There was “Too Much Forgiveness”

1. Of Goats and Trees: Creating Institutional Change to Enable Tree Planting Quinn Bernier, Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellow, CCAFS-ICRAF Institutions, the rules that govern behaviors, beliefs, and organizations (Ostrum, 2005), are a central component of a community’s adaptive capacity (Jones et al 2010). However, existing institutional arrangements may not prove conducive to enabling smallholders to manage and use resources (both collective and individual) in a sustainable manner. In Lower Nyando, a highly-degraded and deforested landscape in Western Kenya, communities identified free-grazing, the practice of allowing livestock to roam and graze (especially post-harvest), as a key constraint to the adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural (CSA) practices, such as tree planting and longer-term crops. This research explores how communities can effect change in the institutional arrangements governing resource use and access to enable the adoption of CSA practices and the implications that such changes have for community-level adaptive capacity. Four community groups (Koala, Obinju, Rarieda, and Katuk), promoting tree-planting and other CSA activities in the Nyando Basin, were purposively selected to capture the range of experiences in managing free-grazing problems, following consultation with NGOS and researchers active in the area and interviews with group leaders. The author conducted semi-structured interviews in each community, recording the views of group leaders, group members, and non-members in the community. The questions focused on understanding the strategies used to prevent free-grazing, their effectiveness, challenges, and their impacts on the community at large. In each community, 10-14 interviews were conducted. In addition, interviews were conducted with NGOs, researchers, and government representatives (from local level Village Elders to District Agricultural and Forestry Officers). The research sought to answer three questions: 1) What are the existing institutional arrangements governing free-grazing? 2) How are communities managing and effecting change in community institutional arrangements to enable the adoption of CSA practices? 3) What are the potential implications for adaptive capacity that such institutional innovations pose? • “Now We Are Planting Trees….”: Exploring the Process of Institutional Change • A Shift in Thinking About Livelihoods • Through NGOs, government outreach, and personal experiences, individuals in the area are starting to recognize the value and importance of integrating trees and implementing CSA practices on their farms. The process of change here mirrors what Carr and McCusker(2009) describe as the co-production of land-use and livelihoods. Once actors recognize a livelihood opportunity, they start to consider how and why the results of their action do not yield the expected results. As a result, “individuals and communities seek to resolve this mismatch by adjusting…discursive expectations of a particular strategy, shifting their land use and livelihoods practices, or a combination of the two” (569). These changes are the result of the interplay of social relations and processes (570). • Interviewees recognized that growing and maintaining trees, on small farms, required more careful consideration and attention to livestock management and care. More than a third of respondents were reducing their livestock numbers, to avoid potential problems. • Three of the groups (Obinju, Koala, and Rarieda) linked their tree planting efforts with awareness campaignsto encourage members to adopt improved management practices, grow fodder crops, and substitute improved breeds of cattle and goats. At the very least, they encouraged smallholders to replace local goats with local sheep. • Trees vs. Cultural Practices • The language and attitudes in the community changed, from tacitly acknowledging free-grazing as being acceptable in drought and post-harvest, to no longer tolerating free-grazing. As the Chairperson of the Rarieda group said, “ A long time ago, people accepted that their brothers’ animals could be walking around on their farms, but this is no longer true. Now we do not accept [free-grazing].” One reason for the shift to no longer accepting free-grazing emerged from a recognition that the landscape needed tree cover; smallholders recognized the difficulty in finding and securing timber, fuelwood, and building materials. • Community Involvement • Changing the institutional arrangements required the support of the community and the community understanding the benefits and roles of trees in their livelihoods. Yet, community change and support was difficult to secure; numerous respondents outlined the difficulties in getting livestock owners to comply with new restrictions on grazing, especially when the tree planters were few. Groups tried various measures to communicate the changes in institutional arrangements. Actions included: going from door to door, organizing community barazas (meetings) with the district and administration officials, and distributing tree seedlings in order that livestock owners “feel the pain” and recognize the effort required to plant and maintain trees. • In addition, the new institutional arrangements required that people “respect” investments and land, rather than being “jealous” of what tree-planting farmers had accomplished. More over, the enforcement of these by-laws required community participation to witness and report free-grazing. One participant suggested that a key part of this modified institutional arrangement was the ability of neighbors to watch out for, and report, animals, as opposed to watching your farm, day in and day out. Yet, as many others suggested, individuals were still not always keen to report their neighbors. • Nested Institutional Relationships • Interviewees identified the involvement of government officials and a closer relationship between communities and the government as central to the success of the bylaws There was “Too Much Forgiveness” Free-grazing has technically been illegal since land demarcation following independence. However, in theory and in practice, it has been tacitly tolerated—especially post-harvest and in times of drought. Prevailing wisdom suggests that individuals must fence trees and fields to protect crops—especially if there are crops or trees in the fields following the long rains. The Government of Kenya, through the Provincial Administration, has been responsible for enforcing the national statutes through the offices of Village Elder, sub-Chief, Chief, and District Officer. However, interviewees commonly complained that these solutions were inefficient, too slow, and too quick to promote “forgiveness; ” in addition, interviewees charged that the procedures were subject to corruption and bribery. Low-level administration officials (Village Elders and Chiefs) suggested that their greatest role was to be a peace-keeper, rather than enforcing penalties for free-grazing. If free-grazing cases could not be settled by Village Elders or Chiefs, the cases would be referred to District Officials, at which level the cases would become a criminal matter, with stiff penalties for the offending livestock owner. However, cases rarely went to this level, because both victim and transgressor were eager to avoid these fines. More over, individuals and groups engaged in tree planting felt that rules—and their enforcement—did not properly value the effort and labor that planting and maintaining trees requires. • Modified Institutional Arrangements • Despite their differences, the four groups adopted (or were going to adopt) specific by-laws to address the failings of existing institutional arrangements governing free-grazing. These modified institutional arrangements utilized the structures and current laws for reporting incidences of free-grazing, but specified penalties for offending livestock owners and enforcement mechanisms. In addition, these by-laws changed the role of the administration officials, making them less responsible for adjudicating and mediating conflict and more responsible for enforcing the by-laws. • For the smallholders involved, these arrangements reduced key barriers to the adoption of CSA practices, as identified by McCarthy et al (2011). Significantly, these modified arrangements reduced the transaction and risk costs to smallholders, allowing group chairpersons to negotiate and intercede directly on their behalf. More over, several groups believed that being part of a group, with such by-laws, made the administration officials more responsive to their complaints and concerns. As a result, participants felt confident that their investments in trees and cassava would be protected. • The penalties reflected in the by-laws more accurately captured the value of the trees and the investments required, as they were set by the communities. One interviewee noted, that the bylaws “ reflected the seriousness of the effort to plant trees.” • Interviewees believed that the strict enforcement of these by-laws helped to instill “fear” in the community that made people respect other people’s farms and investments. These by-laws—and their strict enforcement—were viewed as the only way of overcoming the entrenched practices of free-grazing and the atmosphere of tolerance and forgiveness. • Even with the by-laws, most respondents suggested that they would forgive free-grazing the first time it happened, without pursuing penalties. However, the by-laws in Obinju specifically mandate that while there can be forgiveness, there will be no forgiveness without penalties. This explicit section serves an important function: these group members are able to keep community cohesion by allowing forgiveness—but are still able to receive compensation for their investment in trees and crops. • As a few respondents noted, “Getting money is not easy,” so people are reducing the number of livestock to avoid potential problems. • The Lower Nyando Basin in Kenya is a densely populated and highly-degraded landscape already prone to climatic variations. Despite the climate variability that farmers have already experienced (including drought, flooding, and increased unpredictability of rainfall), smallholders in the region have made relatively few investments in more transformative CSA practices (Kristjanson et al, 2012). In addition to growing maize, sorghum, and beans, 88% of households raise small livestock and 74% keep larger livestock (CCAFS, 2011). Livestock play an important role in local livelihoods and serve as assets that can be sold to cope with unexpected stresses and shocks (see, for example, Thorlakson 2011). Despite the importance of livestock, few farmers in the basin have adopted improved livestock management practices (CCAFS, 2011). Smallholders traditionally cultivated only for the “long rain season,” after which animals were allowed to graze freely. However, the communities’ growing interest in planting trees, incorporating crop residue, and diversifying into drought resistant crops, like cassava, has led to the emergence of conflicts between livestock owners and those smallholders making CSA investments. • Lessons for Adaptive Capacity and the Promotion of Climate Smart Agriculture • Local level institutional arrangements are essential for enabling smallholders to adopt CSA interventions. In order to see the landscape level changes, practitioners need to appreciate and build off of local institutional innovations. • These examples suggest that communities have the ability and flexibility to change their institutional arrangements in response to situations that do not adequately protect and enhance their investments in crops and their labor. However, NGO partners and other development institutions can work with communities to ensure that these do not unfairly harm community members and that the decision-making processes are as inclusive as possible. • Practitioners need to be aware of the potential trade-offs that result from institutional changes. In this instance, the reduction in livestock assets of farmers in order to plant and protect trees may decrease their individual adaptive capacity to deal with and respond to shocks. • Creating Inclusive and Effective Institutional Change • There is a strong need to involve government officials, at sub-location, location, and district levels, as they are the ones who will ultimately be responsible for enforcing these bylaws. • Community support for—and acceptance of— the new arrangements is vital. • Efforts should be taken to make sure that the discussions to draft the by-laws are as inclusive as possible. These efforts will help to ensure community legitimacy and greater community enforcement. • More attention needs to be paid to the enforcement mechanisms. Despite these by-laws—and their purported acceptance by the community at large—many respondents who had been victims of free-grazing could not find anyone to serve as a witness. This reluctance suggests that the social cohesion and forgiveness that dominated the previous institutional arrangements may still be a powerful determinant of behavior for many community members.