Charles Odhong1, Suzanne van Djik2, Raphael Wahome3, Vicky Chepkorir4, Francis Kihara5, Victor Kamadi5, Maren Radeny6 1Unique Land Use, Kenya 2Unique Land Use, Germany 3Department of Animal Production, University of Nairobi, Kenya 4Wangari Maathai Institute for Peace and Environmental Studies, University of Nairobi, Kenya 5Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nairobi, Kenya 6International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Kenya i ©2025 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) ILRI thanks all donors and organizations which globally support its work through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund This publication is copyrighted by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). It is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. To view this license, visit https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0. Unless otherwise noted, you are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format), adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially, under the following conditions: ATTRIBUTION. The work must be attributed but not in any way that suggests endorsement by ILRI or the author(s). NOTICE: For any reuse or distribution, the license terms of this work must be made clear to others. Any of the above conditions can be waived if permission is obtained from the copyright holder. Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights. Fair dealing and other rights are in no way affected by the above. The parts used must not misrepresent the meaning of the publication. ILRI would appreciate being sent a copy of any materials in which text, photos etc., have been used. Editing, design and layout—ILRI Editorial and Publishing Services, Nairobi, Kenya. Citation: Odhong, C., Van Djik, S., Wahome, R., Chekorir, V., Kihara, F., Kamadi, V. and Radeny, M. 2025. Impact of Community- based Rangeland Management (CBRM) and Livestock Marketing Interventions on Adaptive Capacity, Food and Nutrition Security, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Extensive Livestock Systems in Kenya. ILRI Research Report. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI Box 30709, Nairobi 00100 Kenya Phone +254 20 422 3000 Fax +254 20 422 3001 ilri.org ILRI is a CGIAR research centre Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Phone +251 11 617 2000 Fax +251 11 667 6923 mailto:ilri-kenya@cgiar.org mailto:ilri-ethiopia@cgiar.org mailto:ilri-ethiopia@cgiar.org ii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................ iv Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... v Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... vi 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Livestock production in Kenya ............................................................................................................. 1 Beef cattle production ........................................................................................................................ 2 Sheep and goat production ................................................................................................................. 3 1.2. Trends in Beef production and consumption ......................................................................................... 4 2. Adaptive Capacity, Food and Nutrition Security and GHG Emissions in Extensive Livestock Production Systems ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5 2.1. Adaptive Capacity of Extensive Livestock Production System ................................................................. 5 2.2. Food and Nutrition Security in Extensive Livestock Production Systems .................................................. 6 2.3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Extensive Livestock Production Systems ................................................... 9 2.4. The nexus between Adaptive Capacity, Food Nutrition Security and Greenhouse Gas emissions ............. 10 3. Livestock Interventions in ASALs ............................................................................................................. 12 3.1. Community-based Rangeland Management interventions ................................................................... 13 Impact of CBRM Interventions on adaptive capacity. ........................................................................... 15 Impact of CBRM Interventions on Food and Nutrition Security. ............................................................ 17 Impact of CBRM Interventions on Greenhouse Gas Emission................................................................ 17 3.2. Livestock Marketing Interventions ..................................................................................................... 18 Impact of Livestock Marketing Interventions on Adaptive Capacity....................................................... 20 Impact of Livestock marketing Interventions on Food and Nutrition Security ......................................... 21 Impact of livestock marketing intervention on Greenhouse Gas Emission ............................................. 21 4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 22 References .................................................................................................................................................... 24 iii Table 1. Estimated beef output by production system .................................................................................................. 1 Table 2. Characterization of beef cattle production systems in Kenya .......................................................................... 3 Table 3. Livestock intervention is pastoral livestock production systems .................................................................... 12 Table 4. Causes and effects of rangeland degradation ................................................................................................ 16 Figure 1. Kenya’s beef production, consumption and net exports (2007-2019) (Source: KNBS and ITC Trademap, 2020) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2. Dimensions of FNS (Source: Burchi et al. 2011) ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 6. Livestock to nutrition pathways (Truebswasser and Flintan 2018) ................................................................. 8 Figure 3. Tonnes of Co2 eq emission by beef production system (Source: FAO, 2016; ASL2050 FAO. 2017) ................ 9 Figure 4. GHG emissions by source and beef production system ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 5. Conceptual framework for understanding the effects of livestock interventions on FNS in a climate and socio-political context (e.g., Scoones 1998). ............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 7. Typical conservancy management structure (King and Kaelo, 2015) ............................................................ 14 Figure 8. Main Livestock trade routes and markets in Kenya (ICPALD, 2015) .............................................................. 19 iv This review was undertaken as a part of the project “Strengthening Adaptive Capacity of Extensive Livestock Systems for Food and Nutrition Security and Low-emissions Development in Eastern and Southern Africa”. The project was financially supported by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) with the aim of supporting stakeholders engaged in extensive livestock systems in Eastern and Southern Africa to design and implement scalable, sustainable interventions that promote adaptive capacity and food and nutrition security of livestock keepers, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from livestock production. The review has been participatory involving various experts and stakeholders. v In Kenya, the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) support over 70% of the country's livestock and 85% of its wildlife. Pastoralists, who practice extensive livestock production, dominate these regions, contributing about 46.3% of the nation's beef production. Livestock production systems in Kenya’s rangelands face several challenges that affect livestock productivity and increase mortality. This low-input system relies on natural or semi-natural vegetation in rangelands, where pastoralists—whether transhumant or nomadic—derive over half their income from livestock and livestock products. The challenges experienced can broadly be categorized into: i) Environmental (climate change, soil erosion, declining biodiversity, lack of water, increased spread of livestock diseases); ii) Social (conflict, increased demand for land); and iii) Governance (changes in land tenure systems, elite influence on decision making, weakening traditional institutions). At the same time, livestock systems also contribute to climate change primarily through the production of greenhouse gases (nitrous oxide and methane) mainly from enteric fermentation, fodder, and manure management. Interventions to improve productivity in pastoral livestock systems in Kenya have mainly focused on improving livestock production, strengthening marketing systems and rangeland restoration. To increase production, interventions have focused on provision of animal health services e.g. disease control programs. To strengthen markets, interventions have focused on reducing marginalization of pastoralist and enhancing access to local and external markets. To restore rangelands, management interventions have focused on addressing the cause of degradation. Rangeland restoration interventions implemented by communities and various stakeholders include: i) rotational of grazing on pastures; ii) reseeding of rangelands; iii) reduction of livestock numbers; iv) variation of the species of livestock kept by the communities; and v) modification of grazing times for individuals and communities. Interventions to improve productivity and restore rangeland landscapes have resulted in better animal nutrition with positive impact on health and fertility - healthier animals, which emit less GHG to produce more output (e.g. early attainment of market weight). vi AFOLU Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses ASALs Arid and Semi-Arid Lands ASFs Animal Source Foods ASGTS Agricultural Sector Transformation Strategy CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource Management CBRM Community Based Rangeland Management CO2 Carbon dioxide equivalent CH4 Methane COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa CSA Climate-Smart Agriculture CSVs Climate Smart Villages DDS Dietary Diversity Score DRIVE De-risking, Inclusion and Value Enhancement project FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations FNS Food and Nutrition Security GHG Greenhouse gas GoK Government of Kenya HoA Horn of Africa ICPALD IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development in Eastern Africa IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change KCSAIF Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Implementation Framework KES Kenya Shillings Kg Kilogram KMT Kenya Market Trust KNBS Kenya National Bureau of Statistics KWS Kenya Wildlife Services MoALF Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries Mt Metric tonnes NAIP National Agriculture Investment Plan NCCAP National Agriculture Investment Plan, National Climate Change Action Plan NDC Nationally Determined Contributions TWENDE Towards Ending Drougt Emergencies project USAID United States Agency for International Development 1 The Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) make over 83% of Kenya’s total land mass and support over 70% of the country's livestock and 85% of wildlife populations (Esilaba et al. 2011; Odhiambo 2013). Most of the beef production occur in ASALs mainly by pastoralists and large-scale ranches under extensive production systems. Thirty-six percent of the Kenyan population live in pastoral and agro-pastoral areas that jointly account for 76% of all beef production value (FAO, 2017). Therefore, beef systems play a major role in supporting the livelihoods of people living in arid and semi-arid lands. However, the revenue per head of cattle is lower in pastoral and agro- pastoral systems than in ranching and feedlots systems, suggesting that households, on average, derive only marginal benefits from their cattle (Kahi et al. 2006). The total value of beef production in Kenya, estimated by using standard parameters for offtake, dressing weight, and offal proportion, can be estimated to over 106 billion KES (Table 1). Table 1. Estimated beef output by production system Production system Cattle population Off take % Live weight (Kg) Price per Kg Revenue per head (KES) Revenue from animal sale (KES) National contribution to beef output (production value) (percentage) Pastoral 8,085,053 15 200 180 36,000 43,659,284,047 41.2 Agro-pastoral 5,420,342 15 250 180 45,000 36,587,311,653 34.5 Dairy Systems (culls, fattened bulls) 4,505,733 7.9 300 150 45,000 16,017,879,344 15.1 Ranching 762,544 15 400 200 80,000 9,150,523,804 8.6 Feedlots 42,990 25 300 200 60,000 644,847,000 0.6 Total 18,816,661 42,307 106,059,845,848 Sources: Gross output calculated using estimated proportions of herd number in the different production systems (FAO 2017) based on KNBS livestock figures (GoK 2016) and offtake\percentages (USAID 2012) and prices provided by experts from State Department of Livestock. Pastoralists in extensive production systems, experience low livestock productivity, high variation in production and availability of feedstock, chronic food and nutrition insecurity and economic hardship, which are often exacerbated by climate variability and change (Truebswasser and Flintan 2018; Godde et al. 2020). Furthermore, the compositional (lean to fat ratio) and organoleptic (appearance, colour, texture, and consistency) quality of beef 2 from pastoralism has often been reported to be low (Wanyoike et al. 2016; Alarcorn et al. 2017). Low quality makes it difficult to market livestock and livestock products to the hospitality and service industries which are increasingly demanding high-quality beef (Rakotoarisoa et al. 2008). This market niche has remained largely unfulfilled because, apart from large-scale ranches, there has been limited effort by pastoralists to improve quality of livestock and livestock products (Akilu et al. 2013; Pelrine 2009). The inability of pastoralists to meet the increasing and changing market demand has been associated with several factors. These factors include drought and erratic weather patterns affecting feed and water supply, livestock diseases, poor management of pastures, lack of and/or weak delivery of extension and veterinary services, high cost of inputs, poor market infrastructure, low prices and insecurity (Wanyoike et al. 2018; GoK 2012; Carabine 2018; Makokha and Witwerm 2013). The changes in livestock production landscape as a result of climate, economic and social factors reduce the ability of the pastoralists and agro-pastoralists to adapt affecting their food and nutrition security (FNS). These challenges highlight the need for extensive livestock keeping households and communities to build greater adaptive capacities to absorb and buffer the impacts of shocks (Thornton et al. 2009; Béné et al. 2014). Food and nutrition insecurity is common among extensive livestock keepers (COMESA 2009, IGAD 2016). Although purchased foodstuffs are increasingly common and important for dietary diversity and adequacy of specific micronutrients, livestock products make critical contributions to FNS in pastoralist communities (Lannotti and Lesorogol 2014; Galvin et al. 2015). Kenya has about 18.8 million head of beef cattle, of which 95.8% are of indigenous breeds, with 2.4 million households keeping beef cattle (KNBS 2019). The beef cattle industry is the second largest agricultural sub-sector by marketed value, at around 21% of recorded market value (ASGTS 2019). Beef continues to be the most popular red meat in Kenya, constituting up to 80% of the red meat consumed in the country (Mwangi et al. 2020). Kenya’s beef production is classified into three systems: i) extensive grazing systems, comprising of pastoralism and ranching; ii) semi-intensive grazing systems (agro-pastoralism); and iii) intensive systems (feedlots). The semi- intensive systems account for 54% of the farms, and prevalent in areas that can support rain-fed agriculture, in order to integrate with crop production in a symbiotic manner. Extensive pastoralism accounts for 34% of farms while extensive ranching accounts for 11% of the farms (FAO 2019). Only 1% of the livestock farms in Kenya is classified as intensive, primarily due to the high capital required. The detailed characterization of beef cattle production systems in Kenya are shown in Table 2. 3 Table 2. Characterization of beef cattle production systems in Kenya Beef Cattle Production Systems Extensive pastoralism Extensive Ranching Semi-intensive Feedlot (Intensive) Proportion of farms (%) 34% 11% 54% 1% Breeds Kept East Africa Zebu, Boran Sahiwal Improved Boran and exotic crossbreeds and pure exotic breeds Boran, Sahiwal and Zebu crosses and exotic breeds Average heads per household 50 150 10-12 - Feeding management Grazing on natural pastures Natural or cultivated pasture with some supplemented feed Grazing on communal areas and crop residues as feed supplements Concentrates and feed supplements Yield per animal (kg carcass weight per head) 125 240 NA NA Market Urban markets, bulk of domestic supply Local niche markets and international market. Middlemen operating in local primary markets and making a link with abattoirs Formal channels, niche markets in urban areas and export markets. NA: not available. Source: FAO 2019 Sheep and goats are a key livestock sub-sector. Kenya has 27,878,360 goat and 19,164,140 sheep (KNBS 2019). Small ruminants not only provide livestock keepers with regular cash income from meat, milk and manure, but also serve as insurance in case of emergencies (Kosgey et al. 2008). Production systems for sheep and goats are often extensive, involving grazing and browsing of available natural pastures (Mahgoub et al. 2005). Sheep and goat meat account for about 30% of Kenya’s red meat consumption (MoALF 2019). In terms of exports, the volume and value of Kenya’s goat and sheep meat exports in 2018 reached USD$ 34 million; four times more than the value of Kenya’s beef exports. The main export market for sheep and goat meat is the Middle East. The small ruminant marketing systems in ASALs involve several players including producers, intermediaries, traders and numerous other market participants. Animals are moved from grazing areas to primary and secondary markets along key trading routes and corridors to terminal and export markets. The prices of live animal are variable and based on a bargain at the market. The quantity and quality of grazing land are often insufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of sheep and goats. Resettlement, population growth and privatization of land have made migration more difficult. Other constraints include the lack of markets and marketing systems, a lack of market information, poor infrastructure in livestock markets and the slaughterhouse leading to an increase in 4 transaction cost, insecurity on the roads also reduces market participation and low prices due to exploitive livestock brokers (Ojango et al. 2018; Katitu et al. 2013). Beef production in the country increased in past years and was mainly oriented towards the domestic market. For the period 2014 to 2019, beef production increased by 77% (from 263,000 to 465,000 tons) while export reduces in the same period as shown in Figure 1. Beef consumption similarly increased over the same period, remaining marginally higher than the local production. It is estimated that two thirds of Kenya’s meat production go through formal channels, while one-third is sold informally. Estate butcheries are the preferred outlets for most consumers (KMT 2014). Beef exports have also increased in recent years, mostly as frozen beef, but remain relatively small at 1,543 tonnes with an export value of US$6.3 million in 2018 (www.trademap.org). The main importers of Kenyan beef are low-income countries in Africa (e.g. South Sudan, Tanzania, Democratic Republic of Congo), with some exports to UAE, Vietnam and China having begun (KMT 2014). Figure 1: Kenya’s beef production, consumption and net exports (2007-2019) Source: KNBS and ITC Trademap 2020 The consumption of red meat in the country has increased at an average of 13% over the years, with an annual per capita consumption estimated at 14 kg per person (KNBS 2019). Consumption of red meat (beef, goat, and sheep) in Nairobi and Mombasa was estimated at 19.1 kg and 15.5 kg per capita per year, respectively (KMT 2014). Nairobi (14%) and Mombasa (3%) are red meat consuming hubs and drive the meat demand in Kenya, representing 17% of total volume consumed (KMT 2014). Most of the livestock sold and meat consumed in Nairobi comes from the pastoral communities. Therefore, there is an opportunity for pastoralists to meet this expected and growing demand if they are better integrated into the value chain and market inefficiencies are reduced or removed. http://www.trademap.org/ 5 Beef production in Kenya has not been fully exploited especially in the ASALs due to inadequate policy guidelines and other related legislation. However, the Ministry is addressing some of these challenges by initiating participatory policy development, including reviewing and improving the relevant legislation such as the ASAL Development Policy, National Livestock Policy and Pastoral Development Policy. Adaptive capacity is the ability of a (human) system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes), to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities or to cope with the consequences (IPCC 2001). Adaptive capacity has direct implications for how and at what level adaptation occurs within a given system (Nelson et al. 2007). In the context of food systems, adaptive capacity is usually exhibited or deployed to maintain livelihoods, food production, or food access while in the context of climate change, adaptive capacity is deployed to adapt to perturbations in growing or living conditions or shocks brought on by climate change. Therefore, adaptive capacity can also be referred to as the responsiveness of agri-food systems when faced with changing environmental conditions. The adaptive capacity of households is based on their ability to deploy livelihood assets to cope with climate and non-climate shocks. Asset accumulation and options for their deployment are, in turn, shaped by the biophysical and socio-economic environment. Adaptive capacity is manifested in the strategies that individuals and communities employ individually or collectively to adjust to changes to maintain or improve their status (Mulema et al. 2020a). Kenya is experiencing climate change effects including unpredictable and intense rainfall, increasing temperatures, prolonged droughts, frequent floods, landslides, and increased spread of new strains of crop and livestock diseases. Livestock production is negatively affected by direct and indirect impacts of climate change with varying impact on production systems (Kebede 2016). The direct impacts include droughts and floods, thermal stress due to increasing temperatures, mortality and reduced livestock productivity, reduced water availability and quality (drinking and irrigation). The indirect impacts include reduced availability and quality of forages, increased incidences of disease and pest distribution (e.g. parasites, ticks) and increased production costs. The impact of climatic changes is expected to heighten the vulnerability of livestock systems and reinforce existing factors that are already affecting livestock production systems (Anim 2013). Livestock losses may force households dependent on livestock into chronic poverty and have a lasting effect on livelihoods (Calvosa et al. 2010). 6 Non-climatic factors also increase the vulnerability of livestock producers to climate change. These include increasing resource degradation e.g. rangeland degradation, water pollution, fragmentation of grazing areas e.g. loss of transhumance corridors, lack of or changes in land tenure, affecting especially indigenous peoples and pastoral communities, governance, conflicts, migration and insecure access to resources, market shocks and others (e.g. COVID-19 pandemic) and limited knowledge to effectively address climate change hazards. These effects are negatively impacting on food and income security as well as the ecosystem health. In Kenya, the existing policy frameworks prioritize improving the adaptive capacity of livestock production systems. Some of the policies include the Agriculture Sector Growth and Transformation Plan, National Agriculture Investment Plan, National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP, 2018-2022), Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Implementation Framework (KCSAIF) (2018-2027). The National Agriculture Investment Plan (NAIP), for example, prioritizes boosting the adaptive capacity of food systems in ASAL regions through increased livestock productivity and marketing, while Kenya’s updated NDC (2020) prioritizes efficient livestock production. Food and nutrition security refers to a situation where all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (World Food Summit 1996). At community level, food security is defined as a situation where all citizens have safe, socially acceptable nutritious diet through a sustainable food system that optimizes healthy choices, community self-reliance, an equal access to every community member. There are four pillars of food security that need to be addressed simultaneously for the objectives of food security to be realized: food availability, access to food, utilization of food and stability of intake and supply. The nutritional dimension is integral to the concept of food security (CFS/GSFFSN 2011). FAO defines four dimensions of food security, all of which must be fulfilled simultaneously in order to achieve food security. The four dimensions are: i) physical availability of food; ii) economic and physical access to food; iii) food utilization; and iv) the stability of those other dimensions over time (FAO 2008). Figure 2 explains the four dimensions of food security. 7 Figure 2: Dimensions of Food and Nutrition Security Achieving food security for all requires a coordinated effort that incorporates preventive, promotional, protective and transformative measures. Preventive measures aim to help people avoid food insecurity, and include social insurance systems such as savings groups, as well as risk management measures such as crop diversification. Promotional measures aim to reduce vulnerability to food insecurity by enhancing incomes and capacities, for example through microcredit schemes. Protective actions are relief measures, required when preventive and promotional measures fail. Transformative measures, which underpin the other measures, seek to address issues of social inequity and exclusion (Devereaux and Sabates-Wheeler 2004). Livestock production contributes to improved human nutrition, primarily through direct consumption of animal products like meat, milk, and eggs, and generates income from selling livestock. In addition, it empowers women, who often manage livestock within a household, by enhancing their decision-making power regarding nutrition. Increasing rangeland and livestock productivity and livestock product marketing could improve FNS by increasing consumption of own-produced livestock products or through income used for food expenditures (Figure 3). Gender can affect FNS outcomes through several other factors, as gender relations affect livestock production and marketing decisions (Kinati and Mulema 2018); men’s and women’s income sources often contribute in different ways to household FNS (Villa et al. 2011); and gender affects nutrition, sanitation and other reproductive practices that impact FNS (Ambikapathi et al. 2021). Livestock production practices may all be affected by institutions from the community level to local and national levels as well as inter-regional trade. Institutions thus offer the potential 8 to improve FNS outcomes in ways that also support climate adaptation and GHG mitigation, such as access to resources, markets, and information. Figure 3: Livestock to nutrition pathways Source: Truebswasser and Flintan 2018 Food insecurity in Kenya in 2023 and 2024 was primarily driven by a combination of shocks, including five successive below-average rainy season in 2023, poorly distributed in space and short-lived, resulting in below average crop production, poor livestock conditions, and higher exposure to livestock disease. Food commodity prices increased while the purchasing power of most vulnerable households decreased. Climatic and economic shocks were compounded by the conflicts due to competition for resources witnessed in the ASAL counties of Turkana, Marsabit, Baringo, Laikipia and West Pokot, where human fatalities occurred, in addition to the loss of livelihoods and livestock herds (IPC 2023). Development of a sustainable food system is an integral part of ensuring food and nutrition security among extensive livestock producers. A sustainable food system delivers food and nutrition for all in a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised. This is mainly because food security status of any community, household or individual is typically determined by the interaction among a broad range of agro-environmental, socio-economic, institutional, and biological factors (Pinstrup-Andersen 2009). 9 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses' (AFOLU) are estimated to contribute 58.6% of total GHG emissions in Kenya, and livestock related emissions account for the overwhelming majority (96.2%) of those emissions (Government of Kenya 2020). These emissions arise from enteric fermentation and manure, which contribute about 54.8% (20.8 Mt CO2 eq) and 36.9% (13.6 Mt CO2 eq) respectively (WRI CAIT 2.0 2017). Agricultural emissions are projected to increase from 20 mega tonnes CO2 equivalent (Mt CO2 eq) in 2010 to 27 Mt CO2 eq in 2030, driven largely by methane emissions from livestock (Osumba and Rioux 2014). Kenya's Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) targets to limit the increase in total GHG emissions projected in the national BAU scenario by 30% between the base year of 2010 and 2030 (Government of Kenya 2015). Focussing on livestock production in Kenya is highly relevant since it is responsible for about 30% of its total GHG emissions and contributes about 45% to the agricultural gross domestic product (Government of Kenya 2015; McDermott et. al. 2010). The beef sector generates about 20.5 Mt CO2 eq. of GHG emissions, largely from animals in pastoral and agro- pastoral areas. Enteric fermentation is responsible for about 77% of all the sector’s emission (ASL2050 FAO. 2017). On a per head basis, cattle in feedlots emit more greenhouse gases per year (about 2 tCO2 eq. per year), than animals in the other production systems (1.41, 1.46 and 1.41 tCO2 eq. per year in pastoralism, agro-pastoralism and ranching systems, respectively) (Figure 4). The GHG emissions by source and beef production system is shown in Figure 5. Figure 4: Tonnes of CO2 eq emission by beef production system in Kenya Source: FAO,2016; ASL2050 FAO.2017 10 Figure 5: GHG emissions by source and beef production system Source: FAO 2016; ASL2050 FAO 2017) The interrelated nature of adaptive capacity, food nutrition security (FNS) and Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can create positive or negative correlations. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (Scoones 1998; Connolly- Boutin and Smit 2016) provides the conceptual approach that demonstrates the linkage between adaptive capacity and FNS (Figure 6). In this review, FNS is considered as the main indicator of livelihood outcomes.. In the framework (Figure 6), climate change is perceived as an external shock on already interacting biophysical and socio-economic drivers that act upon the community to shape its vulnerability, adaptive capacity and resilience. The adaptive capacity of households is based on their ability to deploy livelihood assets to cope with climate and non-climate shocks. The adaptive capacity of communities is manifested in the adaptation strategies employed, individually or collectively, to adjust to changes and to maintain or improve their status. Adaptation strategies include reactive coping strategies and proactive adaptation strategies, and are also shaped by the socio-economic and institutional context and interactions with other stakeholders, including gender relations (Mulema et al. 2020b). 11 Figure 6: Conceptual framework for understanding the effects of livestock interventions on FNS in a climate and socio-political context Source: Scoones 1998 Livelihood outcomes are the achievements of livelihood strategies, such as more income (e.g. cash), increased well-being (e.g. non material goods, like self-esteem, health status, access to services, sense of inclusion), reduced vulnerability (e.g. better resilience through increase in asset status), FNS (e.g. increase in financial capital in order to buy food) and a more sustainable use of natural resources (e.g. appropriate property rights). FNS has availability, access, utilization, and stability dimensions, and FNS outcomes may vary significantly within households. Impact indicators for food and nutrition security may include increase in financial capital and prevalence of stunting rates in children under five years of age. However, these indicators do not respond quickly to temporal changes in food and nutrition security. Livestock adaptation measures have co-benefits with GHG reduction. For example, increasing livestock productivity (whether through adaptation measures such as change in breed, feed, animal health or other management) reflects an increasing proportion of livestock energy intake being allocated to growth, reproduction or lactation, and a lesser proportion allocated to animal survival (maintenance). Therefore, an increase in productivity is generally associated with decreasing methane emissions per unit of livestock product (Gerber et al. 2011). GHG emission intensity can also be decreased by increased off-take or marketing of livestock products, which are generally considered as adaptation measures. 12 Interventions to improve productivity in pastoral livestock systems in Kenya have mainly focused on improving livestock production, rangeland restoration and strengthening route to market for pastoralist. Interventions to improve production have mainly targeted animal health. To cope with animal health challenges in extensive livestock production systems, stakeholders have invested in developing effective and sustainable animal health services, associated surveillance and emergency preparedness systems and sustainable disease control and prevention programs. Mass vaccinations have been initiated to control various livestock diseases among livestock keepers. However, these initiatives introducing changes in livestock management practices from external sources have been resisted by pastoralist, as past interventions on grazing led to losses on strategic grazing areas (Akall 2021; Stave et al. 2007). The interventions to strengthen route to market have mainly focused enhancing pastoralist market access at the local level as well as linking them to external markets. A summary of interventions as are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Livestock intervention is pastoral livestock production systems in Kenya Intervention objective Intervention Organization promoting the interventions References Improve livestock production Animal health - Vaccination Government of Kenya, Kenya Veterinary Vaccines Production Institute (KEVEVAPI), IGAD, Iles et al. 2022; Gachohi et al. 2016; Daborn et al. 2023; Kairu- Wanyoike et al. 2017 Animal health – Veterinary input supply and services Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), GIZ, Farm Africa, USAID ICPALD 2017; Nuvey et al. 2022; Omondi et al. 2021 Breeding resilient livestock species Inernational Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Ojango et al. 2023; Zonabend et al. 2016; Wurzinger et al. 2021 Rangeland restoration Community based rangeland management strategies (Conservancies, group ranches, enclosure, grazing management etc) Northern Rangeland Trust, Conservation International, University of Nairobi, County government of Samburu, Wajir and Marsabit Nganga et al. 2019; Nyongesa et al. 2023; Robinson et al. 2021; Kalvelage et al. 2021; Mureithi et al. 2019. Rangeland re-seeding National Drought Management Authority (NDMA), Munene, 2006; Mganga, 2009; Manyeki et al. 2015; Nyongesa et al. 2023, Kigomo and Muturi, 2013 Strengthening route to market Market construction and marketing strategies to enhance offtake International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), ILRI, Erick, 2022; Litta et al. 2021; Isako et al. 2019; Mbogo et al. 2016; Jones 2022; Mahmoud, 2006; Dabasso et al. 2021; Njiru et al. 2017 13 Community-based rangeland management (CBRM) refers to a system where local communities actively participate in managing and governing rangelands. This approach aims to improve the health of the rangeland ecosystem while supporting the livelihoods of pastoralist communities. Often, the community utilize traditional knowledge and leadership structures to ensure sustainable use of communal rangeland resources, with a focus on inclusivity and decision-making power within the community itself. This can be achieved through establishment of group ranches, by making decisions on grazing practices, livestock numbers, and land use planning, with the goal of ensuring sustainable resource utilization and maintaining the ecological health of the rangelands. CBRM may reduce the tragedy of the commons in management of communal resources (Robinson et al. 2021). Several CBRM systems are practiced in Kenya. These may include community ranches, traditional management systems and hybrid models combining elements of these approaches, often depending on the specific context of the rangeland and the communities e.g. community wildlife conservancies. The Borana Dedha system is a traditional rangeland governance system for land and its resources practiced by Borana Pastoralists1. The system is among the hailed customary systems in Northern Kenya that have effectively governed rangelands. The Dedha system provides directives on where to graze during wet season, mid-season, and dry season to avoid pressure on the rangelands. Reciprocal resource agreements are also a common feature in pastoralist customary traditions. These govern the use of shared resources, making one community’s resources available to a neighbouring community, particularly during times of drought or hardship. In recent decades, however, the power of these customary institutions is weakening due to the lack of formal recognition by the government, changing customs, elite capture, and introduction of many and diverse government policies at the National and County level (Robinson et al. 2021). Community and group ranches were introduced by the colonial government under the Swynnerton plan I (Kungu et al. 2022). The colonial policy included the Arid Land Development (ALDEV) programme, allocating funds to arid and semi-arid areas to initiate and enforce rotational grazing. The programme defined a group ranch as a livestock production system or enterprise where a group of people jointly own freehold title to land, maintain agreed stocking levels and herd their livestock collectively which they own individually (Ministry of Agriculture 1968). The aim was to control grazing, since unregulated grazing was blamed for land degradation (Kenya Protectorate 1956). They were presented as a compromise between conflicting communal ownership and private ownership interests. However, the initiative was viewed negatively by most pastoralists due to unequal herd sizes and disproportionate access to communally owned resources and benefits leading to subdivision of some group ranches. The subdivided group ranches lacked adequate acreage of pastures to allow rotational grazing. The Community Wildlife Conservancies (CWC) model is the latest approach aimed at enhancing sustainable 1 A nomadic group of people from the Oromo ethnic group who traditionally herd cattle, sheep, goats, and camels. 14 development of local communities through harnessing local resources. The model allows communities to manage and benefit from wildlife and tourism resources existing on their land unlike the previous models where wildlife management was focused on hunting control and establishment of National Parks managed government through the Kenya Wildlife Services (KWS). The structure and management of the community conservancies is shown in Figure 7. The conservancy model in Kenya reflects a shift of wildlife management policy towards community-based conservation strategies that allow co-management of wildlife resources by the communities, private entities and the government (at national and county level). Conservancies in Kenya are mainly classified into three categories: community conservancies, group conservancies and private conservancies. Community Conservancies are formed on jointly owned community land, where the community members come together and agree to set aside their land for conservation. These conservancies can include multiple objectives such as keeping livestock and allowing the area for free wildlife movement. The communities then share the benefits accrued jointly. Group Conservancies are formed through combined private land and community land, and by coming together, they increase the area for conservation. This type of conservancy tends to be managed more by professional wildlife and tourism operators. Private Conservancies are formed on private land by private individuals or corporates for the purpose of conservation. Figure 7. Typical conservancy management structure Source: King and Kaelo 2015 The Wildlife Conservation and Management Act of 2013 provides for the Conservancy model which attempts to modernize the traditional governance system (Robinson et al. 2021). Further, the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the Community Land Act of 2016 introduced a community tenure system2 that has equal standing with private land 2 Means unwritten land ownership practices in certain communities in which land is owned or controlled by a family, clan or a designated community leader. 15 and state-owned land (Constitution of Kenya 2010; GOK 2016; Robinson et al. 2021). In addition, other multiple policies3, interventions and programs introduced at the County and National levels have created diverse governance structures and institutions transforming rangelands in different ways. Concerns abound on whether these policies deploy principles of good governance, the extent to which community participation is deployed and the contribution of the policies to the sustainability of rangeland resources. In addition, the impacts of these policies on the existing governance systems and subsequent outcomes on extensive livestock systems are not well known (Ulambayar et al. 2017). Rangeland degradation is characterized by reduced cover of vegetation, exposing the soil surface to erosion, poor forage productivity and low diversity of plant species with weedy plants replacing palatable and nutritious species. The effects of rangeland degradation are ecological, economic and social, with poor households being the most vulnerable to production-system stress. Interventions to enhance rangeland restoration and sustainability have been adopted by pastoralists and promoted by various stakeholders. The engagement of rangeland actors (mainly pastoralists) in decision-making, and in the eventual application of guidelines for the management of rangelands is important in ensuring sustainability of the ecosystem. Participation can be used to enhance performance, promote joint planning and problem solving, and enhance social inclusion, improve equality and reduce vulnerability (Berkes et al. 2000) To enhance adaptive capacity, CBRM initiatives targeted to reduce degradation of the rangelands and restore the landscape in ASALs. The initiative mainly aims to reduce the causes of degradation. A summary of the causes of degradation and their effects on the rangelands are presented in Table 4. 3 National land use policy 2017, National Policy for the Sustainable development of Arid and Semi-Arid Lands 2017, National Water Policy 2021, National Livestock Policy 2019, Forest Policy 2024, National Wildlife Conservation and Management Policy 2017, National Environment Policy 2013 and Climate change policy 2016 16 Table 4. Causes and effects of rangeland degradation Cause of degradation Effects of degradation 1. Drought and other environmental disasters such as extreme weather Deterioration in rangeland condition such as soil stability and integrity of biotic composition 2. Poorly managed tree and bush cutting Reduced vegetation cover; decreased seasonal availability of forage; deterioration in herbaceous pasture 3. Excessive stocking rate Excessive intake; reduction of vegetation cover; diffusion of unpalatable and toxic poisonous species; reduction of seed bank in the soil 4. Poorly managed grazing Continuous removal of tissue and nutrients from plants; management difficulties of weed and manure 5. Lack of improvement to sustain productivity and biodiversity (sowing, fertilization and weed control) Vegetation productivity lower than optimal; reduced soil fertility; invasion of alien species 6. Proliferation of invasive species Plant succession; alter plant community composition; result in less desirable species Source: Bolo et al. 2019 Sustainable rangeland management interventions have been used to reduce degradation by addressing the cause of degradation. Some of the interventions implemented by communities and various stakeholders include: i) rotational grazing on pastures; ii) reseeding of rangelands; iii) reduction of livestock numbers; iv) variation of the species; and v) modification of grazing times for individuals and communities. Evidence show that these strategies improve vegetation cover, biodiversity, and biomass (Mureithi et al. 2016; Yayneshet and Treydte 2015; Rotich et al. 2018, Williams et al. 2018). Despite the low adoption of rotational grazing among some communities during drought, it has been found that rotational grazing improves the performance of both pasture and livestock and is a sustainable adaptive strategy to secure livelihoods in pastoral systems (Augustine et al. 2020; Roche et al. 2015 and Vecchio et al. 2019). Sustainable management of rangelands can reduce surface flows, improving water infiltration, boosting soil moisture, and recharging ground water resources. This contributes to reducing the risks of natural hazards, such as floods and drought, while increasing the adaptive capacity of communities (IUCN 2015). Restored rangelands have higher carrying capacity and less vulnerability to climate shocks. However, in Kenya migration or herd mobility (68.3%), herding splitting (21.8%) and rotational grazing within the community grazing zones (9.9%) are the main pasture management strategies adopted by pastoralists during drought (Mikula 2023). Animal mobility in pastoral systems has been reduced by urbanization and expansion of crop land, and also by measures to contain animal diseases, by conflicts and by settlement policies and interventions. 17 Changing climate, growing population in livestock production areas, changes in land use patterns, increasing demand for animal sourced foods, rising food prices and environmental stressors will have significant yet uncertain impacts on food security. Adoption of CBRM practices help address environmental degradation. Rangelands provide fodder for livestock and contribute to the food supply directly through meat and milk, and indirectly through income derived from meat, milk, fibre, and other products, as well as manure, drought power and other services. Animal source foods (ASFs) provide important nutrients in the diet and contribute to micronutrient status, growth, and health to under-nourished people, particularly children and women of maternal age (Dror and Allen 2011). Increasing production diversity and own consumption of ASFs are associated with the ability to meet minimum dietary diversity at household and individual levels. Livestock supports food and nutrition security for local people and can play a key role in ending hunger. Its principal contribution is increasing the direct consumption of healthy and nutritious animal-source foods. Better managed rangelands can lead to an increase in livestock productivity and livestock products, increasing availability, access and consumption of animal sourced foods. This can have a positive impact on nutritional status of livestock keepers. For example, improved rangeland vegetation would be expected to positively impact animal health and production. Improved animal health, milk yields, and weight gain could translate into increased consumption or income from livestock sales, thus positively impacting the FNS of pastoralist and agro-pastoralist households. Rangelands also offer employment opportunities throughout the livestock product value chains within and outside of their geographical areas. Some of these opportunities include animal rearing, slaughterhouses, meat inspection, and marketing. Alternative sources of livelihood like beekeeping (apiculture), gum Arabica production, handiwork, dryland agriculture and ecotourism also exist within the rangelands. Income derived from these opportunities are also used to purchase food, therefore impacting on household food security and nutrition. Rangelands hold significant carbon stocks. The total soil organic carbon stock (SOC) in drylands (which dominate rangelands) accounts for approximately 30% of the total global SOC stocks—as much as all the carbon stored in terrestrial vegetation. This carbon has above-average permanence due to the dry conditions (Laban et al. 2018). Soil biodiversity and soil organic carbon are vital to the way ecosystem’s function, and they largely determine the role of land in producing food, storing water, and mitigating climate change. They are the key to unlocking the multiple economic and environmental benefits of land. Carbon sequestration in rangeland soils or woody biomass is also a potentially significant option in reducing absolute emissions from extensive livestock systems (Tennigkeit and Wilkes 2008). Rangeland management interventions have potential to increase soil biodiversity and soil organic carbon. Rangeland soil carbon sequestration is associated with improvements in vegetation condition, and thus can support livestock productivity improvements (Rotich et al. 2018). 18 Rangeland and grazing management results in higher biomass productivity in pastures and rangelands, and better animal nutrition with positive impacts on health and fertility—healthier animals, which emit less GHG to produce more output (e.g. early attainment of market weight). High-quality and more digestible fodder results in less enteric methane (CH4) emissions and possibly changes in excretion and emissions from manure and avoided emissions through local feed sourcing and sequestration in fodder and trees (Mottet et al. 2017). Livestock marketing provides an indispensable link between producers and meat consumers (IPAR 2004). As a commodity and capital, livestock and livestock products are highly perishable, have scattered supply, individual variability, multiple uses, varied investment requirements and seasonality in trade, among others (Muthee 2006). Investments in livestock marketing require the development of properly functioning marketing systems where market outlets are clear and other support services such as marketing information and animal health are easily accessible. There are several stakeholders involved in livestock marketing. These include pastoralists, traders, trekkers, middlemen, brokers, county and municipal councils, veterinary department, transporters, stock traders and butchers, community-based livestock groups and donors (Muthee 2006). Markets play a crucial role in poverty reduction by enabling farm production to generate income through the sale of agricultural products (Ssajakambwe et al. 2020). Access to markets enable smallholder farmers to produce higher-value agricultural goods, providing them with a competitive edge and higher potential income and stimulate production by motivating farmers to meet the quality and quantity expectations of buyers (Obi et al. 2012; Getahun and Fetene 2021). Most of the Kenyan livestock marketing infrastructure was developed through the government's Livestock Marketing Division in the 1960's. It was created to facilitate marketing while the Kenya Meat Commission (KMC) was operational. The KMC collapsed in 1994 (IPAR 2004). KMC had a strategic role of being a buyer of the last resort during emergencies like drought, and particularly important for the extensive livestock production systems. Over the years, most of the marketing facilities have deteriorated in condition. However, some of these facilities are still used by traders while enroute to the secondary and terminal markets across the common livestock trade routes (Figure 8). 19 Figure 8: Main Livestock trade routes and markets in Kenya Source: ICPALD 2015 Development of extensive livestock value chain in ASALs should focus on creating effective markets by encouraging the private sector, accelerating the process of rural reconstruction (including development of market access), expanding choices for pastoralist to market their livestock, improving access to information and creating the conditions for equitable market relations for the poor (IFAD 2002). However, the private sector may not be attracted into the region due to the poor infrastructure and widespread insecurity. 20 To enhance pastoralists’ adaptive capacity, various stakeholders have implemented interventions to increase livestock and livestock products offtake. The interventions focus on strengthening the commercial orientation, building capacity of various value chain actors to meet market demands and developing market infrastructure to conduct efficient, fair and secure transactions. The main market structures required to facilitate livestock marketing include livestock markets, slaughterhouses, processing facilities, stock routes, holding grounds, quarantine grounds and water facilities. The overall objective of investing in market development and market infrastructure is ensure sustainable increase in incomes through enhanced market opportunities. Increased and diversified income is positively linked to adaptive capacity and reflects a better ability to offset the possible negative impacts of climatic variability and to recover from asset loss (Abdul-Razak and Kruse2017; Defiesta and Rapera 2014). However, studies show that the number of livestock sold or bought by pastoralists at any given market price is affected by the non-price constraints such as distance to the market, group marketing, age and education level of the pastoralists (Lutta et al. 2021; Rutto et al. 2012). Community organizations, such as producer associations, cooperatives and livestock marketing associations, serve as key intermediaries between producers and other livestock value chain actors. Therefore, these organizations need to be strengthened and mandated to ensure that changing market demands do not undermine farmers’ incomes and rangeland management strategies. In Kenya, the De-risking, Inclusion and Value Enhancement (DRIVE) project is working with pastoralist communities in the Horn of Africa (HoA) to facilitate livestock trade across the HoA countries and upgrade livestock value chain by mobilizing private investments. The project focuses on upgrading infrastructure for international compliance, supporting trade facilitation and logistics and establishing a facility to de-risk private investment and to support local productive capacities. Livestock insurance has also been used as a strategy to enhance the adaptive capacity of livestock producers in Kenya. Livestock insurance offers indemnification payments after a disaster, it can be an effective strategy for livestock herders to decrease their vulnerability to climate change (Karimi et al. 2018). In Kenya, ILRI is partnering with the public, private and non-profit sectors to develop and implement a market mediated index-based insurance (Index-based Livestock Insurance) to protect livestock keepers from drought related asset losses, particularly those in the drought prone Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) (Johnson et al. 2019). However, there is little knowledge on the role of livestock insurance in the household resilience. The uptake of livestock insurance products in extensive livestock production system is also low. A detailed assessment of the role of livestock insurance is required to enable policymakers, planners, and insurance companies to adopt cost-effective insurance policies and strategies to help increase adaptation and resilience of livestock herders under climate change. To address the challenges of livestock insurance, the government of Kenya is pioneering the De-risking, Inclusion and Value Enhancement (DRIVE) project. The project aims to de-risk pastoral systems by enhancing climate resilience, addressing climate change, strengthening commercialization of livestock production, and ensuring the inclusion of the marginalized and vulnerable groups such as women and youth. 21 Livestock are critical capital assets and can be sold to purchase food, fibre, fertilizer, and fuel. It provides draught power and transportation and can be used as collateral for credit and as buffer against crop failure and other risks (Herrero et al. 2013). Small stocks are easier to sell than large stock, which are only sold when no alternatives are available. Livestock reared in pastoral areas support a multitude of other livelihoods not only in the drylands but other areas as well - e.g. actors involved in the substantial cross border livestock trade, small town traders importing cereals from farming areas and other commodities, etc. Pastoralists generally do not rely solely on livestock but practice a range of other activities to diversify their livelihoods such as trading in small towns and small-scale rainfed agriculture (De Haan et al. 2016). Both livestock products and grain purchases from livestock production income contribute to food security. Therefore, increasing household income levels through trade allows families to purchase nutritious food and other inputs, such as health care that improve nutrition (Darrouzet-Nardi et al. 2016; Mullins et al. 1996; Nielsen, 1996; Ruel et al. 2018). Improved market and resource access, increased income, and improved agricultural production all contribute to improved human nutritional status (Powell et al. 2018). Highlighting the importance of market access in enhancing nutrition is crucial, as it supports equitable food and income distribution and enables smallholder farmers to obtain a wider range of foods than they can produce by themselves (Ssajakambwe et al. 2020). Livestock interventions may also have potentially negative consequences on women’s available time for childcare and may increase health and nutritional risks associated with exposure to livestock (Komatsu et al. 2018; Ruel et al. 2018). Delivery of healthy and nutritious food to pastoralist communities requires strategies and policies that address water management, land use patterns, food trade, postharvest processing, food prices and safety to ensure environmentally sustainable resilient production. Therefore, livestock interventions that increase consumption of livestock products, increase livestock and crop production in mixed farming systems, improve breeding and feed, increase livestock keepers’ incomes, improve market access and optimize the utilization of livestock and their waste can improve production diversity, availability, and access to ASFs, dietary diversity at individual and household level, and impact human nutritional outcomes (Muema et al. 2023). For example, adoption of improved and resilient livestock breeds (including Red Maasai sheep and Galla goats) improved household dietary diversity by 38% while reducing household food insufficiency by 90% (Radeny et al. 2022). Livestock marketing can be an important coping strategy in the face of drought (Opiyo et al. 2015; Sunya 2003). Diverse institutional arrangements exist for increasing livestock marketing in pastoralist areas – such as self-help marketing groups (Arasio et al. 2020), livestock market co-management (Njiru et al. 2017), livestock marketing 22 associations and value chain links to fattening operations (Dabasso et al. 2018). Increased off-take through marketing can reduce the emission intensity of livestock production (Wilkes et al. 2017); livestock off-take rates have been identified as critical to reducing GHG intensity of agricultural sector emissions. Maximizing livestock offtake through sustainable market channels makes it possible to reduce animal numbers as well as provide income to the farmers. Reducing animal numbers lead to reduced demand for feeds and contribute to reduction of emissions of non-carbon dioxide GHGs, through enteric fermentation, manure, and soil management. On the contrary, increasing livestock numbers leads to emissions from livestock, degraded rangelands and forests (Bosire et al. 2016; Kumar et al. 2009; O’Mara 2011). Extensive livestock systems support most of Africa’s livestock population. Despite these large animal numbers, many extensive livestock keepers experience low livestock productivity, high variation in production and availability of feedstock, chronic food and nutrition insecurity and economic hardship, which are often exacerbated by climate variability and change. These challenges reduce the ability of pastoralist to meet food and nutrition security (FNS) needs and diminish their adaptive capacity to frequent climate shocks (e.g. water and heat stress, droughts, diseases.) and non-climate related shocks (e.g. economic shocks, conflict, migration). In Kenya, actions to increase livestock productivity, animal health, Livestock management, livestock product marketing, rangeland management, drought management and FNS in arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) have high priority in government policies (ASGTS 2019). The implication of these government priorities in the livestock sector is likely to lead increase in livestock population resulting to higher emission shares and volumes over time. Thus, opportunities to reduce absolute emissions by reducing livestock numbers and increasing productivity in extensive livestock production systems in Kenya are limited in the short term. Interventions in extensive livestock production systems have potential to impact FNS, adaptive capacity of pastoralist and GHG emissions reduction. The interventions to improve productivity in pastoral livestock systems in Kenya have mainly focused on improving livestock production, rangeland restoration and strengthening route to market for pastoralist. The intervention currently being implemented by various stakeholders targeting CBRM and livestock marketing include: • Grazing management and reseeding of rangelands and to improve forage availability and quality for better animal nutrition, • Variation of the species of livestock kept by the community, • Development of market infrastructure, • Promotion of livestock off-take, • Promotion of locally adapted animal breeds, • Animal management by reducing stocking rate to reduce pressure on land, 23 • Investment in infrastructure such as water boreholes and • Animal disease control and surveillance Overall, there is need to prioritize intervention options which have an impact on FNS, adaptive capacity and GHG emission, raise awareness among stakeholders, especially farmers in order to enhance the implementation of appropriate interventions and develop the capacity of farmers, especially the capacity to adapt new technologies, and to implement the practices. 24 Abdul-Razak, M. and Kruse, S., 2017. The adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers to climate change in the Northern Region of Ghana. Climate Risk Management, 17, pp.104-122. Adesogan, T., Yang, W., Lee, C., Gerber, P.J., Henderson, B. and Tricarico, J.M. 2013. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal. Journal of Animal Science, 91, pp.5045-5069. Akall, G., 2021. Effects of development interventions on pastoral livelihoods in Turkana County, Kenya. Pastoralism, 11(1), pp.1-15. Aklilu, Y., Little, P.D., Mahmoud, H. and McPeak, J., 2013. Market Access and Trade Issues Affecting the Drylands in the Horn of Africa. Brief Prepared by a Technical Consortium Hosted by CGIAR in Partnership with the FAO Investment Centre; Technical Consortium Brief 2; International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI): Nairobi, Kenya. Alarcon, P., Fèvre, E. M., Murungi, M. K., Muinde, P., Akoko, J., Dominguez-Salas, P., and Rushton, J., 2017. Mapping of beef, sheep and goat food systems in Nairobi—A framework for policy making and the identification of structural vulnerabilities and deficiencies. Agricultural Systems, 152, 1-17. Ambikapathi, R., Passarelli, S., Madzorera, I., Canavan, C.R., Noor, R.A., Abdelmenan, S., Tewahido, D., Tadesse, A.W., Sibanda, L., Sibanda, S. and Munthali, B., 2021. Men's nutrition knowledge is important for women's and children's nutrition in Ethiopia. Maternal & Child Nutrition, p.e13062. Anim, J., 2013. Climate change and livestock production: A review with emphasis on Africa. 43(3). Arasio, R.L., Kaufmann, B., Wasonga, O.V. and Otieno, D. J., 2020. Socio-cultural and governance foundations of successful income-generating groups in pastoral societies: Evidence from northern Kenya. Community Development, 51(4), pp.361-386. ASGTS (Agriculture Sector Growth and Transformation Strategy). 2019. http://www.kilimo.go.ke/wp- content/uploads/2019/01/ASTGS-Full-Version-1.pdf ASL2050 FAO., 2017. Africa Sustainable Livestock (ASL) 2050 Livestock production systems spotlight Cattle and poultry sectors in Kenya. FAO. Nairobi. Augustine, D. J., Derner, J. D., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Porensky, L. M., Wilmer, H., & Briske, D. D., 2020. Adaptive, Multipaddock Rotational Grazing Management: A Ranch-Scale Assessment of Effects on Vegetation and Livestock Performance in Semiarid Rangeland. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 73(6), 796–810. Bedelian, C., Moiko, S. and Said, M. Y., 2019. Harnessing opportunities for climate-resilient economic development in the semi-arid lands: The Kenya southern rangelands beef value chain. PRISE Working Paper. Nairobi: Kenya Markets Trust. London: Overseas Development Institute Behnke, R. and Muthami, D., 2011. The Contribution of Livestock to the Kenyan Economy. Great Wolford, UK, IGAD Livestock Policy Initiative. Béné, C., Newsham, A., Davies, M., Ulrichs, M., and Godfrey-Wood, R., 2014. Review Article: Resilience, Poverty and Development. Journal of International Development, 26, 598-623. Bergevoet, R.H.M. and van Engelen, A., 2014. The Kenyan Meat Sector; Opportunities for Dutch Agribusiness. LEI Report 2014-032; LEI Wageningen UR (University & Research Centre): Wageningen, The Netherlands. Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C., 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological applications, 10(5), pp.1251-1262. Bolo, P.O., Sommer, R., Kihara, J.M., Kinyua, M., Nyawira, S. and Notenbaert, A.M.O., 2019. Rangeland degradation: Causes, consequences, monitoring techniques and remedies. Working Paper. CIAT Publication No. 478. http://www.kilimo.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ASTGS-Full-Version-1.pdf http://www.kilimo.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ASTGS-Full-Version-1.pdf 25 International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Nairobi, Kenya. 23 p. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/951cbe9d- 84c1-470b-bb2c-e1da5694d796 Bosire, C.K., Krol, M.S., Mekonnen, M.M., Ogutu, J.O., de Leeuw, J., Lannerstad, M. and Hoekstra, A.Y., 2016. Meat and milk production scenarios and the associated land footprint in Kenya. Agricultural systems, 145, pp.64-75. Burchi, F., Frison, E., and Fanzo, J. ,2011. The role of food and nutrition approaches in tackling hidden hunger. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8, 358-373. Calvosa, C., Chuluumbaatar, D., and Fara, K., 2010. Livestock and Climate Change. IFAD. Carabine, E.; Simonet, C. 2018. Value Chain Analysis for Resilience in Drylands (VC-ARID): Identification of Adaptation Options in Key Sectors; VC-ARID Synthesis Report; Pathways to Resilience in Semi-Arid Economies (PRISE): London, UK, 2018. Cavatassi, R. and Gemessa, S., 2022. Impact Assessment Report: Livestock and Pasture Development Project II (LPDP II). Rome: IFAD. 43 pages. CFS/ GSFFSN (Committee on World Food Security (CFS), Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition). 2011. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1011/WG_GSF/GSF_annotated_outline_formatted_Rev1_22_Ju n_11.pdf COMESA (Common Markets for Eastern and Southern Africa)., 2009. Policy Framework for Food Security in Pastoralist Areas. Connolly-Boutin L, and Smit B., 2016. Climate Change, Food Security, and Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa. Regional Environmental Change 16(2):385-399. Dabasso, B.H., Wasonga, O.V., Irungu, P. and Kaufmann, B., 2021. Emerging pastoralist practices for fulfilling market requirements under stratified cattle production systems in Kenya’s drylands. Animal Production Science, 61(12), pp.1224-1234. Daborn, C., Richards, S. and Knight-Jones, T., 2023. Effectiveness and impact of livestock vaccination performed during humanitarian crises in Africa: June 2023 online workshop report. Nairobi, Kenya ILRI. Darrouzet-Nardi, A. F., Miller, L. C., Joshi, N., Mahato, S., Lohanti, M., and Rogers, B. L., 2016. Child dietary quality in rural Nepal: Effectiveness of a community-level development intervention. Food Policy, 61, 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol. 2016.03.007 de Boer, I.J., Cederberg, C., Eady, S., Gollnow, S., Kristensen, T., Macleod, M., Meul, M., Nemecek, T., Phong, L.T., Thoma, G. and Van Der Werf, H.M.G., 2011. Greenhouse gas mitigation in animal production: towards an integrated life cycle sustainability assessment. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(5), pp.423-431. De Haan, C., Robinson, T., Conchedda, G., Ericksen, P., Said, M., Robinson, L., Flintan, F., Shaw, A., Kifugo, S., Wane, A. and Touré, I., 2016. Livestock production systems: Seizing the opportunities for pastoralists and agro-pastoralists. Defiesta, G. and Rapera, C., 2014. Measuring adaptive capacity of farmers to climate change and variability: Application of a composite index to an agricultural community in the Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 17(2). Devereaux, S. and Sabates-Wheeler, R., 2004. Transformative Social Protection. IDS Working Paper 232. Retrieved from: www.ntd.co.uk/idsbookshop/ details.asp?id=844.) Dror, D. K., and Allen, L. H., 2011. The importance of milk and other animal-source foods for children in low-income countries. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 32, 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/156482651103200307 Erick, S., 2022. The Role of Livestock Marketing in Improving the Livelihoods of Pastoralists. International Journal of Livestock Policy, 1(1), pp.63-79. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/951cbe9d-84c1-470b-bb2c-e1da5694d796 https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/951cbe9d-84c1-470b-bb2c-e1da5694d796 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1011/WG_GSF/GSF_annotated_outline_formatted_Rev1_22_Jun_11.pdf http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1011/WG_GSF/GSF_annotated_outline_formatted_Rev1_22_Jun_11.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.%202016.03.007 https://doi.org/10.1177/156482651103200307 26 Esilaba, A.O., Okoti, M., Nyariki, D.M., Keya, G.A., Miriti, J.M., Kigomo, J.N., Olukoye, G., Wekesa, L., Ego, W., Muturi, G.M. and Cheruiyot, H.K., 2011. The desert margins programme approaches in upscaling best-bet technologies in arid and semi-arid lands in Kenya. In Innovations as Key to the Green Revolution in Africa: Exploring the Scientific Facts (pp. 1177-1191). Springer Netherlands. FAO. 2014. Country Programming Framework for Kenya 2014-1; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. FAO. 2017. ASL2050 Livestock production systems spotlight: Kenya. Cattle and poultry sectors. African Sustainable Livestock 2050. FAO, Nairobi, Kenya. FAO. 2019. The future of livestock in Kenya. Emerging public health risks in urban and peri-urban areas. https://www.fao.org/3/ca9948en/CA9948EN.pdf FAO. 2020. FAO’s role in livestock and the environment. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/livestock-environment/en/ Flax, V.L., Ouma, E.A., Baltenweck, I., Omosa, E., Girard, A.W., Jensen, N. and Dominguez-Salas, P., 2023. Pathways from livestock to improved human nutrition: lessons learned in East Africa. Food Security, 15(5), pp.1293-1312. Gachohi, J.M., Njenga, M.K., Kitala, P. and Bett, B., 2017. Modelling vaccination strategies against Rift Valley fever in livestock in Kenya. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 11(1), p.e0005316. Galiè, A., Teufel, N., Girard, A.W., Baltenweck, I., Dominguez-Salas, P., Price, M.J., Jones, R., Lukuyu, B., Korir, L., Raskind, I. and Smith, K., 2019. Women’s empowerment, food security and nutrition of pastoral communities in Tanzania. Global Food Security, 23, pp.125-134. Godde, C.M., Boone, R.B., Ash, A.J., Waha, K., Sloat, L.L., Thornton, P.K. and Herrero, M., 2020. Global rangeland production systems and livelihoods at threat under climate change and variability. Environmental Research Letters, 15(4), p.044021. Government of Kenya., 2012. Sessional Paper No. 8 of 2012 on National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Northern Kenya and Other Arid Lands; Ministry of State for Development of Northern Kenya and Other Arid Lands, Government of Kenya: Nairobi, Kenya. Government of Kenya., 2015a. Kenya’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) (Nairobi: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources). Government of Kenya. 2015b. Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Nairobi: National Environment Management Authority) Herrera, P. M., Davies, J., and Baena, P. M., 2014. Governance of Rangelands. Taylor & Francis. Herrero, M., Grace, D., Njuki, J., Johnson, N., Enahoro, D., Silvestri, S. and Rufino, M.C., 2013. The roles of livestock in developing countries. animal, 7(s1), pp.3-18. ICPALD (IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development)., 2017. The Roles of Public and Private Sectors in the Supply and Provision of Animal Health Services in the IGAD Region: Review of Policy and Regional Framework. IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development), 2016. State of the Region Report. Iles, R.A., Choi, Y., Kagundu, S. and Gatumu, H., 2022. Estimating willingness-to-pay for a livestock vaccine among the marginalized: The role of reflective thought in discrete choice experiments. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 201, p.105592. Institute of Policy Analysis and Research (IPAR)., 2004. Strategies for Improving the Contribution of Livestock Sector to Food Security and Increased Incomes: The Case of Red Meat. Discussion Paper No. 042/2004. Nairobi, Kenya. Isako, T., Kimindu, V., Amboga, S. and Tuke, G. 2019. Pastoral Livestock Marketing: A Case Study of Marsabit County, Kenya. Journal of Natural Sciences Research, 9(6), pp.51-57. https://www.fao.org/3/ca9948en/CA9948EN.pdf http://www.fao.org/livestock-environment/en/ 27 Jin, M. and Iannotti, L.L., 2014. Livestock production, animal source food intake, and young child growth: The role of gender for ensuring nutrition impacts. Social Science & Medicine, 105, pp.16-21. Johnson, L., Wandera, B., Jensen, N. and Banerjee, R., 2019. Competing expectations in an index-based livestock insurance project. The Journal of Development Studies, 55(6), pp.1221-1239. Jones, M., 2022. The Role of Livestock Marketing in Improving the Livelihoods of Pastoralists. A Critical Literature Review. American Journal of Livestock Policy, 1(1), Pp.32-44. Kairu-Wanyoike, S.W., Taylor, N.M., Heffernan, C. and Kiara, H., 2017. Micro-economic analysis of the potential impact of contagious bovine pleuropneumonia and its control by vaccination in Narok district of Kenya. Livestock Science, 197, pp.61-72. Kalvelage, L., Bollig, M., Grawert, E., Hulke, C., Meyer, M., Mkutu, K., Müller-Koné, M. and Diez, J.R., 2021. Territorialising conservation. Conservation & Society, 19(4), pp.282-293. Karimi, V., Karami, E. and Keshavarz, M., 2018. Vulnerability and adaptation of livestock producers to climate variability and change. Rangeland ecology & management, 71(2), pp.175-184 Katiku, P.N., Kimitei, R.K., Korir, B.K., Muasya, T.K., Chengole, J.M., Ogillo, B.P., Munyasi, J.W. and Karimi, S.K., 2013. Value chain assessment of small ruminant production, challenges and opportunities: The case of southern rangelands of Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 25(1), p.1. Kebede, D. 2016. Impact of Climate Change on Livestock Productive and Reproductive Performance. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 28(12). Kigomo, J.N. and Muturi, G.M., 2013. Impacts of enclosures in rehabilitation of degraded rangelands of Turkana County, Kenya. Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment, 5(7), pp.165-171. Kinati, W. and Mulema, A. A., 2018. Gender issues in livestock production in Ethiopia: A review of literature to identify potential entry points for gender responsive research and development. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. King, J. and Kaelo, D., 2015. Establishing a Wildlife Conservancy: a guide for private landowners and communities. Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/ke/1010601c55739cc80b47788d4116745131792d3 20ba5bcc457fc14c309f5d0cd.pdf KMT., 2014. Kenya livestock and meat market analysis for cattle, goat and sheep. Kenya Markets Trust/I-DEV International. KNBS (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics)., 2019. Enhanced Food Balance Sheets for Kenya; Kenya National Bureau of Statistics: Nairobi, Kenya. Komatsu, H., Malapit, H. J. L. and Theis, S., 2018. Does women’s time in domestic work and agriculture affect women’s and children’s dietary diversity? Evidence from Bangladesh, Nepal, Cambodia, Ghana, and Mozambique. Food policy, 79, pp.256-270. Kosgey, I. S., Mbuku, S. M., Okeyo, A. M., Amimo, J., Philipsson, J. and Ojango, J. M., 2011. Institutional and organizational frameworks for dairy and beef cattle recording in Kenya: a review and opportunities for improvement. Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales, 48, 1-11. Kosgey, Rowlands, Arendonk, v., and Baker., 2008. Small ruminant production in smallholder and pastoral/extensive farming systems in Kenya. Small Ruminant Research, 77(1), 11-24. Kumar, S., Puniya, A.K., Puniya, M., Dagar, S.S., Sirohi, S.K., Singh, K. and Griffith, G.W., 2009. Factors affecting rumen methanogens and methane mitigation strategies. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 25, pp.1557-1566. Kungu, J., Chacha, K. B., and Gichobi, T. N., 2022. The Swynnerton Plan and political economy of land in Kenya: A historical perspective. International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies, 9(11), 34 – 43. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/ke/1010601c55739cc80b47788d4116745131792d320ba5bcc457fc14c309f5d0cd.pdf https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/ke/1010601c55739cc80b47788d4116745131792d320ba5bcc457fc14c309f5d0cd.pdf 28 Lufuke, M., Bai, Y., Fan, S. and Tian, X., 2022. Women’s Empowerment, Food Security, and Nutrition Transition in Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(1), p.254. Lutta, A.I., Wasonga, O.V., Robinson, L.W., Nyangito, M.M. and Sircely, J., 2021. Determinants of livestock market participation among pastoral communities of Tana River County, Kenya. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, pp.7393-7411. Mahgoub, O., Lu, C. D., Hammed, M. S., Richie, A., Al-Halhali, & Annamalai, K., 2005. Performance of Omani goats fed diets containing various metabolizable energy densities. Mahmoud, H.A., 2006. Innovations in pastoral livestock marketing: the emergence and the role of'Somali cattle traders-cum-ranchers' in Kenya. Pastoral livestock marketing in Eastern Africa: research and policy challenges, pp.129-144. Makokha, S. and Witwer, M., 2013. Analysis of Incentives and Disincentives for Live Cattle in Kenya; Technical Notes Series; Monitoring African Food and Agriculture Policies (MAFAP): Rome, Italy, 2013. Manyeki, J.K., Kirwa, E.C., Ogillo, P.B., Mnene, W.N., Kimitei, R., Mosu, A. and Ngetich, R., 2015. Economic analysis of natural pasture rehabilitation through reseeding in the southern rangelands of Kenya. Livestock Res. for Rural Development, 27(3), pp.49-61. Manzeke, G. M., Mtambanengwe, F., Nezomba, H., and Mapfumo, P., 2014. Zinc fertilization influence on maize productivity and grain nutritional quality under integrated soil fertility management in Zimbabwe. Field Crops Research, 166, 128–136. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.05.019 Mbogoh, S.G., Munei, K., Komen, M.K. and Mohammed, J.M., 2016. The factors that influence beef cattle marketing efficiency and the behavior of pastoralists: A case study in Kenya. World Journal of Research and Review, 3(2), pp.51-8. McDermott, J. J., Staal, S. J., Freeman, H. A., Herrero., M and Van de, S., 2010. Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics Livest. Sci. 130 95–109 Mganga, K.Z., 2009. Impact of grass reseeding technology on rehabilitation of the degraded rangelands: A case study of Kibwe district, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation). Mikula, R. A., 2023. Rangeland pasture management strategies during drought among pastoralists in Kajiado county, Kenya. https://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/server/api/core/bitstreams/e2676dff-9286-463f-a3d3- f613d4ce6bc8/content Mnene, W.N., 2006. Strategies to increase success rates in natural pasture improvement through re-seeding degraded semi-arid rangelands of Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi). MoA (Ministry of Agriculture)., 1968. Annual Report. MoALF (Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries)., 2019. Draft National Livestock Policy http://www.kilimo.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Draft-reviewed-National-LivestockPolicy-February- 2019.pdf MoALFC (Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Cooperative), 2021. Rangeland Management and Pastoralism Strategy, 2021 – 2030 Mottet, A., Henderson, B., Opio, C., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G., Silvestri, S., Chesterman, S. and Gerber, P.J., 2017. Climate change mitigation and productivity gains in livestock supply chains: insights from regional case studies. Regional Environmental Change, 17(1), pp.129-141. Muema, J., Nyamai, M., Kisaka, S., Ogoti, B., Oyugi, J., Bukania, Z., Daniel, T., Njuguna, J., Kimani, I., Makori, A. and Omulo, S., 2023. The impact of livestock interventions on nutritional outcomes of children aged below five years and women in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Nutrition, 10, p.1166495. https://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/server/api/core/bitstreams/e2676dff-9286-463f-a3d3-f613d4ce6bc8/content https://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/server/api/core/bitstreams/e2676dff-9286-463f-a3d3-f613d4ce6bc8/content http://www.kilimo.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Draft-reviewed-National-LivestockPolicy-February-2019.pdf http://www.kilimo.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Draft-reviewed-National-LivestockPolicy-February-2019.pdf 29 Mulema, A.A., Boonabaana, B., Debevec, L., Nigussie, L., Alemu, M. and Kaaria, S., 2020a. Spiraling up and down: Mapping women’s empowerment through agricultural interventions using the community capitals framework in rural Ethiopia. Community Development, pp.1-18. Mulema, A.A., Kinati, W., Lemma, M., Mekonnen, M., Alemu, B.G., Elias, B., Demeke, Y., Desta, H. and Wieland, B., 2020b. Clapping with Two Hands: Transforming Gender Relations and Zoonotic Disease Risks through Community Conversations in Rural Ethiopia. Human Ecology, pp.1-13. Mullins, G., Wahome, L., Tsangari, P., and Maarse, L., 1996. Impacts of intensive dairy production on smallholder farm women in coastal Kenya. Human Ecology, 24, 231–253. Mureithi, S.M., Verdoodt, A., Njoka, J.T., Gachene, C.K., Warinwa, F. and Van Ranst, E., 2016. Impact of community conservation management on herbaceous layer and soil nutrients in a Kenyan semi‐arid savannah. Land Degradation & Development, 27(8), pp.1820-1830. Mureithi, S. M., Verdoodt, A., Njoka, J. T., Olesarioyo, J. S. and Van Ranst, E., 2019. Community-based conservation: An emerging land use at the livestock-wildlife interface in Northern Kenya. Wildlife Management-Failures, Successes and Prospects, pp.1-20. Musyoka, M. M., Bukachi, S. A., Muga, G.O., Otiang, E., Kwoba, E. N. and Thumbi, S. M., 2023. Addressing child and maternal nutrition: a qualitative study on food prescriptions and proscriptions determining animal source food consumption in rural Kenya. Food Security, pp.1-17. Mwangi, V., Owuor, S., Kiteme, B. and Giger, M., 2020. Beef production in the rangelands: A comparative assessment between pastoralism and large-scale ranching in Laikipia county, Kenya. Agriculture, 10(9), p.399. Nelson, D., Adger, W. and Brown, K., 2007. Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a Resilience Framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32: 395-429. Nganga, I. N., Robinson, L. W., Abdu, N. H., Ontiri, E. and Senda, T. S., 2019. A comparative analysis of three community-based rangeland management cases. Taking successes in land restoration to scale project. ILRI Project Report. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. Nielsen, H., 1996. The socioeconomic impact of a smallholder livestock development project, Bangladesh [Paper presentation]. Integrated Farming in Human Development, Tune Ladboskole, Denmark. Njiru, N., Mtimet, N., Wanyoike, F., Kutu, A., Songolo, A., Dahir, I. and Jillo, G., 2017. Assessment of livestock marketing associations in arid and semi-arid lands in northern Kenya. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/132696689.pdf Nuvey, F.S., Arkoazi, J., Hattendorf, J., Mensah, G.I., Addo, K.K., Fink, G., Zinsstag, J. and Bonfoh, B., 2022. Effectiveness and profitability of preventive veterinary interventions in controlling infectious diseases of ruminant livestock in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review. BMC Veterinary Research, 18(1), pp.1-19. Nyasimi, M., Kimeli, P., Sayula, G., Radeny, M., Kinyangi, J., and Mungai, C., 2017. Adoption and Dissemination Pathways for Climate-Smart Agriculture Technologies and Practices for Climate-Resilient Livelihoods in Lushoto, Northeast Tanzania. Climate, 5(3), 63. Nyongesa, J. M., Donatti, C. I. and Kiptenai, T. K., 2023. Community-Based Rangeland Restoration for Climate Resilience and Pastoral Livelihoods in Chyulu, Kenya. Maiko Nishi, p.35. O’Mara, F.P., 2011. The significance of livestock as a contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions today and in the near future. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 166, pp.7-15. Odhiambo, M.O., 2013. The ASAL policy of Kenya: Releasing the full potential of arid and semi-arid lands—An analytical review. Nomadic Peoples, 17(1), pp.158-165. Ojango, J.M., Audho, J., Oyieng, E., Radeny, M., Kimeli, P., Recha, J. and Muigai, A.W., 2018. Assessing actors in rural markets of sheep and goats in the Nyando Basin of Western Kenya: a key to improving productivity from smallholder farms. Tropical animal health and production, 50(8), pp.1871-1879. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/132696689.pdf 30 Ojango, J. M., Gitau, J., Ndiwa, N., Recha, J. W., Gachora, J. and Muigai, A.W., 2023. Integration and adoption of climate resilient management practices for enhanced productivity of sheep and goats in pastoral communities of Northern Kenya. Pastoralism, 13(1), p.14. Omondi, I., Baltenweck, I., Kinuthia, E., Kirui, L., Njoroge-Wamwere, G., Bett, B., Munene, A., Onle, S., Dida, D. and Kiara, H., 2021. Mobile veterinary clinics in the drylands of Kenya: securing pastoralists’ livelihoods by bringing services close. Development in Practice, 31(5), pp.561-579. Opiyo, F., Wasonga, O., Nyangito, M., Schilling, J. and Munang, R., 2015. Drought adaptation and coping strategies among the Turkana pastoralists of northern Kenya. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(3), pp.295-309. Osumba J. and Rioux J., 2014. Scoping study of climate smart agriculture in Kenya. Smallholder integrated crop livestock farming systems. Rome: FAO. Otieno, D. J., Hubbard, L. and Ruto, E., 2012. Determinants of technical efficiency in beef cattle production in Kenya. In Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Triennial Conference (pp. 18-24). Pelrine, R.J., 2009. Agricultural Value Chain Financing in Kenya: Assessment of Potential Opportunities for Growth; A Report to the Kenya Value Chain Finance Centre by Inspired International; Financial Sector Deepening (FSD) Kenya: Nairobi, Kenya. Pinstrup-Andersen, P., 2009. Food security: Definition and measurement. Food Security. 1: 5–7. Powell, J. M., Pearson, R. A., and Hopkins, J. C., 2018. Impacts of livestock on crop production. BSAP Occasional Publication, 21, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0263967x00032067 Radeny, M., Desalegn, A., Mubiru, D., Kyazze, F., Mahoo, H., Recha, J., Kimeli, P., and Solomon, D., 2019. Indigenous Knowledge for Seasonal Weather and Climate Forecasting across East Africa. Climatic Change, 156(4), 509–526. Radeny, M., Rao, E.J., Ogada, M.J., Recha, J.W. and Solomon, D., 2022. Impacts of climate-smart crop varieties and livestock breeds on the food security of smallholder farmers in Kenya. Food Security, 14(6), pp.1511-1535. Rakotoarisoa, M.; Massawe, S.; Mude, A.; Ouma, R.; Freeman, A.; Bahiigwa, G.; Karugia, J., 2008. Investment Opportunities for Livestock in the North Eastern Province of Kenya: A Synthesis of Existing Knowledge; ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 12; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, DC, USA Recha, J. W., Radeny, M. A., Kimeli, P., Hafashimana, D., Ssekiwoko, F., and Odongo, W., 2016. Progress in Achieving Household Food Security in Climate-Smart Villages in the Albertine Rift, Western Uganda. CCAFS Info Note. Robinson, L.W., Eba, B., Flintan, F., Frija, A., Nganga, I.N., Ontiri, E.M., Sghaier, M., Abdu, N.H. and Moiko, S.S., 2021. The challenges of community-based natural resource management in pastoral rangelands. Society & Natural Resources, 34(9), pp.1213-1231. Roche, L. M., Cutts, B. B., Derner, J. D., Lubell, M. N., and Tate, K. W., 2015. On Ranch Grazing Strategies: Context for the Rotational Grazing Dilemma. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 68(3), 248–256. Rotich, H.K, Symbua Mbau, J., Onwonga, R. and Kipchirchir Koech, O., 2018. Vegetation Dynamics in Relation to Grazing Management Practices in Semi-arid Grazing Lands of Makueni County, Kenya. Journal of Rangeland Science, 8(3), pp.227-239. Ruel, M.T., Quisumbing, A.R. and Balagamwala, M., 2018. Nutrition-sensitive agriculture: what have we learned so far? Global food security, 17, pp.128-153. Rutto, J.K., Odhiambo, M.O., Njuguna, E.M. and Murithi, F.M., 2012. Determinants of market participation decision in small ruminants’ market by livestock keepers in Isiolo and Marsabit Districts, Kenya. Scoones, I., 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis, IDS Working Paper 72, Brighton: IDS. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0263967x00032067 31 Tennigkeit, T. and Wilkes, A., 2008. An assessment of the potential for carbon finance in rangelands. World Agroforestry Centre. Thakadu, O. 2005. Success factors in community based natural resources management in northern Botswana: Lessons from practice. 29(3), 199–212. Thornton, P. K., van de Steeg, J., Notenbaert, A. and Herrero, M., 2009. The impacts of climate change on livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: A review of what we know and what we need to know. Agricultural systems, 101(3), pp.113-127. Truebswasser, U. and Flintan, F. E., 2018. Extensive (pastoralist) cattle contributions to food and nutrition security. IN: Reference module in food science. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. Tongwane, M.I. and Moeletsi, M.E., 2018. A review of greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector in Africa. Agricultural systems, 166, pp.124-134. Ulambayar, T., Fernández‐Giménez, M. E., Baival, B., and Batjav, B., 2017. Social outcomes of community‐based rangeland management in Mongolian steppe ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 10(3), 317–327. Vecchio, M. C., Bolaños, V. A., Golluscio, R. A., and Rodríguez, A. M., 2019. Rotational grazing and exclosure improve the grassland condition of the halophytic steppe in Flooding Pampa (Argentina) compared with continuous grazing. Rangeland Journal, 41(1), 1–12. Villa, K.M., Barrett, C.B. and Just, D.R., 2011. Differential nutritional responses across various income sources among East African pastoralists: Intrahousehold effects, missing markets and mental accounting. Journal of African Economies, 20(2), pp.341-375. Wakhungu, J., Wesongah, J., Tura, G., Msalya, G., Grace, D., Unger, F., and Alonso, S., 2014. Pastoralism in Kenya and Tanzania: Challenges and opportunities in animal health and food security. Nairobi: ILRI. Wanyoike, F., Njiru, N.; Kutu, A., Chuchu, S., Wamwere-Njoroge, G., and Mtimet, N., 2018. Analysis of Livestock and Fodder Value Chains in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands in Kenya; International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI): Nairobi, Kenya, Williams, D., Thorne, J.H., Sumba, D., Muruthi, P. and Gregory-Michelman, N., 2018. Evaluating outcomes of community-based conservation on Kenyan group ranches with remote sensing. Environmental Conservation, 45(2), p.173. WRI., 2014. CAIT - Country Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. http://www.wri.org/resources/data-sets/cait-country- greenhouse-gas-emissions-data/ Yayneshet, T. and Treydte, A. C., 2015. A meta-analysis of the effects of communal livestock WRI CAIT 2.0, 2017. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Kenya. Kenya Numbers at a Glance (2013.- 2017_USAID_GHG Emissions Factsheet_Kenya.pdf.grazing on vegetation and soils in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Arid Environments, 116, pp.18-24 Zonabend König, E., Mirkena, T., Strandberg, E., Audho, J., Ojango, J., Malmfors, B., Okeyo, A.M. and Philipsson, J., 2016. Participatory definition of breeding objectives for sheep breeds under pastoral systems—the case of Red Maasai and Dorper sheep in Kenya. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 48, pp.9-20. http://www.wri.org/resources/data-sets/cait-country-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data/ http://www.wri.org/resources/data-sets/cait-country-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data/