In Canada, the most widespread approach to citizen participation in forestry decision-making is forest advisory committees. In this paper, we report on the results of a survey of forest advisory committee members that has been repeated every few years since 2001. We clustered the survey questions to create composite variables representing seven dimensions of the functioning and effectiveness of forest advisory committees: efficiency, representation, voice, decision-making process, trust in forest managers, effectiveness, and the availability, relevance, complexity and trustworthiness of information. While most committee members continue to view the process positively, after a steady improvement of committee members’ overall assessments since 2001, in the most recent survey, the proportion of those who are unsatisfied has grown. Moreover, effectiveness has consistently been assessed less favourably than the other six dimensions that we considered—dimensions upon which effectiveness presumably depends. Part of the reason is that a significant minority of committee members feel that they have little meaningful influence over forest management and that the relevance of the committees has declined. This points to the need for continual attention from policymakers to the matter of how and how much forest advisory committees are enabled to influence the direction of forest management.

Legal frameworks for communal land rights in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania are now gaining momentum. Questions can be raised as to whether, how, and to what extent these frameworks take into account the disadvantages of formalising tenure and the complexities of pastoral resources. In this paper, we consider the impact of these challenges on the formalisation of communal ownership, beginning with an overview of how commons theory has influenced land governance policies and how it is applied to pastoral systems. We identify the main challenges that land policy interventions in East Africa face and ways in which the conceptual models of shared property rights embodied in current land tenure regimes are not well adapted to the socio-ecological characteristics of some rangeland landscapes. We argue that policy interventions capable of overcoming the paradox of pastoral tenure and strengthening tenure security while addressing herders’ needs for mobility and flexibility will often involve the progressive recognition of layers of sometimes overlapping rights, rather than attempts to subdivide landscapes into simple mosaics of discrete communal territories. This paper is based on an analysis of the legal frameworks for land tenure in the three countries and a review of the literature on pastoralism and land governance in the region.

Despite progress towards recognizing communal land rights, there may be unintended outcomes, and for pastoral areas there is a need to be aware of how this may affect evolving pastoralist livelihoods. This paper examines trends in pastoralist livelihoods, perceptions and aspirations of pastoralists in a setting where a new communal property rights framework is in the early stages of implementation. The study was carried out in Dirre, a grazing unit of the Borana Zone in Ethiopia. It employed a mixed methods approach that included key informant interviews, focus group discussions, a workshop, a household survey and feedback sessions. The findings show that current livestock herd sizes make it difficult for pastoralists to rely only on livestock keeping, and have necessitated diversification. Crop production is increasingly becoming an alternative livelihood source, and most respondents reported wanting to expand their farms. Pastoralists also expect land certification to help secure land rights and enable better management of rangelands. However, there is also a widely held view that by providing security, certification will also make it easier for them to continue diversifying their livelihoods. This suggests that communal land certification is not likely to end the push to individualization of land and the transition to agropastoralism; it may even accelerate it. The strengthening of communal land rights can thus be used to guide this transition so that it represents a reorganization rather than a collapse of pastoralism. The focus of formalizing land rights for pastoralists should not be saving pastoralism or reversing the agropastoralist trend, but rather securing land rights to enhance the pastoralists’ capacity to make sound livelihood decisions.

Recognizing that community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) approaches have had mixed success in pastoral rangelands, this paper compares five case studies-two from Kenya, two from Ethiopia and one from Tunisia-to identify aspects of social-ecological context that affect the implementation and success of CBNRM in pastoral settings. Data for each case was collected following a common protocol. Among the characteristics that emerged from our study as important were socio-political and biophysical characteristics of the wider landscape within which the community's rangeland territory is located and the extent to which that territory is circumscribed by some combination of other land uses and land tenure types, major political boundaries, and physical landscape features. The analysis of these cases suggests that where pastoralist communities coexist in large, open rangeland landscapes, rather than a narrowly community-based approach, natural resource management interventions need to be explicitly multi-level and horizontally flexible.

Pastoralism faces diverse challenges, that include, among others, land tenure insecurity, that has necessitated the need to formalize land rights. Some governments have started regularizing rights for privately owned land, but this is complex to implement in pastoral areas where resources are used and managed collectively. Our aim was to assess how the scale of communal land tenure recognition in pastoralist systems may affect tradeoffs among objectives such as tenure security, flexibility, mobility, and reduction of conflicts. We used a participatory scenario-building approach to investigate alternative scenarios of land tenure recognition in southern Ethiopia where a new communal land tenure system is in the early stages of implementation. Through key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and a workshop, respondents analyzed the likely outcomes of communal land tenure recognition at different scales. Our findings suggest that there is a good chance of success when the tenure policy is embedded onto customary structures. All scales have some shortcomings, but Reera seems best, yet pastoralists preferred the Dheeda which despite its challenges, is the best for maintaining flexible mobility. There are multiple uncertainties and complexities, which suggest the for multi-pronged approaches and various support mechanisms when implementing a formal land tenure system in these areas.

Background: The arid and semi-arid lands experience inherently unpredictable rainfall and frequent droughts, which are exacerbated by climate change. This consequently leads to deterioration of land resources, and eventually forage and water shortages that negatively impact livestock productivity. In Kenya, development and government agencies have been supporting on-farm adaptation strategies such as water harvesting conservation structures to cope with climate hazards that affect agricultural production and food security in agro-pastoral and pastoral systems. The various water harvesting structures that have been promoted include Zai pits for growing crops and trees, water pans and shallow wells for livestock and domestic use, as well as for irrigation. However, the impact of such interventions with regard to improvement of range productivity and therefore welfare of agro-pastoral and pastoral communities has not been felt owing to low adoption rate by households. Results: This study determined social, economic and institutional factors influencing the adoption of water harvesting technologies by households in pastoral areas of Tana river County of Kenya. The data was collected through household survey, focus group discussions and key informant interviews. The results show that access to extension services and training, level of monthly income, main source of livelihood, land tenure, membership in social groups and availability of active farm labor significantly influenced the adoption of water harvesting structures.Conclusion: Pastoralists therefore need to be mobilized and trained on how to construct and use water harvesting structures and sensitized on the potential socioeconomic benefits of adopting them.

Abstract Rangelands research in arid and semi-arid sub-Saharan Africa has been reinvigorated by renewed government and donor interest in pastoral livelihoods. The challenges facing productive rangelands remain competition over resources, which has been exacerbated by armed conflict; overuse of some rangelands as fragmentation continues; and the failure of many technical and governance interventions. The unresolved development challenges of pastoralism in East and West Africa make it essential to renew long-term empirical research to understand rangeland dynamics and to develop appropriate public policies. The rangelands research agenda at the International Livestock Research Institue focuses on: (i) governance for better rangeland management; (ii) monitoring rangeland conditions to improve development interventions; (iii) understanding the interactions between climate change and the rangelands; and (iv) improving rangelands productivity for pastoral resilience.

BackgroundThe arid and semi-arid lands are affected inherently by unpredictable rainfall and frequent droughts, which are exacerbated by climate change. This has resulted in deterioration of land resources, leading to forage and water shortages that negatively impact on livestock productivity. To cope with these climatic hazards that affect agricultural production and food security in pastoral areas, on farm adaptation strategies such as water harvesting initiatives are being supported by development agencies and governments. Some of these strategies have not been able to produce the desired levels of productivity and thus have failed to improve the welfare of the pastoral communities or prevent rangelands from deteriorating due to low adoption rates at household level.ResultsThis study determined social, economic and institutional factors influencing the adoption of water harvesting systems at household level in pastoral areas of Tana River County of Kenya. The data was collected through household survey, focus group discussions and key informant interviews. The results show that access to extension services and training, monthly income level, main source of livelihood, land tenure system, membership in community groups and availability of active farm labor significantly influenced the adoption of water harvesting structures which need a combination of technical efficiency with low cost and acceptability to pastoral communities.ConclusionPastoralists therefore need to be mobilized and trained on how to construct and use water harvesting structures and sensitized on the potential socioeconomic benefits of adopting them.

Livestock production in arid and semi-arid areas is an important source of household food and income. Selling or buying of livestock and their products is important among pastoral communities who derive their source of livelihoods from livestock production. This study sought to determine factors that influence the initial decision of pastoral communities to participate in livestock markets and the extent or level of participation in livestock markets. Semi-structured questionnaires were used to collect data from pastoralists through face-to-face interview. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Heckman two-stage selection model that allows for determination of the discrete probability of participation and the extent of participation. The results show that most households participated in the livestock markets as sellers rather than buyers with herd recruitment and restocking for market participants being mainly through birth, borrowing or loaning female cows from friends. The number of livestock sold or bought by pastoralists at any given market price was significantly affected by the non-price constraints such as distance to the market, group marketing, age and education level. The decision of whether to participate and the level of market participation were significantly determined by pastoralists attaining and maintaining sufficiently large herd sizes and hence become willing to liquidate animals through the market. Sole emphasis on livestock marketing may not significantly manage risks unless there is proper understanding of pastoral long-term incentives to keep livestock. Therefore, developing livestock markets in pastoral areas should be along with investment on rangeland rehabilitation that enables reciprocal access of resources which allows them to maximize herd sizes.

The borders of national parks in Kenya are hotspots for human-wildlife conflict. The deliberate killing of lions by Maasai pastoralists is illegal, but continues despite mitigation attempts. Currently, there is a somewhat pervasive opinion, within the human-wildlife conflict literature, that lions are killed by Maasai people either as cultural ceremony or indiscriminately in response to the loss of livestock. We reconsider the indiscriminate reputation of lion-killing, using a combination of structured dialogue and quantitative analysis. Focus group discussions with Maasai pastoralists in three different pastoral regions, performed by in-country experts, minimized the risk of cross-cultural misinterpretation through a platform of shared Kenyan heritage. In our survey of 213 Maasai pastoralist communities, we found universal agreement that humans and lions should coexist in Kenya. Maasai communities distinguished among drought, disease, theft, loss and depredation as drivers of livestock losses. Maasai also distinguished among predatory species that take their livestock. The only cause of livestock loss that provoked increased killing of lions, was depredation by lions. Lion-killing was not provoked by other predatory species. We found regional variation in the baseline probability of lion-killing, and discuss the sources of this variation. The probability of lion-killing increases as an act of retribution for predation of livestock that discriminates among species of carnivore. This, coupled with universal acceptance of coexistence between lions and Maasai pastoralists, should guide mitigation strategies for human-wildlife interactions in Kenya and beyond. A plain language summary is available for this article. Plain Language Summary

This study estimates the economic contribution of grazing management practices in pastoral systems by specifically undertaking an economic analysis of pastoralists’ preferences for grazing management practices and the economic value pastoralists place on them. The study applied the discrete choice experiment technique using a D-optimal design, a multi-attribute preference elicitation method to evaluate the economic value of grazing management options practiced in pastoral areas of Kenya. The results show that pastoral communities derive positive utility in connected systems that enable reciprocal access to resources in both wet and dry seasons. Pastoralism adapts to spatial–temporal variability of pasture and water through herd mobility; hence the positive utility derived from practices that contribute to the availability of adequate water and pasture across the seasons. These findings provide empirical evidence on the social and economic net benefits of rangeland management practices that should be enhanced to promote sustainable management of rangeland resources.

While it has repeatedly been observed that pastoralist resource governance systems tend not to conform to the assumptions and principles of mainstream scholarship on property rights and governance of commons, coherent theoretical reasons why this is the case are less common. One exception is the concept of 'open property regimes'. This view holds that the quintessential features of dryland pastoralist systems—limited and highly variable rainfall, low resource density, mobility, and institutions and norms that emphasize flexibility and access—can result in pastoralist herders dynamically distributing and redistributing themselves across a territory without the assumed benefit of clear boundaries or of collective decision-making and rules. However, the open property regimes explanation describes some pastoralist systems better than others. This paper argues that some pastoralist systems are neither conventional commons nor open property regimes. Instead they tend reflect another model, referred to here as a 'complex mosaic regime', in which there is gradation of strength and clarity of exclusionary property rights over different resources, in which property rights are often unbundled and allocated to different actors and governance mechanisms, and in which a prominent role is played by social processes and governance mechanisms other than property rights institutions. Social and biophysical characteristics that may be more conducive to complex mosaic regimes than to open property systems, particularly if all of those characteristics are found together, include a severe and chronic shortage of one or more critical resources, spatial heterogeneity of resources, scalar heterogeneity of interests, and a herd mobility pattern that involves occasional convergence on highly valued key resource areas. In elaborating the complex mosaic regime model, this paper addresses a blind spot in scholarship on property rights and commons, deepening the understanding of why pastoralist systems tend not to conform to mainstream theory, as well as helping to explain some of the differences among pastoralist systems. Understanding the internal logic of alternative resource governance regime models and the social-ecological conditions that make one model more viable than another can help to guide national policies and the strategies of conservation and development actors.

The desire to overcome fragmented management of the natural ecosystems on which human beings depend has contributed to a growing interest in landscape approaches and to deeper questions about landscape governance systems. We assessed the emergent governance system that corresponds to the Mt. Marsabit landscape ecosystem in northern Kenya, applying a framework that includes 17 different indicators. We found that in this governance system, the most important spaces where coordination and joint planning took place were district level coordination committees, within which representation of communities and voices from the grassroots was poor. Institutional and organizational linkages were such that those parts of the governance system for which legitimacy and accountability were strongest were the parts for which ability to generate resources was weakest, while the parts of the governance system that had the best access to resources was where accountability was weakest or the most indirect. In this paper we use the Mt. Marsabit case study to explore the role that organizational and institutional linkages play in the strengths and weaknesses of landscape governance systems, and consider the implications for governance design at landscape level. Institutional linkages play a critical role in determining how landscape governance systems function across scales and levels, and their degree of fit. Appropriate linkages can help to create connections among key dimensions of effective governance within the system, dimensions such as use of knowledge, capacity to generate resources, fit, learning, legitimacy, accountability, and responsiveness, strengthening the system as a whole. Of the various linkages that characterize a governance system, it is those that give community-level actors a meaningful voice at higher levels and in spaces where key decisions are being made that are most critical for enabling effective landscape governance.

Landscape approaches can be subjected to mistakenly targeting a single “best” level of governance, and paying too little attention to the role that cross-scale and cross-level interactions play in governance. In rangeland settings, resources, patterns of use of those resources, and the institutions for managing the resources exist at multiple levels and scales. While the scholarship on commons offers some guidance on how to conceptualize governance in rangeland landscapes, some elements of commons scholarship—notably the “design principles” for effective governance of commons—do not seem to apply neatly to governance in pastoralist rangeland settings. This paper examines three cases where attempts have been made to foster effective landscape governance in such settings to consider how the materiality of commons influences the nature of cross-scale and cross-level interactions, and how these interactions affect governance. In all three cases, although external actors seemed to work appropriately and effectively at community and landscape levels, landscape governance mechanisms have been facing great challenges arising from relationships beyond the landscape, both vertically to higher levels of decision-making and horizontally to communities normally residing in other landscapes. The cases demonstrate that fostering effective landscape-level governance cannot be accomplished only through action at the landscape level; it is a task that must be pursued at multiple levels and in relation to the connections across scales and levels. The paper suggests elements of a conceptual framework for understanding cross-level and cross-scale elements of landscape governance, and offers suggestions for governance design in pastoralist rangeland settings.