Has a 'policy space' for pastoralism been opened up in Kenya?

Kenya’s arid and semi-arid lands (known as ‘ASALs’, highlighted on the map - click for large version) have never enjoyed the kind of policy attention that takes account of their unique capacities and challenges. Pastoralism, the dominant production system in much of the region, has been especially misunderstood. Pastoralists and livestock move around; there is low population density but high population growth. Customary practices and indigenous knowledge play a strong role. National policy and practice has rarely taken account of these factors. The area is chronically marginalised and isolated, and literacy and vaccination rates are low.

The Ministry of State for Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands was set up to address these challenges. A new working paper by Izzy Birch and Mohamed Elmi, Creating Policy Space for Pastoralism in Kenya (pdf), tells the story of how and why the Ministry was created, and some of the lessons learned.

You can watch the authors explaining the story in this seminar at the Institute of Development Studies in May 2013:



Formed in April 2008, the Ministry picked up on a growing recognition that the region’s economic potential had been overlooked. Its creation could be seen as opening a ‘policy space’, where new opportunities, relationships and directions are possible.

Pastoralism in Kenya has long faced policy and institutional challenges. A historical neglect of development in the ASALs, and repeated cycles of drought and conflict, reinforced the idea that pastoralism was unviable. But the region’s problems were as much a product, if not more, of political choices than of ecology. This framing began to be challenged by emerging narratives during the 2000s, including economic potential, diversity and equality, and resilience.

Priorities
In this context, the Ministry had to choose its priorities carefully. From the early days the Ministry saw itself as time-bound, with a long list of expectations and demands. It concentrating its efforts on measures to re-balance policy and institutional priorities in the long-term interests of the region. In part because of a limited budget and timeframe, the Ministry decided to focus on strategic and systemic change: co-ordination, implementing selected programmes, looking to reform policy and institutions, and regional interaction across national borders.

The working paper also discusses the Ministry’s relationships with NGOs, development partners, parliament, the research community, the private sector and individuals. In the area of policy reform, the Ministry looked for strong evidence to back up its claims, and offered an alternative storyline – of opportunity and potential – to counter the dominant negative view of the region.

Progress
Progress in co-ordination efforts was variable. Some strides forward were made in the energy, education and health sectors, but road provision and security were less successful. In terms of the policy process, the Ministry broadened the focus of ASAL policy from food security to take in a wider range of sectors, putting the social, cultural, legal and institutional impediments to development on the table.

The ASAL Policy, approved by Parliament in December 2012, represented the end of a decade-long struggle. It was important for its symbolism as well as its content. Among other things, the policy established an institutional framework to oversee its interpretation and implementation, which provided dedicated and specialist attention to ASAL issues within government.

What next?
What future for pastoral development in Kenya? It is still early days, and the progress made so far needs follow up and support. Policy spaces close as well as open. Ahead lies a period of institutional change and uncertainty. As the ASALs are brought further into the heart of government they will become implicated in different power struggles. But some shifts have taken place. The challenge now will be to sustain the process of policy reform and continue to learn from this experience.

Further resources

• Creating Policy Space for Pastoralism in Kenya (pdf) by Mohamed Elmi and Izzy Birch, Future Agricultures Working Paper 68
• FAC research on Pastoralism

Voices from the field: growing cotton in Nuanetsi ranch

This week again I am highlighting another of our videos from the series, 'Voices from the Field'.

Again, if you don't want to watch the intro sequence again, run it on to around 1 minute 11 seconds.

This week, I want to introduce Mr Chidangure who produces cotton in the Uswaushava area, part of the massive Nuanetsi ranch. While he focuses on cotton, his wife organises beer sales. Together they make a significant income, and have begun investing in purchasing cattle, and building their home.
While the cotton price has dipped in recent years, they are still committed to growing it, but are also diversifying into other crops. Mr Chidangure favours the former parastatal Cottco, as it reliably supplies seed and chemicals, but there are many other companies competing for custom in the area, and competition is fierce.

When the film was made this was still an 'informal settlement' with absolutely no formal tenure security. Despite this, investments such as house building have occurred, as seen in the film. Since then their claims on the land have been recognised with 'offer letters', and with this farmers feel more secure.

Thanks to income from cotton the family has finished the construction of the houses, with them all now plastered and painted.

  
For the full set, go to: http://www.youtube.com/user/ZimLandReform

This post was written by Ian Scoones and originally appeared on Zimbabweland

Our IDS Bulletin on China & Brazil in African agriculture quoted in The Guardian

The Guardian quotes our recent IDS Bulletin in an article on China and Brazil in African agriculture, alongside remarks made by FAO Director-General José Graziano da Silva.

In an article published 27 August 2013, Mark Tran writes: "China and Brazil have identified agriculture as central to their development efforts in Africa, confident in the belief that they can make valuable contributions based on their own agricultural success."

Read the full article here: Brazil and China scramble for agricultural influence in Africa

Voices from the field: a successful sugarcane grower from Chiredzi

As I mentioned last week, while I am away on holiday, I am going to highlight a few of our videos, 'Voices from the Field'. If you don't want to watch the intro sequence again, run it on to around 1 minute 11 seconds.

This week, I want to introduce Mr Nago and family who have an A2 plot in Mkwasine near Chiredzi. He explains how difficult it was to start up. The land he received was uncleared bush. They have gradually cleared portions of the 66ha. They started with maize and vegetables that brought income, and then increased the proportion of land allocated to sugarcane. Now they have a large area, and Mr Nago is a member of the Sugarcane Development Association.

On-going disputes with the core estate at Hippo Valley resulted in problems for the new farmers, but relations have improved since the film was made, as has the water supply which was previously highly intermittent. Getting credit finance was also a big challenge, although now loan arrangements linked to sugarcane have improved.

Sugar production on these A2 sites is booming, and as Mr Nago explains, cane is bringing income, allowing him to expand the area under production.

For the full set, go to: http://www.youtube.com/user/ZimLandReform

This post was written by Ian Scoones and originally appeared on Zimbabweland

Climate change: where stereotypes go to die

by Nathan Oxley, STEPS Centre

What do you mean when you call someone a climate sceptic? I went to a panel discussion last Thursday evening, “Tackling scepticism: How can we most effectively communicate climate change?” which despite the confrontational title, was an enjoyable debate touching on how people on different sides of a sometimes polarised climate debate think of, and treat, each other.

The event started with the audience being invited to name experiences of scepticism by the chair, Ed Gillespie (who’s also blogged about the evening here). This ended up looking rather like a list of types of climate sceptics (see picture). Initially, this exercise rang some alarm bells for me. It mainly served to demonstrate that, rather than one single stereotype of “climate sceptic” or “climate denier”, there are many possible stereotypes. But they are still stereotypes.

The list of types of sceptic.
Source: Futerra blog

In the event, though, I found it useful to see such a list out in the open. A couple of people suggested that many of the stereotypes could easily be turned on their head and applied to the green movement in general or advocates of low-carbon policies in particular. It reminded me that we all instinctively like to put people in categories. We can dish it out but it's a bit harder to take it.

It may be human nature to create them, but caricatures – whomever they are about – can easily do more harm than good, especially when applied to views about a complex problem. They can be fun, even affectionate, or cathartic, but not very productive in the end. What they leave out, or don’t address enough, is a proper engagement with people’s values and what they want the future to look like.

These are things that have been unjustly neglected in parts of the climate debate. Chris Rapley of UCL, on the panel, suggested that two people, given the same information, may end up with different views of what they think is happening and how to respond. I would add that in another scenario, two people with access to the same information might select or prioritise different parts of it. Rather than jumping to portray them as a ‘denier’ or ‘alarmist’, we might ask what politics, values and assumptions lie behind these different visions. The aim should not be to erase these differences or try to convert everyone to our values, or to pretend that climate is a technical issue that we can solve by the application of enough science.

The types of questions that the STEPS Centre specialises in are useful here, I think (although I guess I’m biased). Rather than simply asking “what should we do about climate change”, it’s useful to examine how the people in the conversation frame the issue, what their values and assumptions are, and what they imagine about the future. It also doesn’t hurt to recognise that none of us are in possession of the full facts, and the climate (like many other problems) is as complex and unpredictable as a toddler's birthday party in the way it interacts with other systems. Climate change may be a phenomenon where nature behaves in a way we wouldn’t wish it to: but it is also a human problem – we have to respond to it as citizens and communities with different desires, livelihoods and motivations. Climate change is political, as my SPRU colleague Alice Bell (also on the panel) put it. (Edit: Alice has summarised her opening comments at the event in a blog post for New Left Project.)

Climate change isn't always recognised equally by all as a problem. But even if it were, rather than just asking “what now”, we can ask (in Andy Stirling’s words) “which direction”, “who says”, “why?” and "who benefits?" This is not to say all opinions or options are equally valid, or that all commentators are innocently impartial (be they of the green persuasion or otherwise). If you’re in favour of action to mitigate climate change, for example, consider that climate is one of the justifications used to appropriate so-called “underused, marginal” land for biochar and biofuels projects at the expense of poor people. On the other side, an overly laid-back view of climate change can be an excuse for a stagnant, short-sighted energy policy.

As Chris Rapley pointed out, characterisations of the other as “sad, mad or bad” are usually over-the-top and applied too easily. Yes, there is extremism and ignorance among non-greens and greens alike. But ill-tempered arguments can quickly spiral out of control and it takes a disproportionate amount of time to rebuild trust. Politeness may be stifling, but respect is worth pursuing. This is not a recipe for a naïve debate where anything goes. It’s a reminder that sometimes it is worth stepping back and asking different questions before rushing to judgement.

This article was originally posted on The Crossing.