the main strategies for the crop production system; whereas for mixed production system; species diversification, use of agrochemicals), use of improved breeds and crop varieties, engagement in off-farm activities prevailed. The perception of majority respondents was that mixed farming system improved household income and that land tenure reforms had led to: bureaucracies in acquisition of public land leases), forced sedentarization); livelihood insecurity, collapse of pastoral adaptation, poverty, resource use conflicts and hindrance to permanent developments.
Results indicated the major constraints of transition in production systems were: livestock-crop conflicts, limited financial capital, low productivity of tolerant local breeds and varieties and lack of land for expansion. Findings point to the need for policies that enhance sustainable livelihood coping strategies and access to resources to increase the adaptive capacity to mitigate the adverse effects of climate variability and restricted mobility. There is need to redress strategies that threaten the environment and to promote integration of community best practices initiatives in proven modern concepts of adaptation to climate change and livelihood vulnerability.
Key words: asset possession, cattle corridor, transition in production system, Uganda
Rangelands occupy around 47% of the world’s surface in wet or dry, and hot or cold climates (Heitschmidt and Stuth 1991). They also store 30% of terrestrial carbon and have the potential to store 197 million tons of CO2from the atmosphere per year for 30 years (McDermott and Elavarthi 2014). Grazing lands sequester between 200-500kg of carbon per hectare per year, playing a leading role in climate change mitigation (McGahey et al 2014). In Uganda, rangelands known as “cattle corridor”, occupy 43% of the total land area and support 90% of the cattle population and about 85% of the total marketed milk and beef is produced from indigenous cattle under three production systems including mixed farming, agro-pastoralism and nomadic pastoralism. Rangelands are continuously embracing more economic investments rather than for the production of grazing livestock and wildlife conservation that for centuries exploited the fragile ecosystems with less environmental consequences and pastoral community livelihoods impacts. Rangeland communities of pastoralists had developed a diverse range of strategies, institutions and networks to exploit unpredictability and risks to their advantage. Livestock mobility allowed for exploitation of water and quality pastures that are highly dispersed in time and space. These strategies are, unfortunately, poorly understood and integrated in policy design by many states. As such, pastoralists today live in a context of political, environmental and socioeconomic uncertainties
Pastoralism in Uganda today is besieged by a series of different challenges ranging from demographic change, land rights, changing land use with more focus on wildlife conservation and mineral exploration, landscape conversion and increasing grazing communal land individualisation and land enclosure. Uganda’s rapidly growing population has expanded the land under cultivation, disrupting pastoralists’ traditional access to pasture and water causing conflicts with farmers. Pastoralism is considered by many Ugandans to be a backward or declining livelihood with a limited future and headed toward a more or less inevitable transition to ranching, farming, or other alternative livelihoods. The attitude from the Ugandan Head of State right down to district authority level is that the pastoralists need to settle and modernize (Kirkbride and Grahn 2008). The Ugandan government deliberately outlawed nomadism faulting it on spread of livestock diseases and overgrazing causing environmental degradation. This attitude led to institution of a law prohibiting nomadism supporting the president’s argument. To date, nomadic pastoralism is no more and many livelihood transformation have been adopted. De Haan (2016) similarly acknowledged that pastoralism is at the verge of disappearance as pursuit of a purely pastoralist life has become increasingly difficult. Pastoral livelihood has been considered by many as archaic and undesirable and there is poor understanding of the benefits of pastoralism amongst politicians, policy makers and technocrats often leading to unfriendly decisions. For instance, the 1995 Uganda constitution provides that all land belongs to the citizens of Uganda under four main tenure systems including; customary and leasehold, freehold and mailo with no recognition of communal land that supported nomadic pastoralism.
Pastoralism based on exploitation of dry lands and often some form of herd mobility that was historically practiced in many parts of the world (WISP 2007). Pastoralists live in a context of environmental uncertainty albeit worsened by climate change. Consequently, pastoralists developed a diverse range of strategies, institutions and networks to exploit this unpredictability and risks to their advantage. Exploiting common natural resources such as fish, grazing land or forest can provide income, food, medicine, tools, fuel, fodder, construction materials, and so on. In both rural and urban contexts, the means by which a poor households gain income and meet their basic needs are often met by multiple livelihood activities and survival strategies that may include employment (Hassan et al 2002). Livestock mobility, controlled breeding and landscape pastures selective grazing were the three major critical strategies although these have not been fully taken advantage in policy design. The global perceptions about pastoralism in these marginal lands are however rapidly changing. Thus it is critical now to gain a better understanding of the pastoralist strategies in light of increasing climatic variability, growing competition for land, rising population and decentralisation to provide sound policy advice. Livestock mobility was the principal means by which pastoralists coped with and took full advantage of natural resource variability in dry lands (Behnke et al 1993; Scoones 1994; McGahey 2011). However, over the last three decades, scholars working with pastoral groups from both the northern and southern hemisphere have reported an almost universal decline in herd mobility, caused by commoditisation of the pastoral economy and villagization policies (Fratkin 1997). Sedentarization has been particularly prejudiced by declines in communal grazing land, widespread land privatization, ranching, commercial agriculture and wildlife conservation. McGahey (2011) reported that these changes have been a consequence of the negative policy discourse surrounding pastoralism that often manifests in severely repressive rangeland policies designed to reform practices seen as irrational or environmentally destructive, whilst simultaneously improving economic productivity. It is critical to gain a better understanding of pastoralists strategies in light of increasing climatic variability, growing competition for land, rising population and decentralisation.
The global phenomena, “climate change” attributed directly or indirectly to human activity has unavoidable impacts. Climate Change is defined by the UNFCCC as a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability over comparable time periods (IPCC 2014). Climate change causes serious problems, including extreme weather events, the rise of sea levels and environmental degradation (Bhatta et al 2015) affecting household livelihoods particularly those already living in vulnerable environments such dry lands. According to Bossche and Coetzer (2008), climate change is expected to have direct and indirect impacts on African livestock with direct impacts including increased temperature, floods, droughts and changes in the environment that promote the spread of contagious diseases. Access to water and pasture is a major constraint in improving production in rangeland (El Hadary & Samat 2012). Although climate shocks ordinarily would lead to migration as a coping strategy of pastoralists, this has been antagonized in a number of countries due to structural reforms. Some studies however, suggest that households mask risks by putting emphasis on livelihoods & income sources diversification; depleting their productive assets, making low-risk and low-return investments, diversifying landholdings into various spatially separated plots and into various crops (Mathilde and Zaneta 2014).
Although mobile pastoralism is economically viable, environmentally friendly, securing livelihood for many people and causing less ecological impact (Scoones 1994), many countries have taken up structural adjustments including: land individualization, public asset privatization and generally loss of communal grazing resources and limiting pastoral mobility. Livelihood diversification has been one of the strategies to manage changing climate extreme events. According to Ellis (1998), livelihood diversification is the process by which rural families construct a diverse portfolio of activities and social support capabilities in order to survive and to improve their standards of living. Mobility is considered as a strategy rather than just a kind of movement (El Hadary & Samat 2012). Pastoral production system has been confronted with a number of challenges including climate change extreme events, changing property rights, and government structural adjustments including restricting pastoral mobility in a number of countries. This has forced pastoralists to seek alternative means of production, sources of livelihoods and in some cases where appropriate, destocking, regulated mobility, hiring of grazing resources, upgrading the breeds, growing crops, seeking for cash based livelihoods through employments have been alternatives. Unfortunately, these coping strategies have not been assessed to inform policy for sustainable human livelihoods and environmental protection for contribution to the Uganda’s socio-economic transformation and environmental resilience. This study assessed the changes in livelihoods as coping strategies to climate variability and restricted mobility in the dry lands of Uganda with particular focus to three production systems including: pastoral, agro pastoral and cropping systems to gain a better understanding of: (1) Changes in livelihood activities; (2) coping strategies to avert vulnerability associated with changes and, (3) challenges and vulnerabilities of livelihoods associated with transformation.
The study was undertaken in the mid cattle corridor of Uganda covering three districts of Kiryandongo located at coordinates: 02 00N, 32 18E, Nakasongola located at 01 18N, 32 30E and Masindi located at coordinates: 01 41N, 31 44E. The three districts represent three subsistence agricultural production systems that include:1) predominantly livestock/pastoral, 2) predominantly crop and, 3) mixed crop-livestock or agro-pastoral. The three districts experience two rainy season with the first rainy season spreading March to June while the second season running August to November. The mean annual rainfall ranges 600mm to 1000mm with a five months dry season in Nakasongola district. Masindi district has three main climatic zones in relation to rainfall amount (high rainfall zones receiving more than 1000mm; medium rainfall zones receiving between 800 to 1000mm and the low rainfall zone receiving less than 800mm. Kiryandongo also receives a bimodal moderate rainfall with rainfall amount ranging 800 to 1000mm per annum. The temperatures in the three districts range from 12°C–30°C. However, this bimodal rainfall in the Ugandan rangeland is erratic, unreliable and highly variable according to seasons. Ethnographically, Kiryandongo district is inhabited majorly by the Acholi ethnic group among other groups like Alur, Chope, Palwo and Lugbara whose main livelihood activity is mixed farming. Masindi District has a diverse ethnic composition of 55 tribes, with the dominant tribes being the Banyoro and the Bagungu with the main economic pre-occupation activity being crop production and fishing. Nakasongola is culturally inhabited by several ethnic groups although dominated by the Sample selection and sampling technique
The cross-sectional exploratory study targeted households in three production categories including; (1) the predominantly livestock/pastoral represented by Nakasongola district; (2) predominantly crop represented by Masindi; and (3) the mixed crop-livestock or agro-pastoral based represented by Kiryandongo district. Qualitative and quantitative techniques were employed to collect data. Qualitatively, six focus group discussion (FGD) meetings were conducted using an interview schedule.in six sub-counties; two in each district. Men were separated from women in groups of 6-10 members of either sex per site during the FGD to enable participants’ freedom to express themselves on diverse issues of coping with climate variation and restricted mobility. Furthermore, FDGs facilitated selection of key informants. Data was collected from 105 respondents using a semi- structured questionnaire.
Qualitative data obtained through focus group discussions, KIIs and observations was organized and meaningfully reduced into themes and contents that were in line with the objectives and the concept of the study. The systemic patterns and interrelationships within different categories were then identified and used to enrich the data findings. This data was then analyzed according to the major themes. Quantitative data was analysed using SPSS software (IBM SPSS statistics 24) to obtain descriptive statistics that were presented in graphical and tabular format.
Table 1 presents the socio-demographic information including gender, age, household size, land ownership and level of education of the respondents in the different production systems. Results indicated that livestock and crop production were the major households’ sources of income. However, the gross income varied based on production system with the majority of pastoral and mixed farming system farmers realizing better income than the crop dominant farmers (Figure 1). The study established that household income, age and land tenure system influenced the production systems.
|
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of households |
||||||
| Variable |
Alternative variables |
Production system |
||||
|
Pastoral |
Crop
|
Agro-pastoral |
Total |
|||
|
Response
|
Response
|
Response
|
Response
|
|||
|
Gender |
Male |
21.9 |
20.9 |
37.1 |
80 |
|
|
Female |
1.9 |
8.6 |
9.5 |
20 |
||
|
Age in years |
18 – 29 |
2.9 |
5.7 |
7.6 |
16.2 |
|
|
30 – 44 |
6.7 |
9.5 |
20 |
36.2 |
||
|
45 – 59 |
9.5 |
6.7 |
9.5 |
25.7 |
||
|
60 and above |
4.8 |
7.6 |
9.5 |
21.9 |
||
|
Level of formal |
No formal education |
6.7 |
14.3 |
14.3 |
35.3 |
|
|
Primary |
15.2 |
8.6 |
16.2 |
40 |
||
|
Secondary |
1.9 |
6.7 |
6.7 |
15.3 |
||
|
Tertiary |
0 |
0 |
9.5 |
9.5 |
||
|
Size of land |
Below 10 |
2.9 |
16.2 |
18.1 |
37.2 |
|
|
11 - 20 |
5.7 |
2.9 |
4.8 |
13.4 |
||
|
21 - 30 |
38.1 |
2.9 |
5.7 |
46.7 |
||
|
31 - 40 |
4.8 |
2.9 |
5.7 |
13.4 |
||
|
Above 40 |
6.7 |
4.8 |
12.4 |
23.9 |
||
|
Household size |
1- 3 |
2.9 |
0.9 |
5.7 |
9.5 |
|
|
4 - 6 |
12.4 |
19 |
20.9 |
52.3 |
||
|
7 - 10 |
1.9 |
6.7 |
15.2 |
23.8 |
||
|
> 10 |
6.7 |
2.9 |
4.8 |
14.4 |
||
|
| Figure 1. Range of Annual household gross income in Uganda shillings (1$=3700UShs.) |
The study revealed that four types of land tenure system suffice with 48.6% households settled on leased land, 34.3% under customary land tenure system, 14.3% households under freehold system and only 2.9% households on the mailo land system. There were agreements during focus group discussion that land tenure system reforms had its effect on household livelihoods. The farmers acknowledged that transformation hinder permanent developments, lead to increased poverty, resource use conflict, forced sedentarization, collapse of pastoral adaptation, livelihood insecurity and increased bureaucracy in acquisition of land leases. Dry land communities’ Perceptions on climate change and its effect on their livelihoods All respondents indicated drought as the most frequent extreme climatic event known to them. Other events acknowledged were floods and changing rainfall patterns. All the respondents indicated that the amount and frequency of rainfall were low. The informants described drought as having no rain during the main rainy season of March–May and they lamented that this phenomena has become frequent, since 1995.
The results on perception about climate change indicated that respondents acknowledged spatial and temporal changes in rainfall and temperature in their areas since 1980s. Respondents strongly believed temperature had increased while others acknowledged a reduction in rainfall both in frequency, distribution, amount and character. Respondents further acknowledged drought cycle that occurs every after 4 to 5years although observed that the cycle has reduced of recent to 2 years. They also recognized that these changes severely impacted on food production, livestock production and generally impacted on household livelihoods. Majority also felt that due to changing climates, pasture quality and quantity had reduced and prevalence of noxious weeds had increased in prevalence. The results also showed that different production systems are affected differently by climate shocks with the predominantly crop system more affected by climate shocks which they attributed to stationary nature of crop farming compared to the mobile pastoral system.
Results indicated that each production system has undergone transition in enterprises by either reducing; introducing or scaling up albeit based on shocks experienced (Figures 2a &b). The pastoral system has embraced some crop production particularly the cereal, root crops, fruit and vegetable production while reduction in small stock has also been realized among the pastoral and crop production however, small stock have gained in the mixed system while fish farming has also been adopted in the crop and mixed systems, an opportunity that comes with increasing floods under climate change. The study further revealed that there was variation in the use of improved varieties and/or breeds among the three production systems with majority of the livestock production system keeping only local breeds of livestock compared to those keeping both local and improved breeds and those with only improved breeds. Majority of the crop households used at least one improved variety and non-improved/traditional crop varieties. The majority of the agro-pastoral households kept local breeds of livestock, with a third of households keeping improved breeds of livestock compared with those who kept both local and improved breeds of livestock. At least majority of cropping households use improved crop variety.
 |
| Figure 2a. Household enterprises 15-20 years ago |
 |
| Figure 2b. Household current agricultural enterprises |
Table 2 shows changes in major livelihood activities of the households. The study showed a diverse range of livelihood activities including the relatively new developments of horticulture (fruits and vegetables) practiced in the three production systems. Fish farming was evidently a new venture though still adopted by few household. The level of engagement in the diversified livelihood activities however varied with the production systems and gender. All the households in the three production systems were involved in agriculture with household preference in a decreasing order as; agro-pastoralism, crop production system and pastoral system. The study revealed that majority of men had more livelihoods activities than the women (Table 2). Majority of women derived their livelihoods from crop production and through use and processing of some natural resources. It was observed that some of the activities such as charcoal burning were environmentally unfriendly thus unsustainable in the long run.
|
Table 2. Major changes in livelihood activities of households |
|||||
|
Livelihood type |
Livelihood activity |
15 to 20 years ago |
Current situation |
||
|
Male
|
Female |
Male
|
Female |
||
|
% |
% |
% |
% |
||
|
Agriculture |
Crop production |
77.3 |
57.1 |
75.0 |
71.0 |
|
Livestock rearing |
58.3 |
38.1 |
76.2 |
47.6 |
|
|
Fish farming |
0.0 |
0.0 |
3.6 |
9.5 |
|
|
Transport |
Transport business |
8.3 |
0.0 |
30.9 |
14.3 |
|
Real estate |
Real estate (houses) |
9.5 |
4.8 |
21.4 |
9.5 |
|
Employment |
Formal employment |
2.4 |
9.5 |
8.3 |
19.0 |
|
Non-formal (labourer) |
8.3 |
9.5 |
11.9 |
9.5 |
|
|
Natural resource |
Charcoal burning |
4.8 |
9.5 |
11.9 |
19.0 |
|
Fishing |
2.4 |
0.0 |
10.7 |
0.0 |
|
|
Gathering firewood |
8.3 |
19.0 |
17.9 |
42.9 |
|
|
Trading and |
Sell second hand clothes |
3.6 |
9.5 |
14.3 |
19.0 |
|
Sell general merchandise |
10.7 |
14.3 |
16.7 |
19.0 |
|
|
Trading in farm produce |
13.1 |
9.5 |
23.8 |
19.0 |
|
|
Petty trading |
Brew & Sell local beer |
6.0 |
19.0 |
3.6 |
23.8 |
|
Vendor food in towns |
10.7 |
23.8 |
23.8 |
33.3 |
|
|
Milk vending |
15.5 |
14.3 |
29.8 |
28.6 |
|
|
Crafts |
Tailoring |
6.0 |
9.5 |
6.0 |
14.3 |
|
Mechanic |
0.0 |
0.0 |
6.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
Carpentry |
7.1 |
0.0 |
3.6 |
0.0 |
|
|
House building (masonry) |
6.0 |
0.0 |
9.5 |
0.0 |
|
|
Barber/hair dressing |
0.0 |
0.0 |
8.3 |
14.3 |
|
|
Brick laying & burning |
2.4 |
0.0 |
4.8 |
0.0 |
|
Figure 3 presents the various coping mechanisms used over time to mitigate the effects of climatic variability by respondents. Storage of grain food, crop species diversification, and use of agro chemicals were the main coping strategies for cropping system, livestock species, diversification, strategic destocking, selling some animals to buy grain and use of agrochemicals were the main coping strategies for pastoral system while for agro-pastoral system, they mainly shifted cropping calendar, used improved varieties/breeds and used agrochemicals. The study further revealed that a limited number of households still practice mobility in which they take different directions to search for forage and water. About 32% of pastoralists, 20.4 % of agro-pastoralists and 22.6% of crop farmers used mobility as a coping strategy. The predominantly crop farmers too used mobility in search of employment in the nearby trading centres/towns.
 |
| Figure 3. Current households’ coping strategies to avert effects of climate change shocks and reduced mobility |
Although many households are continuously adapting to climatic crises and changing their production systems, there are constraints to these adaptations These were identified as 1) Low levels of productivity of the local breeds/varieties; 2) lack of improved heat and drought tolerant breeds/varieties; 3) Limited access to technologies; 4) diminishing land for production expansion; 5) Lack of financial capital; 6) Price fluctuations of produce; 7) Livestock-crop conflicts; and 8) Inadequate extension services.
Results indicated that farmers were forced to possess some assets that were important in fighting adverse effects of climate change in their households. The assets included radios (94.3%), bicycles (78.1%), mobile phones (75.2%), ox-plough (27.6%), tractor/power tiller (3.8%), motor cycle (19.0%), motor vehicle (8.6%) and agro-processor (4.8%). In comparison, the possession of these assets 15 to 20 years ago were only 40.0%, 43.8%, 4.8%, 9.5%, 0.0%, 4.8%, 0.9% and 0.9% respectively. The assets were used to access information, ease labour, and facilitate mobility in search of household needs.
Adoption of improved livestock breeds and/or improved drought tolerant crop varieties have been recognized elsewhere (Shiferaw et al 2014) as one way of increasing resilience to climate shocks due associated high yields and fast growth. The high interests of agro-pastoralists in improved varieties could be due to expected outputs and the high level of sensitization on benefits of agricultural technologies (Shiferaw et al 2014). Both pastoral and agro pastoral households use of agrochemicals and drugs due to the high prevalence of vector borne diseases associated with tropical climate. To guard against food insecurity, households purchased and stored grain in anticipation of drought for fear of increasing grain prices that come with prolonged droughts.
The increasing trend in animal species diversification and intensification enables pastoralists to generate a wider variety of livestock products and make better use of the available forage in different seasons, even in times of crisis. Diversification of livestock species helps to achieve different advantages in feeding requirements, adjustments to grazing pressure, drought survival (Otieno 2009) and ensure optimal exploitation of the available bushes. According to Steinfield et al (2006), mono-gastric species such as poultry have high growth rates and low costs per unit of output leading to good returns in a short time despite their competition with humans for food that can easily threaten household food security.
Households engaging in rain-fed agriculture frequently suffer drought-prone environment risks including loss of their assets livestock and crops inclusive. As a results pastoralists often destock to avoid the losses early in droughts. Livestock destocking is a positive strategy to hedge against droughts. De-stocking by sell animals and saving money helps households to afford buying food when food prices during shortage while some money is invested in some businesses. Despite this being a positive strategy, some conservative pastoralists believe livestock numbers give them the pride and prestige thus they are hesitant to sell off their cattle. This belief has negative effect upon such households during drought periods as they are prone to incur direct losses through death of livestock. Fafchamps et al (1998) noted that livestock sales compensate for about thirty percent, and thus livestock play a buffer role by insulating household consumption from income fluctuations in case of climate change crises.
Increasing trend in acquisition of credit and adoption of water harvesting technologies (Figure 3) such as valley tank construction by livestock farmers are key indicators of what farmers have suffered under climate change. The reliance on rainfall for production can no longer be a sustainable strategy for livelihood resilience in Eastern Africa. The absence of irrigation technologies whether for crop or pasture production make dry land communities more vulnerable to climate change shocks. The blockage of livestock migratory routes (Zziwa et al 2012) in the cattle corridor due to land tenure reforms have worsened water availability for production. This comes handy as incentive for farmer initiated water harvesting technology adoption. Access to credit despite high interest rates have enabled many cattle keepers to invest in water development. Due to collateral demand by financial institutions some pastoralists have formed saving groups among themselves to help themselves with their own savings at low interest rates. Money borrowed from such co-operatives or money lenders is used for either buying large quantities of food, renting/hiring land or invest in petty trade activities before it can be paid back after the crisis. These findings are in concurrence with the observation made by Mlozi et al (2015). Similarly, Kollmair and Juli (2002) observed that financial capital comprises the important availability of cash or equivalent, which enables people to adopt different livelihood strategies. Accessing financial services enables pastoral communities to sustain livelihoods. However, there is very low investment in water development by crop farmers which also subject them to climate shocks. In addition to acquiring credit some households dispose non-farm assets to solve livelihood needs in the short run. However, this strategy could have a negative outcome on the wellbeing of the entire household making the household more vulnerable than before shocks.
Mobility sustained dry land productivity basing of dry land ecological dynamics. This provided for natural ecological restoration thus limiting degradation. Moenga et al (2013) observed this migratory pattern in the pastoral Rift valley area of Kenya. Such movements were majorly forced by drought, diseases and conflicts. This study revealed reduced mobility. This is attributed to reduced communal grazing, privatization of grazing land, increased population and fear of attracting diseases.
Changes in livelihood strategies due to climate shocks have been reported elsewhere (Deressa et al 2010; Berman et al 2013). Crop production, livestock species diversification, off farm employment, dietary changes, leaving a market economy, petty business among others have all been recognized as coping strategies to reduce vulnerabilities. Growing a variety of crops, subsisting on diet composed of cereal, vegetable and fruits and selling of excess produce enables pastoralists meet their nutrition needs and meeting other household need using the cash obtained during climate crisis. This finding compares well with Ekaya (2005) observation that there was a shift from milk dominated diet to that dominated by cereal starch and vegetables among settled pastoralists. In addition to the traditional cereal crops like maize and millet, a number of other food security crops including bananas, cassava and sweet potato are currently grown in the study area. In areas where such crops are unable to give good yields, tree crops for instance mangoes and oranges have been a success. Pastoralists investment in businesses including small, medium and large scale, both women and men alike outside farming points to a paradigm shift in livelihood strategies probably as response to climate change associated with frequent farming failures compounded by restricted mobility.
As a longer term adaptation strategy, communities are seeking for changes in employment patterns. Household have embraced education to enable them tap into formal employment. The role of education in communities cannot be overemphasized. In fact, majority of the educated farmers had adopted modern farming technologies. This compares well with findings of Kisamba-Mugerwa et al (2006) that more educated household heads were more likely to invest in rangeland improvements, improved livestock technologies and practices, less likely reported degradation of grazing lands as a problem, and obtained more revenues per animal. However, some farmers lamented that although off-farm employment fetches extra income for the household, many respondents stated that its availability is not always guaranteed.
Dependence on natural resource to sustain the livelihoods pose a major challenge in the long run. Many households were involved in charcoal burning, fishing and brick laying. However, uncontrolled exploitation and overdependence on natural trees for making firewood and charcoal burning potentially leads to desertification, soil erosion and reduced availability of domestic fuel energy to the local people. This certainly increases vulnerability in the long run and must be avoided by creating an alternative source of livelihoods for such households. Indeed investment in form of petty trade and handcrafts reduces dependence on natural recuses thus reducing vulnerability to climate change shocks.
Although local livestock breeds are considered to be more tolerant to climatic extremes, keeping improved livestock breeds and growing improved varieties of crops coupled with use of agro-chemicals to maximize yields increases productivity which increases resilience. Investment in pasture production technologies ensures pasture feed availability and continuous livestock production which ensures household food and nutrition security and increased income. The adoption of such technologies has potential for increased productivity of livestock and crops in the study area, leading to optimum domestic consumption and in some cases, sale of excess farm products to provide cash for other household needs. Similar observation were reported by Thornton (2010) who acknowledged that developments in breeding, nutrition and animal health will continue to contribute to increasing potential production and further efficiency and genetic gains.
Unlike in the past when pastoralism was defined by large stock numbers particularly cattle, pastoralists have recently increased their reliance and investment in small ruminants albeit due to land shortage, ease of disposal when there is a need and their tolerance to droughts compared to cattle. Household land holding have tremendously decreased in the recent past which have affected livestock grazing under extensive management system. Land privatisation makes land disposal by individuals easy unlike in the past when land was under the communal trust. This shift is however beneficial to poor pastoral households as it makes them less vulnerable to livestock losses when concentrating on small stock, due to minimal capital accumulated in each animal. Cattle are more sensitive to climatic crises, which is in concurrence with the findings of Ayana and Oba (2007). The author further acknowledged that goats and sheep possess good qualities such as their ability to feed with much lower water requirement, more prolific than cattle, tolerant to drought and endemic diseases and are highly adapted to poor grazing conditions.
While women are considered the most vulnerable group in most societies worldwide, women pastoralists are doubly vulnerable because they are members of the largely marginalized communities. Gender imbalances and inequalities prevent the society as a whole from realizing the full potential of women in social, economic, legal and political spheres. The changes in the roles played by men and women observed in current study could be attributed to capacity building and empowerment and global sensitization on equity and equality that have been promoted by different organizations including governments which helps women pastoralists to transform their impoverished communities. Both men and women participate in different activities (Table 2). This portrays the abilities of women despite their limited access to and control of resources and exposure to more risks. The study by Karmebäck et al (2015) have however reported that workload of women increased under new land fragmentation processes in rangelands due to increased responsibilities in cattle herding and income generation. Women have gained higher influence in household decisions making than before and are engaged in small-scale business hence getting financial resources under their own control.
Forced sedentarization occurs when a dominant group restricts the movements of a nomadic group according to the world heritage encyclopaedia. At the end of the 19th and throughout the 20th century many previously nomadic tribes have turned to permanent settlement. It was a process initiated by local governments, and it was mainly a global trend forced by the changes in the attitude to the land and real property and also due to state policies. Land rights affected resource use for production and livelihood sustainability among the three production systems since they do not only limit access, but also led to local land shortages, partly due to insufficient allocation of land to pastoralists by Government. It is inevitable that droughts as a form of climate change increase the proportion of land unsuited even for pastoralism hence eventual competition for land. In many instances, this has led to sedentary agriculture. Ekaya (2005) indicated that sedentarization in the dry lands has been a result of sharp economic, political, demographic, and environmental changes. Sedentarization leads to an increase in social interaction, demand for and access to social services from government. Indeed the settled communities have access to social services such as agricultural advisory/extension services, infrastructure, health services and education services unlike in the mobile pastoral situation that reduce vulnerability. However, if settlement is not protected can be threatened by current commercial farming investment which can codon the smaller poor farmers. Large companies are increasingly acquiring land formerly used as communal public grazing lands for industrial and commercial agriculture and other investments in the Ugandan cattle corridor. Moreover, many pastoralists who used to graze animals in communal land are now restricted. The rapid expansion of extensive mechanized farming at the expense of pastoral land has become a major challenge for the continuity of pastoral economy. Like El Hadary (2010) noted, the reallocation of pastoral land to the outsiders remains an essential driver for livelihood insecurity, grievance and conflict, marginalization and spread of poverty among rural communities.
Conflicts for water and pasture in addition to livestock and crop conflicts were on the increase. There is competition in multiple use of land and water resources that is partly due to the collapse of traditional natural resource governance which used to plan for resource use in rangelands. This is in agreement with the report on social management of rangelands and settlement in Karamoja region (Nalule 2010). FAO reports on Ethiopia and Uganda pastoral community also indicated that conflict over rangeland and water is at increasing rate following dry spells (FAO 2012). Selemani (2014) reported that the decline in the previously traditional rangeland management practices and changes in customary rights has resulted into land use conflicts between herders and farmers in Tanzania. Commercial farmers’ encroachment on grazing land affect livestock production by denying animals pastures and water. This lead to low livestock productivity and lead to food insecurity. However, some people earn an income through sale of labour to these commercial farms thus improving their livelihoods.
Loss of some traditional rights such as mobility when droughts hit, puts some households at risk of facing destitution. According to Helland (2000), most pastoral communities which formerly had the capacity to handle one or two failed seasons face utter destitution if only one rainy season fails. Other scholars have implicated rising human populations along with land tenure changes as constraints to sustainable pastoral production (Orindi and Eriksen 2005). Pastoral production across Africa was sustained on livestock mobility that was seen as an efficient coping strategy to reduce on the severity of climate variability effects, particularly water and forage scarcity. Besides ensuring use of different grazing areas in the wet and dry seasons, livestock mobility helped to avoid overgrazing thus retaining the productivity of grazing areas and avoiding land degradation currently affecting Africa.
Land tenure is a politically sensitive issue, but accepting and implementing a flexible land tenure system can somehow defuse it. Private ownership and customary tenure has to be allowed to coexist and both systems need to be enforced. Although, land reform experts claim that the main obstacle to increased agricultural output is shortage of land and population pressure, Tenaw et al (2009) contends it is the structure of land tenure, the lack of proper land ownership as well as lack of improved agricultural technology and changing climatic conditions. The current study established that land individualization influenced development investments in pasture improvements, land enclosures, and water harvesting and storage such as construction of pond, valley dams and valley tanks for livestock development. Similar observations were made by Mureithi et al (2010) who noted that with increased land degradation in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), rangeland enclosures had gained prominence as an effective and successful approach for the management of degraded rangelands within and beyond East Africa. Enclosures limit and regulate human and domestic animal interference to promote the natural regeneration of plants and reduce land degradation on formerly degraded communal grazing land (Mekuria et al 2011). Kisamba-Mugerwa et al (2006) acknowledged increased use of grazing land management practices such as limiting herd size, planting trees, clearing bushes and other pasture improvements on individualized and private tenure than on communal and non-property tenure.
A number of challenges inflicted households in dry lands. Similar challenges were reported in Botswana by pastoralists in the semi-arid (Kabo et al 2016). These challenges could be attributed to the increasing human population and associated demand for land with competing uses such commercial crop, ranching and tree plantation production, and conservation areas. Maleko and Koipapi (2014) reported that the major drivers for pasture inadequacy in communal semi-arid rangelands were prolonged droughts, crop encroachment in rangelands and high stocking rates. In some cases, pastoralists with bigger herds hired some land to access pasture and water to raise their livestock following personal terms with its owner. Acquisition of land with both water and pasture was a challenge for some households and pastoralists who hired land were always unsure of their stay for long.
Limited access to technologies limit pastoral communities adaptive capacity to the effects of climate change. Limited access to technologies is closely linked to lack of socio-political and financial capital. Lack of economic resources to procure such technologies as valley tank construction, irrigation systems and pasture preservation increases risks to climate change extreme events like droughts. Poor households are least able to use some coping strategies making them more vulnerable. Orindi and Eriksen (2005) acknowledged that poorer households have limited access to favoured coping options due to lack of capital, skills or labour. It is no doubt that improving access of the poor to financial services enables them to build up productive assets and enhance their resilience to climate change shocks. Livestock-crop conflicts occur due to lack of proper planning for sustainable co-existence associated with difference in interests and attitude held by different production systems. Cattle keepers intentionally drive their animals into crop gardens of farmers especially at night during the dry season with hope that the cultivators would one time give up on the land and sell it to them for expansion of grazing area. Mwambene et al (2014) reported similar conflicts in Southern Tanzania and attributed them to insufficient grazing land to support the large herds during the dry season.
Lack of market and price fluctuation of produce remains a major challenge where there is lack of livestock price policy, and proper market infrastructure. Mumba et al (2013) indicated that distance and accessibility makes it hard for farmers to transport their milk to the market. Limited market infrastructure affect farmers’ access and affordability of farm inputs which affect livestock production and household’s ability to meet the needs.
The findings in this study therefore call for the following recommendations:
The authors are grateful to the Belgian Technical Cooperation (BTC) for funding this research. We are also grateful to the District Local governments of Kiryandongo, Masindi and Nakasongola for providing the good working environment for the research. We are particularly grateful to the respondents in the study districts for their time and information that form the basis of this article.
Ayana A and Obba G 2007 Relating long-term rainfall variability to cattle population dynamics in communal rangelands and a government ranch in southern Ethiopia. Agricultural systems 94(3):715–725.
Behnke R H, Scoones I and Kerven C (Eds.) 1993 Range Ecology at Disequilibrium: New Models of Natural Variability and Pastoral Adaptation in African Savannas. Overseas Development Institute, London (248pp).
Berman R, Quinn C H and Paavola J 2013 Identifying drivers of household coping strategies to multiple climatic hazards in Western Uganda: implications for adapting to future climate change. Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper No. 149. Sustainability Research Institute Paper No. 51.
Bhatta G D, Aggarwal P K, Poudel S and Belgrave D A 2015 Climate-induced Migration in South Asia: Migration Decisions and the Gender Dimensions of Adverse Climatic Events. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 10, 4(2015): 1-23.
Bossche P, Van den and Coetzer J A W 2008 Climate change and animal health in Africa Scientific and Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties, 27 (2), 551-562.
De Haan C (Eds) 2016 Prospects for Livestock-Based Livelihoods in Africa’s Dry lands. World Bank Studies. Washington, DC: World Bank. Doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0836-4.
Deressa T T, Ringler C and Hassan R M 2010 Factors Affecting the Choices of Coping Strategies f or Climate Extremes: The Case of Farmers in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1032.
Ekaya W N 2005 The shift from mobile pastoralism to sedentary crop-livestock farming in the dry lands of eastern Africa: Some issues and challenges for research. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings, Vol. 7. pp. 1513-1519.
El Hadary Y A 2010 Challenges facing land tenure system in relation to pastoral livelihood security in Gedarif State, Eastern Sudan. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning Vol. 3(9), pp. 208-218, September 2010. Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/JGRP
El Hadary Y A and Samat N 2012 Managing Scarcity in the Dry land of the Eastern Sudan: the Role of Pastoralists' Local Knowledge in Rangeland Management. Resources and Environment 2012, 2(1): 55-66. DOI: 10.5923/j.re.20120201.08.
Ellis F 1998 Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification’. The Journal of Development Studies. Vol.35, No.1, pp.1–38
Fafchams M, Udry C and Czukas K 1998 “Drought and saving in West Africa: are livestock a buffer stock?”, Journal of Development Economics 55(2), pp. 273 – 305.
FAO 2012 Impact of conflict on pastoral communities’ resilience in the horn of Africa: Case Studies from Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda.
Fratkin E 1997 Pastoralism: Governance and development issues. Annual Review of Anthropology 1997, 26: 235–261. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.235 View Article Google Scholar
Hassan C, Olawoye J and Nnadozie V 2002 Impact of International Trade and Multinational Corporations on the Environment and Sustainable Livelihoods of Rural Women in Akwa-Ibom State Niger Delta Region, Nigeria http/www.gdnet.org 18th August, 2008 pp.1-7.
Heitschmidt R K and Stuth J W (Eds.) 1991 Grazing Management: An Ecological Perspective. 264 pages. ISBN-13: 978-0881921908, ISBN-10: 0881921904.
Helland J 2000 In Leif Manger and Abdel Ghaffar M. Ahmed (eds.): Pastoralists and environment: Experiences from the greater Horn of Africa. Proceedings of the regional workshops on African dry lands, Addis Ababa and Jinja. Addis Ababa: OSSREA pp. 19-49.
IPCC 2014 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Kabo M, Olaotswe E K and Keotshepile F L 2016 Wildlife-livestock interface, veterinary cordon fence damage, lack of protection zones, livestock theft and owner apathy: Complex socio-ecological dynamics in Foot and Mouth disease control in southern Africa. Pastoralism Research, Policy and Practice 20166:21. DOI: 10.1186/s13570-016-0068-7
Karmebäck V N, Wairore J N, Jirström M and Nyberg G 2015 Assessing gender roles in a changing landscape: diversified agro-pastoralism in dry lands of West Pokot, Kenya. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 20155:21. DOI: 10.1186/s13570-015-0039-4
Kirkbride M and Grahn R 2008 Survival of the Fittest: Pastoralism and climate change in East Africa. Oxfam International. ISBN 9781848146327. Available at: https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/survival-of-the-fittest-pastoralism-and-climate-change-in-east-africa-114607.
Kisamba-Mugerwa W, Pender J and Kato E 2006 Impacts of Individualization of Land Tenure on Livestock and Rangeland Management in South-western Uganda. Paper to be presented at the 11th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property June 19-23, 2006 in Bali, Indonesia.
Kollmair M and Juli G 2002 The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach. Input paper for the Integrated Training Course of NCCR, North-South Aeschiried Switzerland.
Maleko D D and Koipapi M L 2015 Opportunities and constraints for overcoming dry season livestock feed shortages in communal semi-arid rangelands of Northern Tanzania: A case of Longido District.
Mathilde M and Zaneta K 2014 Climate Variability and Migration: Evidence from Tanzania. Development policies. Working paper May 104, 2014.
McDermot C and Elavarthi S 2014 “Rangelands as carbon sinks to mitigate climate change: Review.” Journal of Earth Science and Climate Change Vol. 5.
McGahey D 2011 Livestock mobility and animal health policy in southern Africa: the impact of veterinary cordon fences on pastoralists.Practice Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 20111:14. DOI: 10.1186/2041-7136-1-14.
McGahey D, Davies J, Hagelberg N and Ouedraogo R 2014 Pastoralism and the Green Economy – a natural nexus? Nairobi: IUCN and UNEP.
Mekuria W, Veldkamp E, Tilahun M and Olschewski R 2011 Economic valuation of land restoration: The case of exclosures established on communal grazing lands in Tigray, Ethiopia. Land Degradation & Development 22(3): 334–344. doi:10.1002/ldr.1001. View Article Google Scholar
Mlozi M R S, Mtambo M M A and Olsen J E 2015 Mind-set of urban and peri-urban dairy cattle keepers in Morogoro, Tanga and Temeke Districts, Tanzania.
Moenga B O, Muchemi G M, Kang’ethe E K, Kimenju J W, Mutiga E R and Matete G O 2013 The impact of climate change on the incidence of cattle diseases in a pastoral area of Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 25, Article #67. Retrieved April 29, 2018, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/4/moen25067.htm
Mumba C, Pandey G S and Jagt C van der 2013 Milk production potential, marketing and income opportunities in key traditional cattle keeping areas of Zambia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 25, Article #73. Retrieved April 29, 2018, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/4/mumb25073.htm
Mureithi S M, Verdoodt A and Van Ranst E 2010 Implications of enclosures for rehabilitating degraded semi-arid rangelands: A review of critical lessons from Lake Baringo Basin, Kenya. Land degradation and desertification: assessment, mitigation and remediation, Zdruli P et al. (eds.) Springer Dordrecht: Heidelberg London New York, 490 pp. 111–130. Doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-8657-0.
Mwambene P L, Mbwile R P, Hoeggel F U, Kimbi E C, Materu J, Mwaiganju A and Madoffe S 2014 Assessing dynamics of forced livestock movements, livelihoods and future development options for pastoralists/agro-pastoralists in Ruvuma and Lindi Regions, in the Southern Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 26, Article #4. Retrieved April 27, 2018, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd26/1/mwam26004.htm
Nalule A S 2010 Social management of rangeland and settlement in Karamoja region. Available at: www.disasterriskreduction.net/.../1
Orindi V A and Eriksen S 2005 Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in the development process in Uganda—Nairobi, Kenya: Acts Press, 2005. (African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS). Ecopolicy Series; no. 15).
Otieno J R 2009 Turkana livelihood strategies and adaptation to drought in Kenya. A PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.
Scoones I (Ed.) 1994 Living with Uncertainty: New Directions in Pastoral Development in Africa. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Selemani I S 2014 Communal rangelands management and challenges underpinning pastoral mobility in Tanzania: a review. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 26, Article #78. Retrieved July 19, 2014, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd26/5/sele26078.html
Shiferaw B, Tesfaye K, Kassie M, Abate T, Prasanna B M and Menkir A 2014 Managing vulnerability to drought and enhancing livelihood resilience in sub-Saharan Africa: Technological, institutional and policy options. Weather and Climate extreme (2014), 3, 67-79.
Steinfeld H, Wassenaar T and Jutzi S 2006 Livestock production systems in developing countries: status, drivers and trends. Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties (Paris), 2006, 25 (2), 505-516.
Tenaw S, Islam Z K M and Parviainen T 2009 Effects of land tenure and property rights on agricultural productivity in Ethiopia, Namibia and Bangladesh. University of Helsinki, Department of Economics and Management. Discussion Papers No: 33 Helsinki 2009.
Thornton P K 2010 Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Sep 27; 365(1554): 2853–2867. Doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0134. PMCID: PMC2935116.
World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism (WISP) 2007 Pastoralists’ species and ecosystems knowledge as the basis for land management. WISP Policy Brief 5:1-4.
Zziwa E, Mugerwa S, Owoyesigire B and Mpairwe D 2012 Contribution of integrated catchment and surface water management to livestock water productivity in pastoral production systems. International Journal of Biosciences, 2: 52-60.
Received 4 April 2018; Accepted 30 April 2018; Published 1 June 2018