1. of household resilience to food insecurity in order

  1.INTRODUCTION1.1Background of the studyPastoralismis a way of life for an estimated 120 million people worldwide of which 50 millionare from sub-Saharan Africa (CAADP policy brief No.6, March 2012).

InKenya arid and semi-arid Lands (ASALS) make up make up 83% of the country andhome for 10% of the total population (Kirbride & Grahn 2008:8).Livestock isthe main source of livelihood for this population. Livestock in pastoral areasis estimated to be worth US$800 million per year (AUIBAR in IIED and SOS Sahel2010) Kenya’slivestock products contributes to 24% of total agricultural GDP. Over 70% ofthe country’s livestock and 75% of the wildlife are found in the ASALs (Orindiet al. 2007).

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

Despite this, the pastoral households have been sidelinedeconomically and politically for decades. Pastoralist areas have the highestincidences of extreme poverty and the least access to basic services in thecountry.Kenya,as many other sub Saharan countries, prone to variety of natural disasters likedrought, agricultural pests, floods that affect livelihoods and cause food insecurity.Pastoral livelihoods are increasingly under pressure which may cause resource depletion,diminishing resilience, loss of livestock and shrinking rangelands (UNOCHA2007). In the 2011 drought World Bank indicates that estimated livestockmortality was about 10-15 percent above normal in the affected areas, which wasequivalent to 5 per cent of Kenya’s livestock population (World Bank, 2011).

Thesituation calls for the need to understand the nature and extend of the foodinsecurity problem as they have a great impact on economic performance andlivelihoods of the affected communitiesVulnerablehouseholds have developed different strategies to cope/reduce the risks/shocksthat affect them Strategies are based resource endowment or access to externalassistance (Maharjan and Chhetri, 2006). Resilienceis the Ability to maintain a certain level of wellbeing and withstand shocksand stresses (DFID 2011).despite the heavy capital investment by the governmentin agriculture food security still poses as a serious threat in the country itis important to determine the key factors of household resilience to foodinsecurity in order to better address the adverse effect of climate shocks.1.

2 Statement of the problemFoodinsecurity poses a serious threat to human survival in the SSA for this reasonit has remained a major global development agenda, as in the SDG 2 which is to endhunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainableagricultureTheeffects of food insecurity have been observed in Kenya and are likely topersist with increasing population pressure and changing consumptionpreferences despite many interventions it is still an issue of major concern,Particularly Baringo County, the study area, has high prevalence of foodinsecurity incidences Householdengage in different and multiple coping strategies .Household coping strategiesattempt to minimize the effect of the shocks by maximizing the limitedresources Coping strategies may be intended to sustain lives rather thanimprove the food security status. The strategies are region specific and wheneffective the resilience of the households is improved. Based on this the studywill screen the coping strategies and measure the household resilience to foodinsecurity.Many studies that havebeen done on food security (Nyariki, 2002; Pinstrup, 2009; Barret, 2010;Headey & Ecker, 2013) focus on definition, causes andmeasurement. Other studies haveoutlined measures of attaining food security and coping mechanisms amonghouseholds households (Shariff & Khor, 2008; Yengoh et. al.

, 2010; Burchi, 2011; Gupta et. al., 2015).This study seeks to build on the available literature by determining status inpastoral households and also linking the aspect of resilience and foodsecurity.     1.

3General objective the studyThisstudy aims to analyze the determinants of household resilience to foodinsecurity among pastoralists and agro pastoralists in Mogotio sub county,Baringo County. Specificobjectives1.      Tocharacterize food insecurity status among households in Baringo country.2.

      Toanalyze food insecurity coping strategies employed by households in the studyarea. 3.      Todetermine household resilience to food insecurity in Baringo county CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEWMeasurement of resilienceDueto the fact that resilience is unobservable, few studies have quantitativelyassessed it. Alinovi et al (2008) modeled resilience a latent variable, whilekeil et.al(2008) used an observable variable as a proxy.Accordingto Allinovi et al household resilience is determined by social safety nets, accessto public services, assets, income and food access, stability and adaptive capacity.They then use the 6 factors to compute a resilience indexCarter(2006) uses an approach based on the idea that resilient households have theability to smooth their consumption by reducing asset stock or other copingstrategies and non resilient ones cope by reducing consumption in order tomaintain their assets’Gutu(2012) uses an ordered probit to identify and analyze determinants ofresilience to climate change impacts.

Theyfound farmers with better investments in natural resource management , accessto markets , better social networks , access to credit , preparedness , savedliquid assets , access to irrigation, and a better level of education, havegreater levels of resilience. CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGYThischapter presents the theoretical, and empirical framework used in the study. Itfurther presents a description of the study area, sampling design and datacollection procedure. TheoreticalFrameworkThisstudy specifically draws from the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA)developed by DFID.SLA provides a framework for assessing howpeople go about maintaining their livelihood household livelihoods’sustainability depends on households’ ability to cope with shocks and stresses,A household’s livelihood is said to be sustainable if it can cope with andrecover from shocks ,maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while notundermining the natural resource base.

3.2 Empirical FrameworkObjective1: To characterize food insecurity status among households The household foodinsecurity access scale (HFIAS) will be used to determine food insecurity status.This is a nine-item food insecurity scale used to calculate HFIAS score-acontinuous measure of the degree of food insecurity in the past 30daysObjective2: To analyse the food insecurity coping strategies employed by households inthe study areaThecoping strategies will be analyzed using descriptives and a coping strategies index(CSI) will be created.For each coping strategy a degree will be set based onits severity. The coping strategies will be ranked based on the average weightcalculated1.      Objective3: To determine household resilience to food insecurity in the study areaOrderedprobit regression model will be used to identify and analyze the determinantsof household resilience to food insecurity. The level of resilience will beclassified into 3 categories based on speed of bouncing back after a shockmeasured in the number of agricultural seasons.

1-Fast :households that are go back to normal in the next agricultural season2-Moderate:takesone or 2 seasons to get back to normal3-:households that were unable to bounce back after 2 seasons =0 if  , Is the level of resilience and involvesordered outcome  arethe explanatory variables determining time taken to bounce back is the disturbance term3.3 Study AreaThis studywill be conducted in mogotia Sub-County, Baringo County. The region wasselected as it is in the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (GOK 2015),with high poverty incidences. Theresidents in this county practice pastoralism and agro-pastoralism as source oflivelihood.the area receives an averagerainfall of 500mm per annum which is highly variable and unreliable. 3.

4 Sample Size Determination Accordingto Kothari (2004), the following formula will used to determine sample size. Where; n = thesample size to be determinedp = theestimated proportion of the target population that has an attribute the studyis interested inq =Weighting variable computed as (1 – p)z =confidence level e = theacceptable error (precision)Theproportion of the population that is food insecure is unknown and therefore pwill be set at 0.5 since this proportion will be statistically sufficient andreliable. This will lead to q of (1 – 0.

5). According to Kothari (2004), anerror less than 10% is usually acceptable and hence this study will assume anerror of 0.08. Therefore,at least 150 questionnaires will be targeted during data collection.

 3.5 Sampling Design Multistagesampling technique will used in the study. Mogotio Sub County in Baringo Countywill be purposively selected. Simple random sampling will used to selectlocations in the Sub County where four locations will selected. Systematicrandom sampling will be used to select households where every fourth householdwill be selected from either side of the road in the villages. 3.7 Data Collection The studywill use primary data to be collected using semi structured questionnaires.

Secondary data will be obtained from publications, seasonal annual reports ofthe county, and relevant government ministries documents and will be used fordescriptive purposes.    3.8 Data Analysis Data willentered using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) while Stata willbe used for analysis in both descriptive statistics and econometric models. Forthe descriptive statistics, frequency distributions, percentage and means willbe used to present the results.                   REFERENCESCAADP. (March2012).Pastoralism in the Horn of Africa: Diverse livelihood pathways. Policy Brief2.

Catherine Fitzgibbon,June 2012. Economics of Resilience Study: Kenya Country Report. (http://www.dfid.gov.

uk/Documents/publications1/Econ-Res-Kenya-Country-Report.pdf Catley, A. & Iyasu,A. (2010). Moving Up or Moving Out? : A rapid Livelihoods and Conflict  Analysis in Mieso-Mulu Woreda, Shinile Zone,Somali Region, Ethiopia. Feinstein International Centre. COMESA.

(2009). RegionalLivestock and Pastoralists Forum Fitzgibbon, C. (2012).Economics of Resilience Study: Kenya Country Report.

Kenya Government ofKenya. (2009). Releasing our Full Potential – Draft Sessional Paper onNational  Policy for the SustainableDevelopment of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands.IGAD LPI Working  Paper No 02 –12 IGAD LPI Brief 11, (2011).The Contribution of Livestock to Kenyan Economy.   Kibirde, M. & Grahn, R. (2008).

Survivalfor the Fittest: Pastoralism and Climate Change in East  Save the Children.(2007). Vulnerability and Dependency in 4 Livelihood Zones in North EasternProvince, Kenya. Nairobi.  SOS Sahel.(2006).

Pastoralism in Ethiopia: Its total economic values and developmentchallenges. UNICEF, Country Statistics, 2012.