Adaptation To Climate Change in The Pastoral
Adaptation To Climate Change in The Pastoral
Adaptation To Climate Change in The Pastoral
http://www.scirp.org/journal/ajcc
ISSN Online: 2167-9509
ISSN Print: 2167-9495
Keywords
Adaptation Options, Barriers, Resilience, Smallholder Agriculture,
Vulnerability
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent
that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.” [1]
1. Introduction
Agriculture in Ethiopia is an important economic sector upon which the major-
ity of Ethiopians depend for food, feed and income. The sector is dominated by
smallholder agriculture responsible for 80% of the employment, 90% of the total
agricultural output and 95% of the total area under agricultural land use [2]
[3]. The smallholder sub-sector is predominantly comprised of subsistence and
traditional rainfed systems which exhibit vulnerability to various internal and
external pressures. Vulnerability within these agricultural systems can be
broadly attributed to a variety of climate and non-climate factors which include
bio-physical, socio-economic and political elements. These, among others, in-
clude changing climate [4], conflicts between formal and informal land tenure
systems [2], ecological degradation [5] and poor agricultural market conditions
[6]. These various climate and non-climate risk factors have contributed to ab-
ject poverty and food insecurity problems in the country including the study
area [7] [8] [9]. Agriculture is identified as one of the most vulnerable sectors to
climate change [10]. Subsequently, adaptation becomes an increasingly impor-
tant aspect of agricultural development narratives that broadly aim to transform
the sector from traditional to a “modern” market-based resilient one.
Perception of climate change and its associated impact is an important first
step to adaptation [4] [11]. It helps to define climate change both as a problem
and context for decision to adapt in the face of complex interaction between so-
cieties and their environment. Perception to varying extents is shaped by vari-
ous socioeconomic, cultural, political and environmental factors [4] [12] [13].
Changes in local climate appear relatively easy to see as compared to the global
climate because of heuristic experiences and more attachment to the local cli-
mate [11] [14]. More precisely, experienced impacts or anticipated risks of lo-
cal climate change help to acknowledge climate change, vulnerability and as-
sociated adaptation deficit that trigger an adaptation need and decision to
adapt [15]. Stemming from adaptation deficit and subsequent needs, different
actors decide to respond whereby responses can take different visions, forms
and scales. These responses are generally driven by vulnerability and livelihood
risk in the face of biophysical and socioeconomic uncertainties mainly climate
change.
Adaptations can be planned or unplanned, local or regional and involve ad-
justments through a variety of processes, practices and structures to actual or
anticipated changes in climate [16] [17]. Depending on the vision and degree of
intervention adaptation can intervene in development. Adaptation responses
may be structured around one of the following goals-resilience (stability, func-
tional persistence or maintaining the status quo), transition (incremental
change) and transformation (radical change or reconfiguration of structures)
[18]. However, some adaptive strategies may fail to bring intended positive out-
livestock water to substitute for loss due to dehydration and put increased
evaporative demand on plants. There is deep concern about how this sector is
positioned to withstand increasingly frequent and intense perturbations in the
natural climate coupled with other external pressures from demographic
changes (e.g. increased populations) and socio-economic changes associated
with globalisation (e.g. weakening collective NRM regimes because of growing
individualism) [9] [29] [30]. The concern underpins the proposition that adap-
tation and development have vital links implying climate change can impede the
ability to achieve development whilst development can reduce vulnerability to
climate change [31]. Thus, underdevelopment of this vital economic sector is
associated with weak adaptive capacity which makes addressing vulnerability
and adaptation deficit more challenging.
In Ethiopia, the agriculture sector enjoys strong political will and policy sup-
port to enhance its performance, address food insecurity, reduce vulnerability
and adapt to climate change and its impacts. However, agricultural adaptation
efforts often fail to significantly reduce vulnerability partly because of poor un-
derstanding of the local adaptive environment particularly with respect to avail-
able options and major barriers to adapt. Adaptation rather should be a con-
tinuous, progressive and iterative process [15] [32]. Current and future adapta-
tion should build on past experiences due to increasing complexity of adaptation
practices and processes. Therefore, assisting smallholders to successfully adapt to
future climate change can be fostered through enhanced understanding of past
and current adaptation that will inform future adaptation. This paper therefore
aims to examine and enhance our understanding of how climatic change puts
pressure on these agriculture-based vulnerable livelihood systems and associated
responses to adapt.
The Conceptual Framework
The study employs a combined use of the Pressure-State-Response (PSR)
model and Pelling’s typological framework to enhance our understanding of
how climatic stresses put pressure on agriculture-dependent livelihoods and how
these stresses are responded to in the middle of complex human-nature interac-
tions (Figure 1). The PSR framework provides a widely used and intuitively ac-
cessible model [22] for developing detailed accounts of climatic pressure and
farming communities response through adaptation. The PSR theory assumes
that prevailing social and economic scenarios trigger human responses that
pressure the natural environment often leading to changes in its state which of-
ten have negative impacts on human society [33]. People then collectively act to
address the pressures and impacts by either reducing the adverse effects after
they happen or act proactively on the driving forces to minimize or prevent the
environmental response causing harm. The framework thus enables us to exam-
ine and enhance our understanding of: 1) how climatic stress puts pressure on
pastoral/agropastoral systems, and 2) how smallholders respond to protect local
agriculture and livelihoods.
2. Methods
2.1. The Study Area
Location
The study area, Borana pastoral and agropastoral systems, is part of the Bo-
rana administrative zone situated in Oromiya Regional State, southern Ethiopia
(Figure 2). Geographically, the study area lies in the tropics region, and is lo-
cated between 37 and 41 degrees E, and 3 and 7 degrees N. The study targeted
lowland districts of the Borana Plateau which constitute the heartland of the Bo-
rana pastoral and agropastoral systems [35] subject to recurrent climate-induced
stresses. The Borana people are an ethnic group of pastoralists inhabiting the
arid and semi-arid areas of southern Ethiopia and the northern part of
neighbouring Kenya. Strong social networks and bonds are important features of
their collective lifestyle including natural resource governance. Traditional in-
stitutions are important entities in managing access to common property re-
sources necessary to support the extensive livestock production system [5] [36]
and collectively respond to climate perturbations.
Climate
The study area exhibits four seasons crucial to the rainfed agriculture which
shaped the transhumant lifestyle of the rural community. These are Bona the
long dry spell from December to February, Gana the long rainy period from
March to May, Adolessa the short dry spell from June to August and Hagaya the
short rainy period from September to November. Rainfall has bimodal pattern of
Figure 2. Location map of the study area, southern Ethiopia (Note: PA refers to pastoral
or agropastoral association which is the lowest administrative unit).
Figure 3. Mean seasonal rainfall and temperature during 1980-2009 in the study area.
seen more as a way of life than a western world style profit oriented agribusiness.
Poor access to agricultural input and output market is an important develop-
ment challenge the rural community face. In the face of climate driven pervasive
socio-economic and ecological changes, expanding drought-tolerant maize cul-
tivation, increasingly popular camel and goat husbandry, and shrinking livestock
holding per household characterize the dynamics in the farming system [40].
With multiple drivers of change, these dynamic dryland farming systems face
rapid evolution of social, economic and biophysical features.
The focus group discussion showed that recurrent drought and resource-based
conflicts are the two most critical climate-induced shocks and stressors small-
holders face in the study area. Livestock and crop sales make the two most im-
portant livelihood activities (Table 1). It is therefore imperative that small-
holders pay most attention to respond to recurrent drought conditions perceived
as indicators of recent climate change. The smallholders perceive the recurrent
droughts as evidence of changes in local climatic conditions which are harming
the performance of rainfed agriculture upon which their livelihood depends
(Table 1). This view is consistent with a parallel study by Debela et al. [11]
whereby survey participants identified decreasing rainfall often with extremes to
be key feature of changing climate which negatively affected local livelihoods.
Table 1. Ranking of identified major shocks (stressors) and livelihood activities among
Borana smallholders (Source: Focus Group Discussion, 2012).
below average extreme lows, its uneven seasonal distribution and increased
temperature are key features of perceived climate change they responded to.
Particularly, increasingly frequent as well as intense drought conditions continue
resulting in scarcity of pasture and water resources challenging the sustainability
of traditional pastoralism. Broadly, speaking, amid constraining barriers, small-
holders responded to climate change mainly through adjustment of farming
practices and shifting into non-pastoral livelihoods.
While adaptation options stated as most commonly used measures were
closely similar across pastoral and agropastoral systems, there are few differ-
ences. More households are engaged in cultivation of food crops (e.g. maize
and sorghum) and off-farm employment (e.g. petty trade) in predominantly
agropastoral systems as compared to pastoral ones (Figure 4). Agropastoral
households obtain more percentage of non-farm income and less of farm in-
come as compared to pastoral households (Table 2). Whereas herd mobility to
remote areas and supplementary feeding of animals are identified as the most
commonly used option by more households in pastoral systems than agropas-
toral counterparts. The variation can be attributed to the fact that livestock rear-
ing is a primary source of livelihood which makes an important source of in-
come in pastoral systems. Subsequently, average livestock holding is relatively
larger (Table 2) among pastoral households than their agropastoral counter-
parts.
Adaptation options taken up were mostly reactive rather than proactive
(Table 3) implying that adaptation in the study area was a response to pressures.
This, therefore, confirms that the PSR model is a suitable framework for analys-
ing adaptation to climate change in the study area. While most of the measures
target to deal with current pressures from climate change, few, such as moving
from cattle-only herd to mixed-herd (with camel and goats added), water devel-
opment (such as well and pond maintenance and construction), and cultivation
Table 2. Key household and farm characteristics of interviewed households in the study area.
Production system
Characteristics Overall mean
Pastoral Agropastoral
Table 3. Summary and classification of adaptation options identified by the Borana pastoralists and agropastoralists in interviews
and focus group discussions.
*Degree of
Adaptation option Adaptation vision Phasing Function Origin or Source
collaboration
Spreads risk
Herd diversification Transitional Proactive Individual Introduced/Indigenous
across animal groups
*Individual refers to Individual farm households whereas Collective refers to group of households or communities.
of food crops (mainly maize and sorghum) envisage proactive adaptation to an-
ticipated climate change as they get implemented before the next hazard mani-
fests itself.
We also found that locally adopted options featured two important features:
1) inherently resilience or transitional modes of adaptation, and 2) reliance on
indigenous knowledge and local resources (Table 3). Adaptation options
adopted in the study area reflect a strong preference for resilience or transitional
within existing institutional and cultural arrangements. Most of the adaptation
options identified among the Borana envisage the goal of maintaining stability
or marginal changes that utilise elasticity in farming systems and local liveli-
hoods (Table 3). In other words, buffering or coping against shocks, which
represents often autonomous resilience approach to adaptation, is a favourable
response to moderate negative effects of climate variability which is an essential
element of dealing with climate change among resource poor farmers [23]. For
example, the use of supplementary feed and increased herd mobility to remote
areas are means by which livestock can be taken through the dry spells when
drought-induced feed shortage is critical and would result in massive die-offs if
no action is taken [29] [42]. The approach is no more than an attempt to main-
tain the status quo and allow unsustainable systems to persist. In other words, it
keeps the system on its pre-existing trajectory through maintaining the essence
and integrity of the system [43] which underpins the elasticity of the system.
In view of current level of vulnerability, it appears that a predominantly resil-
ience approach to adaptation involves low degree of intervention and does little
to adequately reduce vulnerability to current and anticipated climate change and
ensure co-benefit of improving rural livelihoods. Further to that, it possibly un-
dermines long term adaptation suggesting temporal trade-off with short term
resilience approaches, and increases the risk of maladaptation as these resilience
measures are often autonomous and ad hoc. The strong preference for resilience
can be partly attributed to the weak adaptive capacity of households and com-
munities subject to recurrent climate stresses that eroded resources available for
future adaptation. Studies noted that the high costs and risks (economic, social,
cultural, etc.) associated with transformative actions tend to make it difficult for
resource-poor farmers to pursue transformational adaptation [44] [45]. But note
that transformational adaptation poses great risks as well as gains.
On the other hand, few adaptation options such as cultivation of mois-
ture-stress tolerant food crops (such as maize and sorghum) and herd diversifi-
cation with addition of drought-tolerant species (such as goats and camels),
adopted in turn would lead to transitional goals resulting in incremental changes
through minimal reconfiguration of the system. Such measures go beyond an
attempt to maintain functional persistence, and involve moderate reform, re-
structuring of activities and incumbent livelihood systems [18] [44]. Combining
cultivation and herd diversification into existing livelihood systems represents
an incremental adaptation envisaging transitional approaches. Cultivation, in
particular, is expanding rapidly though there exists little evidence that cultiva-
tion of small and fragmented plots enabled food self-sufficiency among the Bo-
rana [26] [46]. Addition of cultivation as a risk spreading mechanism is often a
desperate measure and low-external input production system. The extension
short term but may be maladaptive in the medium to long terms. Participants
emphasised that concentration of mobile herds in a given remote fall back re-
gion during severe droughts caused resource overexploitation. The high stocking
density results in degradation of resources which may be acceptable adaptation
option in the short-term but may increase vulnerability to future droughts as
these fall back areas become degraded undermining future local adaptive capac-
ity. Our study shows that there is an urgent need for policy makers to consider
maladaptation and subsequent negative externalities that may be the outcome of
the current resilient approach to climate change adaptation in the Borana.
Although traditional pastoralism has been a preferred and major livelihood
source, the study has shown that smallholders have demonstrated the tendency
to increasingly get involved in non-pastoral livelihoods as means of livelihood
diversification. For example, many pastoralists who previously specialized in
livestock keeping are now combining cultivation of crops into agricultural prac-
tice which is also the case for many African dryland systems [25] [48]. But culti-
vation of crops involves annexation of the communal land as there is no so
called private land which also competes with livestock production causing frag-
mentation and reduction of the grazing land. This transition into more diversi-
fied production systems allows livelihood risk to be distributed over a number of
enterprises. The transition into agropastoralism marks the growing need to
spread risk through diversifying household income and livelihood sources in the
face of rapid socioeconomic, biophysical and policy changes. Moreover, pastor-
alists in the study area were increasingly involved in non-farm income generat-
ing activities such as off-farm employment and Productive Safety Net Programs,
joint initiative involving the Ethiopian Government, World Food Program, the
World Bank and development partners. Consistent with similar findings from
other pastoral systems across East Africa, pastoralists in the Borana who prac-
ticed pastoralism for generations while increasingly involved in non-farm in-
come generating activities are not completely detaching themselves from the
culturally preferred transhumant lifestyle.
Figure 5. Percentage of respondents (out of 480) that mentioned specific adaptation bar-
riers as key challenge(s) for their household.
4. Conclusions
Smallholders in the Borana lowlands, at least in the foreseeable future, will con-
tinue to depend on rainfed agriculture as a primary source of livelihood for
which they face considerable uncertainty due to prevalent climate perturbations
and eroded ability to adapt. The dependency presents the need to urgently and
successfully deal with multiple internal and external pressures to significantly
reduce vulnerability to changing climate manifesting itself through increased
temperature and more frequent/intense droughts already felt by participants. In
this study, we explored smallholder climate change adaptation options and bar-
riers, using combination of PSR model and Pelling’s [18] typological framework
of adaptation (Table 3). The study found that for the pastoralists of the Borana:
1) climate change adaptation is intrinsically resilient or transitional, 2) indige-
nous knowledge and resources play a crucial role in adaptation, and 3) there ex-
ist a wide range of barriers to adaptation and these barriers are limiting adaptive
capacity and shape routes for adaptation.
Smallholders generally responded to climatic stresses through adaptation by
adjusting farming practices and shifting into non-pastoral livelihoods. Adapta-
tion envisioned resilience and transitional goals while transformational ap-
proaches that bring deeper changes that meaningfully address vulnerability are
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Borana farm households and communities who devoted their
precious time to respond to our questions during the household interview and
focus group discussions. Our special thanks also go to district level experts who
assisted us in facilitating the consultation and fieldwork, and enumerators for
their courage to conduct interviews during the fieldwork. We also extend our
thanks to the National Meteorology Agency of Ethiopia for its support in pro-
viding historical weather data and University of Tasmania for its financial sup-
port to this study.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
References
[1] Darwin, C. (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray Publishers,
London, UK, 547.
[2] Gebre-Selassie, A. and Bekele, T. (2011) A Review of Ethiopian Agriculture: Roles,
Policy and Small-Scale Farming Systems. Global Growing Casebook. Global Grow-
ing, Vienna, Austria, 65.
[3] Gebrehiwot, T. and Veen, A. (2013) Farm Level Adaptation to Climate Change: The
Case of Farmer’s in the Ethiopian Highlands. Environmental Management, 52,
29-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0039-3
[4] Deressa, T., Hassan, M. and Ringler, C. (2011) Perception of and Adaptation to
Climate Change by Farmers in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural
Science, 149, 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859610000687
[5] Ng’anga, S., Van Wijk, M., Rufino, M. and Giller, K. (2016) Adaptation of Agricul-
ture to Climate Change in Semi-Arid Borena, Ethiopia. Regional Environmental
Change, 16, 14.
[6] Davies, J. and Bennett, R. (2007) Livelihood Adaptation to Risk: Constraints and
Opportunities for Pastoral Development in Ethiopia’s Afar Region. The Journal of
Development Studies, 43, 490-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380701204422
[7] Bacha, D., Namara, R., Bogale, A. and Tesfaye, A. (2011) Impact of Small-Scale Ir-
rigation on Household Poverty: Empirical Evidence from the Ambo District in
Ethiopia. Irrigation and Drainage, 60, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.550
[8] Conway, D. and Schipper, L. (2011) Adaptation to Climate Change in Africa: Chal-
lenges and Opportunities Identified from Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change,
21, 227-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.013
[9] Lavers, T. (2012) Patterns of Agrarian Transformation in Ethiopia: State-Mediated
Commercialisation and the “Land Grab”. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39,
795-822. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.660147
[10] MoA (2011) Agriculture Sector Programme of Plan on Adaptation to Climate
Change. In: Salehu, A., et al., Eds., Ministry of Agriculture, Federal Democratic Re-
public of Ethiopia (FDRE), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 101.
[11] Debela, N., Mohammed, C., Bridle, K., Corkrey, K. and McNeil, D. (2015) Percep-
tion of Climate Change and Its Impact by Smallholders in Pastoral/Agropastoral
Systems of Borana, South Ethiopia. SpringerPlus, 4, 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1012-9
[12] Pauw, P. (2013) The Role of Perception in Subsistence Farmer Adaptation in Af-
[43] Park, S., et al. (2012) Informing Adaptation Responses to Climate Change through
Theories of Transformation. Global Environmental Change, 22, 115-126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.003
[44] Rickards, L. and Howden, S. (2012) Transformational Adaptation: Agriculture and
Climate Change. Crop and Pasture Science, 63, 240-250.
https://doi.org/10.1071/CP11172
[45] Kates, R.W., Travis, W.R. and Wilbanks, T.J. (2012) Transformational Adaptation
When Incremental Adaptations to Climate Change Are Insufficient. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 7156-7161.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115521109
[46] Tache, B. and Oba, G. (2010) Is Poverty Driving Borana Herders in Southern Ethio-
pia to Crop Cultivation? Human Ecology, 38, 639-649.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-010-9349-8
[47] Baudoin, M. (2013) Enhancing Climate Change Adaptation in Africa: Assessing the
Role of Local Institutions in Southern Benin. Climate and Development, 6, 122-131.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2013.844677
[48] Galvin, A. (2009) Transitions: Pastoralists Living with Change. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 38, 185-198. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164442
[49] Moser, S.C. and Ekstrom, J.A. (2010) A Framework to Diagnose Barriers to Climate
Change Adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 107, 22026-22031. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007887107
[50] Jones, L. and Boyd, E. (2011) Exploring Social Barriers to Adaptation: Insights from
Western Nepal. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1262-1274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.002
[51] Upton, C. (2012) Adaptive Capacity and Institutional Evolution in Contemporary
Pastoral Societies. Applied Geography, 33, 135-141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.10.008