Enclosing the commons: reasons for the adoption and adaptation of enclosures in the arid and semi-arid rangelands of Chepareria, Kenya

History of enclosures in Chepareria

Rangeland enclosures in Chepareria existed even before interventions by Vi-AF through
their Vi-TPP project which involved intensive extension on enclosure establishment
and agroforestry. Our results indicated that although Vi-AF started operations in
1987, enclosures in Chepareria were established as early as 1967. This feature is
supported by the fact that there are more than 10.8 % of enclosures which were established
before 1987 as indicated in Table 2. Similar results have been reported by Makokha et al. (1999]) who observed that the Pokot people were using customary enclosures before the Vi-AF
Project. According to Makokha et al. (1999]) customary enclosures were mainly used for calves, milk cows and sick animals and
for the cultivation of millet and sorghum, and these small areas were mainly enclosed
with thorny branches. Due to their migratory lifestyle, these enclosures would be
abandoned and new ones established in their next settlement area. Makokha et al. (1999]) recounts that the introduction of the group ranch management systems by the colonial
administration changed the Pokot way of life (traditional system); in its place, this
system confined animals to restricted areas in the name of disease control (Nangulu
2009]). Previous studies indicated that this system was poorly coordinated (management),
eventually leading to overstocking, overgrazing and land degradation (Makokha et al.
1999]). It is then that Vi-AF through their Vi-TPP project started conducting intensive
extension on enclosure establishment using demonstration sites in schools and churches,
with an aim to address pasture scarcity and create stable environments for the local
pastoral community (Kitalyi et al. 2002]). Under the project, individuals were encouraged to use live-fences to control stocking
density and enhance rotational grazing, plant trees and carry out grass reseeding
(Svanlund 2014]). Initially, the project worked in churches and schools which acted as demonstration
plots. Once the project obtained the go-ahead from its members, the most degraded
areas were selected and rehabilitation measures established. Originally, the Vi-TPP
worked on a top-down approach during the introductory years. However, successful rehabilitation
of the demonstration plots saw more individuals interested in enclosing their land
hence a transition into a demand-driven scenario (Makokha et al. 1999]).

The evolution of Vi-AF interventions towards land improvement through the establishment
of pasture enclosures consisted of initially working on public land in schools and
churches which after 3 years acted as demonstration plots for the local community.
The transition from the establishment of demonstration plots on public land to the
establishment of spontaneous enclosures is estimated to have taken about 7 years (1987–1994).
Thereafter, Vi-AF conducted intensive extension on enclosures between 1995 and 2001
before phasing out the project in 2002. Enclosure categories were found to be significantly
correlated to the age of household head (p ? 0.01) with older households having older
enclosures and which are likely to have been established or supported by Vi-AF.

Enclosure categories

Enclosures identified and sponsored by the project were established using the top-down
approach due to the fact that the local community did not have confidence in the project
and the results of the project were not definite. Similar results were reported by
Makokha et al. (1999]) who observes that under this enclosure category, a Plantation Management Committee
(PMC) consisting of community members, local administration and project staff was
constituted to ensure that the community was adequately informed of the project activities
and activities were undertaken to the latter. Therefore, this enclosure category only
accounts for 10.0 % (Fig. 2) of enclosures in Chepareria as they served to introduce and convince the community
that the technique being proposed was effective and worthwhile to adopt.

Enclosures identified by individuals, elders or the community but assisted by the
project were established where an elder in the village or any other member of the
community approached the project for assistance. If the request was accepted, the
project would convene a baraza in which its role in the project would be discussed. Under this engagement, the community
members would fence off the stipulated land while the project would hire casual labourers
to prepare micro catchments, plant tree seedlings and grass seeds. According to Makokha
et al. (1999]), individual owners of these lands were expected to take care of the enclosures for
a minimum of 3 years before allowing animals into the enclosure.

Enclosures initiated without Vi-AF assistance (also referred to as spontaneous enclosures)
were established after individuals witnessed successful rehabilitation of degraded
lands in demonstration plots and improved enclosures in their locality. Previous studies
in Chepareria have reported that Labour needs were met by family members or neighbours
under the sikom—Pokot communal labour system in which the community assists one of its own to undertake
a specific task which requires more labour than the family can provide-system (Makokha
et al. 1999]). Fencing in this enclosure category was mainly achieved using dead branches of Acacia nilotica although a few individuals planted live fences using sisal or euphorbia during the
wet season. It has been observed in previous studies that the transition from the
establishment of enclosures in demonstration plots to the spontaneous enclosures took
roughly 7 years after which Vi-AF was less active in the area (Makokha et al. 1999]). Therefore, this category accounts for over half of the enclosure types in Chepareria
(73.5 %) given that most enclosures were established after this period. Besides in
Chepareria, the establishment of spontaneous enclosures has also been found to be
on the increase in Lake Baringo Basin as described in previous studies by Mureithi
et al. (2010]) in Baringo County, Kenya. Overall, spontaneous enclosures indicated continued establishment
of rangeland enclosures in the formerly degraded rangelands as individuals seek to
tap on the various benefits derived from rehabilitated rangelands in private or communal
enclosures.

Sources of information on enclosure establishment

The existence of enclosures in Chepareria as early as 1967 reinforces observations
by Makokha et al. (1999]) describing that enclosures were being used before the Vi-AF Project. Vi-AF through
their intensive extension on agroforestry and enclosure establishment accounted for
52.5 % and was the main source of knowledge and information on enclosure establishment
in Chepareria (Table 3). Through observation or association with the project, individuals gained knowledge
on how to establish rangeland enclosures and manage them as a land management approach.
Individuals also learnt how to establish enclosures by adopting what their neighbours
were doing. Many of those who were not convinced by the Vi-TPP would later establish
enclosures after witnessing the transformative ecological change within enclosed areas.
These households hugely relied on the advice of their neighbours and community members
when enclosing their individual farms. The role of local leaders and local level administrators
is significant in not only spreading information but also advising community members
within their jurisdiction on how to enclose degraded areas. This is very crucial given
that it’s the local leaders who were charged with the role of land demarcation and
also served in the land committees. Parents, as custodians of knowledge on enclosure
establishment accounted for 15.8 % of the various sources of knowledge/information.
By training a new generation of enclosure owners and managers, parents have passed
on knowledge on enclosure establishment and management to their children either through
hands-on involvement or casual observation. When their children inherit land, they
are then able to use this knowledge when establishing their own enclosures. Other
enclosure owners acquired knowledge from government extension officers, attending
field or farm visits in other areas and through other NGOs as indicated in Table 3.

Reasons for enclosure establishment in Chepareria

There are combinations of factors which are attributable to the establishment of rangeland
enclosures in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Previous studies by Forester (2002]) and Behnke (1986]) in Ethiopia and Sudan respectively have shown that there are diverse objectives
for the establishment of rangeland enclosures in drylands. Our findings in Chepareria
rangelands indicated that enclosures were established for:

Boundary demarcation

The enclosure movement in Chepareria was initiated by pastoralists to address pasture
scarcity in the area and create stable environments for the local pastoral community.
Similar results have been reported by Graham (1988]) who observed that enclosures in East African rangelands are in some instances, initiated
by pastoralists owing to the perception that good land is becoming scarce. Increased
land degradation in Chepareria not only reduced the available good land but also increased
pasture scarcity among the Pokot pastoral community in Chepareria.

While studies by Graham (1988]) and McCarthy et al. (2003]) have reported that rangeland enclosures in SSA are prevalent where privatization
supported by the state or planners is believed to encourage a more responsible and
rational use of the rangelands; we reiterate that the establishment of enclosures
in Chepareria was driven the local pastoral community. In Chepareria, policies favouring
the group ranch management system were highly disliked by the community; particularly
after the exit of colonialists as the group ranch system was poorly coordinated hence
leading to overgrazing and land degradation as cited by Makokha et al. (1999]). With increasing evidence of the restorative success of rangeland enclosures within
the demonstration sites, enclosures were increasingly established in order to lay
claim to a demarcated area hence grazing rights. Similar findings were reported by
Graham (1988]). The winding up of group ranch management in favour of individual landholdings created
the impetus for increasing establishment of rangeland enclosures as a form of land
ownership in Chepareria. According to Makokha et al. (1999]) individual landholdings created some degree of land independence and ownership of
enclosed areas in Chepareria. Similar results have been reported by Saxer (2014]). Our studies found that the observed success of rangeland enclosures in addressing
pasture scarcity, restricted access to enclosed areas and a reduction of the available
communal land, increasing establishment of enclosures to own land was also driven
by the fact that the largest share of people were putting up fences because other
people were putting up fences. Chances that those who did not enclose land would be
left out in communal lands easily accessible by others or get the poor lands owing
to allocation bias informed by the spontaneous establishment of enclosures for boundary
demarcation and land ownership.

Increasing tenure insecurity owing to spontaneous enclosure establishment, restricted
access to enclosed areas and a shrinking resource base for pastoralists (communal
land) saw more individuals interested in securing and managing private grazing and
farming areas for various household needs. This could only be feasible if individuals
had some form of de facto rights on the land hence the need for clarity on boundaries. In a previous study
in Chepareria, Makokha et al. (1999]) observed that the recognition of group ranch representatives as owners of the land
as provided under Section 287 of the Land (Group Representative) Act (Kenyalaw.org
2012]) allowed for all members of a group ranch to have an equal and undivided share of
the ranch and any other group resource. It is against this background that private
enclosures were developed and are still being developed as some land is still held
under the group ranch/communal tenure regime in Chepareria as indicated in Table 1.

Pasture preservation

The Pokot community being a predominant pastoral community, rangeland enclosures in
Chepareria were mainly established to address pasture scarcity in the area. The establishment
of enclosures was seen a viable approach to enhance land management and create stable
environments for the local pastoral community. Similar results have been reported
by Makokha et al. (1999]) who observed that pasture enclosures were established in order to provide grazing
reserves during the dry season as communal grazing and livestock migration decreased.
More so, similar findings were observed in Chepareria by Wairore et al. (2015b]) who observed that rangeland enclosures in Chepareria have fostered increased flexibility
in land use, fodder and livestock management hence enabling individuals to control
grazing throughout the year. Previous findings by Desta et al. (2013]) and Wairore et al. (2015a]) in Ethiopia and Kenya respectively have reported that through various enclosure
management regimes, individuals are able to maximize on land use, ensure flexibility
and provide fall-back options in the face of climate change impacts such as drought.
In the Cantabrian Mountains of Spain, similar results have been reported by Álvarez-Martínez
et al. (2013]) who observed that through increased flexibility in land, fodder and livestock management,
rangeland enclosures are increasingly being used to manage livestock and control biomass.

Using enclosures, individuals in Chepareria have been able to preserve natural pasture
within their fields for dry season grazing. In the event that this reserve pasture
is not required, individuals can choose to cut-and-carry this fodder and store it
as hay. Similar findings have been observed in Ethiopia by Kindeya (Desta et al. 2013]) who observed that the grazing reserves or protected pasture enables individuals
to maintain livestock productivity during the dry season. On the other hand, those
with large enclosures also allow others, particularly those with small enclosed areas
and large herds to graze in their fields at a fee in what is commonly termed as contractual
grazing. Previous studies in Kenya and Ethiopia have reported contractual grazing
as common practice amongst enclosure owners in East Africa (Makokha et al. 1999]; Keene 2008]; Beyene 2006], 2011]; Mureithi et al. 2015]), one which would not be possible if the rangelands were still held communally (Keene
2008]; Beyene 2010]).

Besides natural pasture, artificial reseeding involving the cultivation of high-yielding
grass varieties such as Chloris gayana was also prominent, particularly in the wetter regions of Chepareria. Fodder production
enables enclosure owners and by extension other community members to cope with drought
since excess fodder can always be sold to those in need. The grass can also be cut
and stored as hay and used as fodder in case of drought. More so, crop residues are
rarely sold but are stored to be used during the dry season or even drought. Previous
studies in Ethiopia by Abule et al. (2005]), Kamara et al. (2004]) and Desta et al. (2013]) have observed that the preserved pasture or fodder also provides strategic grazing
fields for the lactating stock during the dry season, the young stock or is used for
fattening bulls.

Proper land management

The establishment of enclosures in Chepareria was also observed to be due to an inherent
need to manage and utilize land as individuals saw fit. Increased land degradation
and pasture scarcity was attributed to increased overuse and mismanagement of the
free–for–all communal fields in Chepareria. To fully exploit the land, individuals felt that they
could better manage the vast lands if they were demarcated and boundaries established.
Following the exit of the colonialists and the subsequent failure of the highly disliked
group ranch management system, individuals seized this opportunity to wind up the
group ranch management which was poorly coordinated in favour of individual landholdings;
one which they had some degree of ownership, independence and control. Previous studies
amongst enclosures owners in Somaliland by Gaani (2002]) and in Ethiopia by Keene (2008]) and McCarthy et al. (2003]) have shown that individuals felt that they could better utilize and manage the land
if they owned it. However, in some instances as indicated in research findings by
Keene (2008]), the allocation of grazing commons to individual private holders is also common
when the state believes or assumes that privatization through individualization will
encourage a more responsible use of the land. While the elements of individual willingness
and government support for the establishment of enclosures in Chepareria are evident;
the bottom line here lies in the realization that, by establishing enclosures, individuals
in Chepareria not only have independence in land management and utilization but also
gain the accruing land use/management benefits as observed by Saxer (2014]) in Chepareria.

Crop production

The significance of farming as a factor for the establishment of enclosures reiterates
previous findings by BurnSilver (2007]) and Galvin (2009]) in East African rangelands who observed that cultivation agriculture is gaining
popularity and spread among East African pastoralists today. Consequently, pastoralists
are cultivating where rain-fed or irrigated agriculture is a possibility. In Chepareria,
two arguments can be made on the need to enclose land for farming. In the wetter areas
of Chepareria, rain-fed agriculture is a major possibility as observed in the characterization
of enclosure management systems in Chepareria by Wairore et al. (2015b]). In these areas, market-oriented agriculture enables individuals to not only derive
income but also produce diverse enclosure marketable products. In the lower altitude
areas, agriculture is done on a subsistence basis. Second, previous studies on enclosures
in Chepareria by Makokha et al. (1999]), Wernersson (2013]) and Karmebäck (2014]) observed and reported that enclosures have reduced herding needs amongst enclosure
owners in Chepareria hence individuals have more time for cultivation. These findings
are consistent with those of Galvin et al. (2002]) which describe that the increasing human population coupled with a relatively constant
livestock population have encouraged individuals to diversify their income streams
to make ends meet. Consequently, the need for cultivation/crop farming is not due
to a decline in benefits derived from the livestock enterprise or the need to lease
out land to outsiders perceived to have better farming skills as stated in previous
studies by Hogg (1997]), Gebre (2004]) and Ayalew (2009]).

Curbing land degradation

The successful rehabilitation of the most degraded areas in the demonstration plots
set up in schools and churches made more individuals interested in enclosing their
land as they associated enclosures with rangeland restoration. While rangeland enclosures
were not specifically established to curb land degradation in Chepareria; enclosures
have increased flexibility in the management of land use, fodder and livestock hence
enabling households to not only eke a living, diversify sources of livelihood but
also address land degradation in Chepareria. Our findings are similar to those of
studies in Somalia which indicated that individuals still fence off most degraded
areas within their own enclosures in order to protect them from indiscriminate use
(Gaani 2002]) while in Ethiopia, it is being done to curb land degradation (Forester 2002]; WOCAT 2003]; Nedessa et al. 2005]; Napier and Desta 2011]).

Diverse ecosystem services and environmental benefits

In Chepareria, the establishment of enclosures helped reduce communal use, regulate
grazing and enhanced proper management of the enclosed areas which has fostered the
recovery of formerly degraded lands. Increased vegetation cover has helped increase
soil cover thus reducing losses of soil moisture through evapotranspiration. Increased
soil cover has also been essential in facilitating improved water infiltration while
reducing soil erosion. Increased litter deposition and carbon sequestration have also
improved fertility hence increased productivity. Agroforestry practices have helped
regulate the hydrological cycle, reduce wind and water soil erosion through their
root binding action and increased rainfall induction. Previous studies have reported
that enclosure owners benefit from various ecosystem services including improved water
infiltration and retention, soil fertility, shade and erosion control (Wasonga et
al. 2011]; Mureithi et al. 2010]; Svanlund 2014]). In fact, previous studies in Ethiopia have reported that ecological change is a
key reason for the establishment of enclosures (Keene 2008]). As an integrated landscape approach, enclosures offer various environmental benefits
such as soil stability, improved hydrological cycles, nutrients recharge and exchange
and carbon sequestration on a landscape level (Scherr et al. 2012]).

Rangeland enclosure trade-offs: Have they shifted risks of land degradation from communal
rangelands to private allotments?

While enclosures in Chepareria were not mainly established for land rehabilitation
but to address pasture scarcity in Chepareria; the rapid ecological change witnessed
within enclosed areas has proven that enclosures can be used as a management tool
for the rehabilitation of degraded rangelands. Similar results have been reported
by numerous previous studies in SSA (Mekuria et al. 2007]; Mureithi et al. 2010]; Verdoodt et al. 2010]; Mekuria and Veldkamp 2012]; Mekuria and Aynekulu 2013]). Ecological restoration in the formerly degraded communal rangelands has been fostered
by increased flexibility in land, fodder and livestock management in Chepareria as
observed by Wairore et al. (2015b]). While enclosures have been able to address land degradation, they have also reduced
available communal land, increased land-based conflict within individual allotments,
commoditized land, and created wealth stratification amongst households in Chepareria
as observed in previous studies by Wairore et al. (2015a]) in Chepareria. Ecologically, enclosures have significantly shifted risks of degradation
from communal rangelands to private allotments by reducing available communal land
hence restricting grazing to enclosed areas. Where grazing and intensive use of rangeland
is not appropriately regulated; risks of land degradation within enclosed areas will
be significantly high over time.