Journal of Arid Environments 181 (2020) 104216

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Arid Environments

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaridenv

Beef value chain analysis and climate change adaptation and investment T
options in the semi-arid lands of northern Kenya
S. Wagura Ndiritu
Strathmore University Business School, Ole Sangale Road, Madaraka Estate, P.O. Box 59857, 00200, Nairobi, Kenya

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this paper is to examine the beef value chain and identify climate change adaptation and in-
Beef value chain vestment options in the semi-arid areas of northern Kenya. The research uses an innovative approach to value
Livestock chain analysis, namely the three-step Value Chain Analysis for Resilience in Drylands (VC-ARID) that considers
Climate change adaptation the specific characteristics of semi-arid systems. All the respondents interviewed along the value chain have
Semi-arid lands
perceived changes in rainfall, temperature and climate extremes – especially drought – over the past 15 years
Kenya
and have experienced the impacts of these changes on their livestock. The findings show that pastoralist pro-
ducers need to invest in fattening programmes at their ranches or via feedlots to increase the quality of the beef
they produce. There is significant potential to improve the fattening stage in the value chain, since it would
contribute towards meeting demand in the expanding high-end markets that require finished, top-quality meats.

1. Introduction
Changes in climate, together with other stressors, will exacerbate
the vulnerability of African agricultural systems, particularly in semi-
arid areas (IPCC, 2014). Such increased vulnerability will in turn ag-
gravate food insecurity, loss of rural livelihoods, reduced water avail-
ability and a decline in the productivity of farming and pastoral systems
in these areas (IPCC, 2014). Climate change will also have significant
impacts on economic activity and value chains, as economic agents are
forced to alter their production systems to maintain their production
capabilities under changing conditions (Carabine and Simonet, 2017).
Current evidence in the East African region indicates that climate
change is a significant concern because it will affect livestock produc-
tion systems and livestock productivity (Assan, 2014; Herrero and
Thornton, 2013). In Kenya's arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs), for ex-
ample, climate change poses a threat to development and economic
growth, increasing the risks for individuals, businesses, infrastructure
and assets and leading to impacts across all sectors of the economy.
Nonetheless, despite the importance of livestock to poor people in
general as well as the magnitude of the changes that are likely to befall
livestock systems per se, the intersection of climate change and live-
stock in developing countries is a relatively neglected research area.
This paper is part of a project entitled Pathways to Resilience in
Semi-arid Economies (PRISE), which focuses on harnessing opportu-
nities for climate-resilient economic development in semi-arid lands.
One aspect of the project looks at adaptation options in key sectors in
six countries, amongst which is Kenya. This paper concentrates speci-
fically on such options in the beef value chain in the Kenyan county
known as Laikipia.
Through preliminary consultation with stakeholders and re-
spondents along the beef value chain, it was determined that there was
indeed potential for economic transformation and diversification in
semi-arid areas in northern Kenya. Following the PRISE approach
(Carabine and Simonet, 2017:6), the study therefore addressed two
main questions: “1) What are the pathways for climate-resilient beef
production and marketing in semi-arid lands?”, and 2) “What are the
adaptation options for private sector investment opportunities in re-
sponding to climate change in semi-arid lands?” Based on these ques-
tions, we hoped to develop a framework that could incorporate climate
change into the beef value chain in northern Kenya, and specifically in
Laikipia County.
Most of the world's pastoralists are entirely dependent on livestock
production (Downie, 2011). Kenya's pastoralists occupy vast areas de-
fined as arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs). ASALs account for 84% of
Kenya's land surface area and receive less than 625 mm of rain per year.
Such lands are characterised by long dry spells interspersed with low
and erratic rainfall – both of which weather conditions are worsened by
climate change.
According to Behnke and Muthami (2011), Kenya's pastoralist
community makes up about 25% of the country's population and holds
over 50% of the country's livestock. Indeed, more than 80% of the beef
consumed in Kenya is produced by pastoralists, either domestically or

E-mail address: sndiritu@strathmore.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2020.104216
Received 21 July 2018; Received in revised form 15 November 2019; Accepted 13 May 2020
0140-1963/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.W. Ndiritu
in neighbouring countries. According to Rich et al. (2011), for many
pastoralists in ASALs, livestock systems represent a potential pathway
out of poverty.
The beef industry in Kenya has been ranked as one of its fastest-
rising economic sectors due partly to the domestic market and partly to
overseas exports. The sector is supplied mainly by the pastoral systems
in northern Kenya. The annual per capita consumption of red meat, i.e.
meat and offal from cattle, sheep, goats and camels is approximately
15–16 kg, resulting in a national average of 600,000 MT of red meat
being consumed in Kenya per year (Farmer and Mbwika, 2012). Cattle
are the primary source of red meat (beef) in the country, accounting for
approximately 77% of Kenya's ruminant off-take for slaughter. About
70% of all beef production is found in the country's ASALs.
Wanyoike et al. (2015) observe that pastoralism that operates on
extensive livestock systems has been the primary source of livelihood
for pastoral communities in Kenya. However, pastoral livelihoods in the
country are declining due to the impacts of climate change, the frag-
mentation of rangelands and the lack of competitive markets for pas-
toral products. Additional challenges to such livelihoods include the
fact that extensive livestock systems – such as those that operate in the
Kenyan ASALs – are characterised by marketing chains that feature long
distances, numerous phases of weight gain and loss due to varying dry
spell cycles, multiple categories of traders and transactions, a multitude
of processing stages, and a variety of employment-creating services and
inputs (Rich et al., 2011).
According to Bergevoet and Van Engelen (2014), cattle in Kenya are
produced through three principal systems: pastoralists (responsible for
over 80% of the country's red meat production), cattle ranches (prin-
cipally producing the highest quality of beef for the high-value market,
accounting for up to 3% of total production) and the Highlands pro-
duction system based mainly on British beef and dairy breeds (re-
sponsible for the remaining percentage).
Previous studies on agricultural value chains have investigated the
links in various agri-food supply chains and their role in enhancing
overall value chain efficiency (Shukla and Jharkharia, 2013). For in-
stance, in many developing economies, studies on agri-food show that
inter-firm linkages are weak, and that coordination and market strate-
gies are uncoordinated (Anastasiadis and Poole, 2015). However, a
systematic literature review by Routroy and Behera (2017) showed that
South African authors had studied most of the agriculture supply chains
in Africa. Furthermore, such literature reviews have focused on fruits,
flowers and vegetables and not on animal products such as milk and
beef (Anastasiadis and Poole, 2015; Shukla and Jharkharia, 2013). A
notable exception is a case study comparing competitiveness in the
United Kingdom and Argentina's beef industries (Francis et al., 2008).
Also missing from previous analyses is a focus on value chains in
agricultural hotspots such as semi-arid lands.
Underlying the approach of the current study, therefore, is the re-
cognition that, compared with all other types of agricultural production
systems in the tropics, livestock production in semi-arid lands displays
key structural differences in respect of ecological and socio-economic
variability. Also, to the best of the author's knowledge, there are no
studies investigating the responses by value chain participants in re-
sponse to climate change in the beef value chain in Africa in general or
in Kenya in particular. This study intends to fill that gap.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows: section 2 presents a
review of beef production in Laikipia County, while section 3 describes
the material and methods employed in the study. The results of a beef
production value chain analysis are presented in section 4, along with a
description of adaptation and investment options, while section 5
concludes the paper by way of a discussion of the key results and their
policy implications.
2. Beef production in Laikipia County
The primary motivation for selecting Laikipia County as a study site
2
Journal of Arid Environments 181 (2020) 104216
is its unique combination of livestock production systems in a semi-arid
area. The land tenure regime in the County consists of communal/group
ranches, managed and occupied by Maasai communities; privately-
owned ranches utilised for large-scale livestock production and more
recently for wildlife conservancies; small individual land holdings
mostly used for subsistence farming; and government/public land,
which consists mainly of forest areas (Moiko, 2015). Thus, there are
four different livestock production systems, namely group ranches (run
communally by livestock-owning pastoralists), private ranches (pro-
ducing beef for a niche market), private conservancy-style ranches
(managing both livestock and wildlife) and private subsistence ranches
(owned by individual subsistence farmers). Economic activities in the
County relate mainly to tourism and agriculture, the latter comprising
grain crops, ranching, pastoralism and greenhouse horticulture.
Most of the northern parts of Laikipia County is classified as pas-
tureland. According to the County's first integrated development plan
for the period 2013–2017 (Laikipia County, 2013), there were 43 ran-
ches registered in the County in 2012, together occupying just over 50%
of its total land surface area. Of the 43 ranches registered, 13 were
communally-owned group ranches. These were located mainly in the
northern part of the County and occupied a total of 72,544 ha. Thus,
most northern Laikipia residents are pastoralists who move from one
area to another in search of water and pasture, particularly when the
area gets too dry (Laikipia County, 2013). The climate in the northern
parts of the County is typified as semi-arid, in that it receives an average
annual rainfall of 400–750 mm. Consequently, the area experiences
cyclic drought, with the more recent drought events having been re-
corded in 2000, 2005, 2009, 2014 and 2017. The altitude in Laikipia
County ranges from 1,300 m to 1,500 m above sea level. The primary
vegetation is open grassland dotted by acacia bush.
The remaining 30 registered ranches were owned by companies and
individuals (Laikipia County, 2013) and had an average size of 10,000
acres each. These private ranches, which practised both wildlife con-
servancy and the rearing of beef cattle, were scattered across the
County. Indeed, Laikipia County is well known for its privately-owned
conservancy-style ranches such as Borana, Ol Jogi and Solio, which
provide a significant source of beef for local consumption and export
besides luxury tourism experiences.
Large farms and ranches also produce hay from their pasturelands
(Weru, 2016). Since there are only a few producers of hay in the
County, however, their total production cannot meet local demand,
particularly during the dry periods (Weru, 2016). To bridge this gap,
deliberate efforts to establish hay on a smaller scale are being made by
private individual farmers.
3. Methods and materials
3.1. Method
Value chain analysis examines the full range of activities required to
bring a product or service from its conception to its end use, the firms
that perform those activities in a vertically coordinated chain, and the
final consumers of the product or service (Kaplinsky and Morris, 2001).
The activities in question include design, production, marketing and
support to get the final product or service to the end consumer
(Kaplinsky and Morris, 2001).
A value chain starts with the production of a primary commodity and
ends with the consumption of the final product – and includes all the
economic activities undertaken in between, such as processing, deli-
vering, wholesaling and retailing. Value chain activities can produce
goods or services (Francis et al., 2008). Such activities can also be
contained within a single geographical location or spread over more
extensive areas (Francis et al., 2008).
Conducting an analysis of the beef production value chain in
Kenya's semi-arid lands posed some unique challenges, such as non-
uniformity between parts of the beef production system and their non-
S.W. Ndiritu
linear dynamics. The proposed methodology overcomes these chal-
lenges in several ways. Firstly, the value chain analyses explicitly re-
cognise that there are multiple paths (or value chains) that can lead to
climate-resilient economic development. Secondly, since seasonality is
critical in semi-arid lands, the beef sector was screened for seasonal
effects along the value chain. And thirdly, since the closely related issue
of mobility is also characteristic of semi-arid lands, particularly con-
cerning livestock production systems, this factor was accommodated as
well.
The study followed the standard three-step methodology known as
Value Chain Analysis for Resilience in Drylands (VC-ARID), which con-
siders the specific characteristics of semi-arid systems (Carabine and
Simonet, 2017). VC-ARID involves “mapping the value chain” (Step 1),
“assessing the climate risks at each level of the value chain” (Step 2),
and “identifying adaptation and private sector investment options for
climate-resilient value chain transformation” (Step 3) (Carabine and
Simonet, 2017:11–12). The three steps are discussed in more detail
below.
3.1.1. Step 1: Mapping the value chain
The study analysed the beef value chain in Laikipia County to
identify where shocks, in general, could have significantly negative
social impacts (e.g. loss of food security), environmental impacts (e.g.
loss of water supply) or economic impacts (e.g. loss of profit/business).
In addition, a literature review was carried out to ensure all relevant
existing evidence and data informed the analysis. Key informant in-
terviews and focus group discussions were also conducted to fill evi-
dence gaps where necessary and possible. This enabled a complete
schematic and narrative description of the beef value chain in Laikipia
County to be generated (see Fig. 1).
3.1.2. Step 2: Assessing the climate risks
After the climate risks in respect of Laikipia County were identified,
they were assessed, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The qualita-
tive assessment was derived through interviewing key informants at
each level of the County's beef value chain, while its quantitative
counterpart was based on a survey conducted among producers and
some traders in the County.
Fig. 1. Map of the beef value chain in Laikipia County, Kenya
Source: Author compilation.
3
Journal of Arid Environments 181 (2020) 104216
3.1.3. Step 3: Identifying options for adaptation and private sector
investment
This step first entailed conducting an analysis of the adaptation
options which the study's respondents felt would allow the beef value
chain to become more resilient to climate change impacts. Further
options were then yielded from the beef value chain mapping exercise
as well as from the logic of the value chain approach itself. Next, the
existing and required adaptive capacity to accommodate current and
future climate impacts into potential value chain promotion and up-
grading strategies was assessed, along with determining where private
sector investment could best meet the capacity needs thus identified.
Finally, the feasibility and sustainability of current private investment
options in adaptation measures were then considered by way of a
cost–benefit analysis of a beef fattening programme that already forms
part of the production component of the County's beef value chain. Beef
fattening analysis was considered because the programme constitutes
the most successful investment by the private sector in terms of climate-
change mitigation measures.
3.2. Data collection and analysis
This study was conducted mainly via collecting qualitative data
from various respondents along Laikipia County's beef value chain.
Additional primary and secondary data were collected through the
literature review, semi-structured interviews with 10 key informants,
three focus group discussions and observations. The mapping was re-
viewed for the different roles and responsibilities of respondents to
ensure that the most important stakeholders were included in the data
collection. These data were supplemented by secondary data collected
from interviews with government officials at the County's livestock
offices. The themes from the qualitative data were analysed using
content analysis.
3.3. Sample
Given the small number of respondents in the County's beef value
chain after accounting for livestock producers, a snowball sampling
strategy was adopted to gather further data. Same sample sizes of five
S.W. Ndiritu
value chain respondents from each category in the chain– namely li-
vestock traders who specialised in trading only, meat traders, and
abattoirs/processors – were sampled, giving a total of 22 value chain
respondents. Seven of these respondents were butcheries in the town of
Nanyuki in Laikipia County, and made up the distribution category in
the beef value chain.
4. Results
4.1. Value chain mapping with key characteristics
The value chain of beef production from live animals to distributed
product was analysed in terms of the livestock involved; the structure of
the beef market; all transport, marketing and slaughter facilities; sta-
keholders and their role linkages; and price formation.
As Fig. 1 reveals, the core functions in the beef value chain are the
supply of inputs, production, local trading (i.e. collection on market
days), local processing, and distribution (i.e. retail and consumption).
In Laikipia, the livestock market chain consists of two underlying chains
(respectively indicated by black and white arrows in Fig. 1): the ‘live
animal chain’ covering the pre-slaughter period, and the ‘meat chain’
that arises after slaughter. The major stakeholders in the beef value
chain in the study area are the suppliers of inputs, producers (pastor-
alists, private ranchers and operators of privately-owned fattening fa-
cilities); brokers and traders; abattoirs; and butcheries, hotels and in-
stitutions, supermarkets and individual consumers.
4.1.1. Inputs
Although input supplies for beef production depend on the system of
cattle production being practised, such inputs mainly consist of water,
pasture, fodder, veterinary services and breeds. The study concentrated
on pastoralists’ pasture and fodder needs, as set out below.
The demand for feed depends on the scale of production. For ex-
ample, large-scale ranches can produce their own pasture (cattle graze
areas of tall, old grassland) and even often grow their own feed (e.g.
hay) during the dry seasons. Pastoralists, on the other hand, depend
mostly on pasture from communal land (group ranches). In this type of
production, cattle are herded over long distances during the dry season
in search of water and grazing. Field visits during the study revealed
that one of the main constraints for pastoralists was the lack of access to
rangeland that would allow them to plan their animals’ grazing from a
holistic perspective, i.e. in a way that would simultaneously protect the
environment. These farmers lacked adequate pasture for their animals
even during ordinary dry spells; moreover, buying hay was very ex-
pensive for most of them. During such periods, therefore, there were
attempts to access private ranches for pasture, which led to conflict.
Some private ranches mitigated these conflicts by allowing local com-
munities to graze on their land at a fee which ranged from KSh150 (US
$1.50) to KSh600 (US$6) per head of cattle per month. However, the
community leaders interviewed said that their communities perceived
such high fees as being intentional deterrents.
In northern Laikipia, the County livestock officer interviewed ex-
pressed optimism that the degraded pastoral system there would
eventually be rehabilitated by a new Holistic Rangeland Management
Programme being introduced by the Northern Rangelands Trust.
Central to the new management system was to plan carefully when
cattle grazed (Savory, 1983; Savory and Butterfield, 1999). The current
traditional system entailed scattered grazing, which meant vast areas
were regularly browsed, with no time left for land recovery. Adopting
holistic management would ensure that the condition of the soil im-
proved and that there was good grass cover all year round. This would
be achieved through the spatial management of herds according to
zoned grazing areas (Savory, 1991; Savory and Butterfield, 1999). One
of the measures involved was that of bunching, which brought large
herds together in one place for a limited time. Moderate grazing by
cattle benefited rangeland by encouraging regrowth: their hooves broke
4
Journal of Arid Environments 181 (2020) 104216
up hard pan soil and their manure fertilised it (Savory, 1983; Savory
and Butterfield, 1999; Strauch et al., 2009). The land could then be left
to rest so that the grass on it could rejuvenate.
4.1.2. Production
Production in the beef value chain includes housing, feeding and
watering cattle as well as providing them with veterinary services – all
of which are geared towards producing animals of the required live
weight. Recognising that there are two production paths in the Laikipia
County beef value chain, the study reports separately for private
ranching and pastoralism.
The private ranches in Laikipia County are high-quality meat pro-
ducers. One of the main advantages of ranches is the production of
branded highest quality meat suppliers in the Country. High-quality
meat fetches the top wholesale price in the market (currently KSh400/
US$4 per kilogram in Nairobi). Most private ranches have also created
self-sustainable conservancies that integrate cattle and wildlife, si-
multaneously enabling them to target the lucrative high-end tourism
business and supplement their income.
Pastoralists trek livestock from its source to primary markets and
sell it to traders, who then trek or truck it to secondary markets. These
markets include wholesale traders and other butcheries. Cultural fac-
tors shape pastoralists’ view of livestock as a form of wealth. On
average a pastoralist earns KSh20,000 (US$200) per month when they
sell their cattle to the market.
4.1.3. Local trading
The buying and collection of livestock is the main activity in mar-
keting involving livestock traders. Beef producers (pastoralists) in
Laikipia sell their animals to traders in nearby markets. Each urban
centre has a designated livestock market day.
A livestock trader who had been in the business for over ten years
revealed that traders like him studied the price dynamics in each
market, doing so twice a day on every market day, i.e. once in the
morning and once in the afternoon. They also studied the price dy-
namics in the season of the year when producers were most likely to sell
their livestock. Given the traders’ knowledge of the dynamics of these
markets, they sold their stock in the morning when prices were usually
high; towards the end of the day, when prices fell as sellers became
desperate, the traders bought stock for fattening. During the high sea-
sons when pastoralists sell animals, the traders offer low prices.
One of the critical challenges that became apparent from the field
study was the lack of scales at cattle markets: traders usually approxi-
mated the weight of a live animal simply by observation. Consequently,
there was a high variation in the live weight used for negotiating the
price of an animal and its actual weight. In most cases, producers were
being cheated. This was because the traders fixed an animal's live
weight and decided on its live-weight price accordingly. Such prices
ranged from KSh130 (US$1.3) to KSh170 (US$1.7) per kilogram. Lower
prices were reserved for lower-quality animals. Usually, low-quality
animals yielded less than 50% of their live weight after slaughter.
In some instances, a trader will purchase young cattle from a pri-
mary market to sell on to a terminal market such as Nairobi after a
significant period of maturation. A portion of cattle en route to Nairobi
are fattened on private or group ranches in this way. Such traders either
rent pastureland on private ranches or are members of group ranches.
The price of one head of cattle before fattening ranges from KSh15,000
(US$150) to KSh20,000 (US$200), depending on its size. Traders in-
forming the study noted that the preferred breed for fattening was the
Sahiwal because it added weight very quickly, had a high milk pro-
duction capacity, and had high adaptation potential in semi-arid con-
ditions. For fattened stock, prices start at KSh45,000 (US$450) and go
up to KSh60,000 (US$600), depending on the animal's live weight,
which is usually more than 300 kg. During key informant interviews in
December 2016, a trader at the Kimanjo Market informed the study that
he had bought a cow for KSh35,000 (US$350); after two months of
S.W. Ndiritu
fattening, the cow's live weight had risen to 481 kg, allowing it to be
sold at KSh65,000 (US$650). This transaction translates into a live
animal price of KSh135 (US$1.35) per kilogram and a profit margin of
KSh30,000 (US$300).
4.1.4. Local processing
The first processing work is done at abattoirs and includes dehiding,
quartering the carcass and distributing meat to butcheries, hotels and
institutions, and supermarkets. Butcheries, hotels and institutions pro-
cess the meat into different retail food commodities, while super-
markets process the meat for their retail outlets.
Public abattoirs that are administered by the County provide formal
slaughter services to butchers and the general public. The current price
for slaughtering cattle is KSh500 (US$5) per head, which is made up of
a veterinary fee of KSh100 (US$1) and a KSh400 (US$4) fee charged by
the County. The private abattoirs are largely owed and operated by
private ranches.
4.1.5. Distribution
The main distribution channels for beef are butcheries for poor
urban consumers and supermarkets for wealthy urban consumers.
Butcheries are the largest category of retailers when it comes to red
meat in Kenya in terms of volume, selling 65% of total production.
Besides selling beef on a retail basis, butcheries also serve raw and
roasted meat products to clients directly on their premises. Generally,
supermarkets and institutions are supplied by private ranches and
sometimes by feedlot fattening entrepreneurs.
In respect of Laikipia County, beef prices in Nanyuki town retail at
KSh400 (US$4) per kilogram. Since the wholesale price for beef is
KSh280 (US$2.8) per kilogram, the butcher's profit margin is KSh120
(US$1.2) per kilogram, which translates into KSh16,800 (US$168) per
animal with a carcass weight of 140 kg. Usually, a butcher would sell
one cow per day.
4.2. Margin analysis
The leading attribute suppliers, butchers, and buyers look for in
purchasing is the quality of an animal in terms of its weight and fatness,
because these two elements determine the meat's selling price to the
end consumer. All slaughtered livestock are sold as raw meat within
Laikipia County and its surrounding areas, except for butcheries that
have restaurants linked to them. When one compares the annual turn-
over of a supplier to that of a butcher who does value addition, margins
clearly exist. It was also observed that the selling price per kilogram of
beef varies among butchers.
On average, meat suppliers buy their livestock at KSh35,000 (US
$350). Animals are slaughtered three times a week, yielding an average
of 150 kg after each slaughter. Slaughterhouse wholesale prices per
kilogram are KSh280 (US$2.8) for beef.
The observed variation in butchers’ prices per kilogram of beef re-
vealed they ranged from a minimum of KSh400 (US$4) to a maximum
of KSh450 (US$4.5) at the time of the study. Butchers who sold beef at
the minimum price made a profit of KSh120 (US$1.2) per kilogram. For
instance, one of the butchers interviewed sold an average of 300 kg of
beef per day. This translated into an annual gross profit of
KSh12,960,000 (US$129,600), and an annual turnover of
KSh43,200,000 (US$432,000).
Another respondent butcher, who sold at the maximum price, made
sales of around 150 kg per day – but they were few. Also, although
75 kg of this sold amount per day constituted raw meat sold to custo-
mers, the butcher used the other 75 kg in his restaurant for value ad-
dition sales. In his response, he noted a combined annual profit
amounting to KSh10,000,000 (US$100,000) derived from both meat
sales and restaurant value additions.
These results show that, generally, butchers earn more than meat
suppliers in the beef value chain in Laikipia County.
5
Journal of Arid Environments 181 (2020) 104216
4.3. Climate risk
Climate variability is an influential factor in livestock production in
Kenya. Although pastoralists in Kenya's ASALs have always been ex-
posed to droughts and excesses of climate and weather, the incidence of
such events has increased over the last 15 years, severely affecting beef
production. Before 1990, droughts occurred every seven to ten years on
average. Since then, five severe droughts have occurred, namely in
1992–1993, 1999–2000, 2004–2005, 2009–2010 and 2014. Pastoralists
consider the 2009–2010 drought as the worst in living memory: at least
75% of their cattle succumbed to the drought, leading to acute vul-
nerability in their livelihoods (Tully, 2014). Overall, the drought se-
verely affected producers' production and income by 76% and that of
traders by 68%.
To enable residents of semi-arid lands to plan for anticipated cli-
mate extremes, there is a need for appropriate early warning systems.
Broadly speaking, extreme weather events have led to problems such as
communities being displaced or being in conflict over natural resources
as pastoralists in- and out-migrate at the national level (GoK, 2013).
The burden on women and children increases as a result, which in turn
leads to child labour, school absenteeism, and further conflicts over
resources (GoK, 2013).
With respect to climate change, all respondents in the study be-
lieved that there had been noticeable changes in rainfall patterns, i.e.
persistent drought as well as temperature fluctuations that had affected
their businesses in terms of a low availability of livestock in the market,
poor quality meat and a low purchasing power for meat. The impacts
were different for the abattoirs (flayers): during droughts, the number
of livestock being slaughtered was high because producers destocked
before their animals died, whereas the opposite was true for abattoirs
during the rainy season. Respondents also noted that the climate
change they had perceived had affected their businesses and daily ac-
tivities significantly.
Another impact of periods of drought, according to the traders and
butchers who were part of the study, was that they had to travel or walk
for long distances in search of livestock to purchase. Furthermore, some
areas had become insecure in 2017 owing to resource-based conflicts
among pastoralist communities. Northern Laikipia was a case in point
in this regard. Moreover, the quality and quantity of livestock and meat
in the market had been affected by climate extremes and disease out-
breaks due to migration. The respondents also reported that rainy
seasons then presented as “shock” periods because herders hiked the
prices of their products immediately at the start of the rainy season –
i.e. before the livestock had regained their good condition.
4.4. Adaptation options and private sector investment opportunities
4.4.1. The status quo regarding adaptation measures
Table 1 reports on the adaptation measures employed by private
producers and certain private traders who were also producers. The
study specifically considered the following adaptation measures: in-
creased mobility (distance and frequency); storage/purchase of fodder;
Table 1
Adaptation measures currently adopted by producers and traders (N = 440).
Source: Field survey
Variable name Variable definition % response
Mobility Increased mobility (distance and frequency) 45.7
Store fodder Storage/purchase of fodder 19.3
Water management Change in water management 28.9
Herd management Overall herd management, including 49.3
reducing herd size
Shift livelihoods Partial shift to other livelihoods 36.6
Bank livestock Selling livestock for cash that is the banked 25
and saved (banking livestock assets).
S.W. Ndiritu
change in water management; change in overall herd management,
including reducing herd size; partial shift to other livelihoods; and
selling livestock for cash that is the banked and saved (banking live-
stock assets).
About 46% of the respondents reported that, due to perceived cli-
mate risks, they had increased the mobility of their livestock, both in
terms of distance and frequency. Other adaptive pastoral practices that
were increasingly being implemented in Laikipia County's semi-arid
lands, for example, were the storage of fodder or the use of purchased
fodder such as hay. However, only about 19% of the study's respondents
reported storing or purchasing fodder as a strategy for managing per-
ceived climate risks.
In terms of hay production, investment into sustainable fodder
storage is principally done by private ranches. This has increased their
adaptation options during dry spells and droughts. By cutting the
fodder while it is green and drying it in the sun, the protein and other
nutrients in the fodder are preserved. This method is superior to that of
waiting for fodder to dry naturally in the field, which causes nutrients
to be lost.
Water management is critical in semi-arid lands. In this respect,
about 29% of the study respondents reported having changed the way
they managed their water supply to mitigate climate risks. On the other
hand, about 49% of households reported having changed their herd
management practices in response to perceived climate change, in-
cluding reducing their herd size.
Practising some other form of livelihood besides pastoralism is quite
normal in the study area, where about 37% of the households reported
having shifted partially to other livelihoods such as cultivating crops,
running a small business or finding a job – usually in group ranch
tourism. Although the Kenyan Government and Kenya's insurance
companies champion the banking of livestock during dry spells and
other climate risks that decimate livestock, the study respondents re-
ported relatively low selling and banking cash from livestock assets,
namely 25%.
After producers and traders, many of the other respondents in the
value chain stated that they had not taken precautionary adaptation
measures because they lacked capacity and because such measures
were expensive. They also believed it was the producers’ role to adapt
to climate change: the quality of the product along the value chain
depended on what the producer did at the primary stage of the chain.
In respect of relying on feedlots and hay production as a climate
change adaptation measure, respondents across the board – whether
they employed this measure or not – believed that such measures
should be emphasised to all producers and traders along the beef value
chain to ameliorate the effects of drought and other climate change
impacts and ensure quality was maintained along the chain.
4.4.2. The status quo regarding private sector investment: The beef fattening
programme
Given the growing population in the Kenya's semi-arid lands,
shrinking land size and the effects of climate change, one possible cli-
mate-change-related adaptation strategy for the beef value chain is a
beef finishing and fattening programme. Such intensive beef production
systems constitute an essential but missing link in the current pastor-
alist and ranching production set-up in most countries. Finishing and
fattening programmes, which are a modern approach to producing beef
in the context of adapting to climate change, have a very high pro-
ductivity potential within a short time. Say, for example, that a private
investor keeps 300 animals on one acre, fattens them for three months,
and then sells them to a meat processor. In this way, the investor can
produce 1,200 animals from one acre a year.
A visit to the Nanyuki Ranching Feedlot Programme in Laikipia
County revealed interesting results in respect of the viability of feedlot
fattening as part of the livestock production system. A simple cost–be-
nefit analysis was conducted to establish the long-term sustainability of
the Programme (see Table 2). The current cost for the feed bought by
6
Journal of Arid Environments 181 (2020) 104216
the Programme at a discount from Choice Feeds company is KSh34 per
kilogram. Therefore, if the Programme buys a 200-kg animal for fat-
tening, and it consumes 6 kg of feed daily, the feed costs per day will
amount to KSh204 (US$2.04). If the animal gains 1 kg in mass per day,
then it needs to be sold at a cost of more than KSh204 (US$2.04) per
kilogram live weight for the Programme to break even. If the Pro-
gramme bought the animal from pastoralists at KSh25,000 (US$250),
then, after 90 days of fattening, the animal needs to be sold at
KSh46,900 (US$469) – or KSh162 (US$1.62) per kilogram of live
weight – to break even. Therefore, the current market rate of KSh150
(US$1.50) per kilogram of live weight cannot make business sense for
private investors to venture into feedlot entrepreneurship. However, if
the meat produced after fattening to 290 kg live weight was prime beef,
and the price offered by the pastoralist for the animal was not more
than KSh25,000 (US$250) before it was fattened, then an income of
between KSh51,590 (US$515.90) and KSh56,280 (US$562.80) – or a
market price between KSh178 (US$1.78) and KSh194 (US$1.94) per
kilogram of live weight – would justify the business enterprise by de-
livering returns of between 10% and 20%.
4.4.3. Respondent feedback on potential options for further adaptation and
private sector investment opportunities
During the focus group discussions, the stakeholder workshop and
the interviews with value chain respondents, several adaptation options
and private sector investment opportunities were recommended to help
manage climate and other risks experienced along the value chain and
to develop income-generation opportunities. In respect of adaptation
actions, it was felt that these could be separated into public and private
spheres of stakeholder responsibility and investment (Table 3). For
example, the respondents felt that there should be greater privatisation
of inputs, but that the public sector's role remained vital for supporting
an enabling environment for adaptation and discouraging maladapta-
tion. A case in point noted by the respondents was the shift away from
publicly funded extension services and toward the private sector be-
coming responsible for training and information on best practices in
commercial beef production.
In respect of adaptations relating to water, the respondents believed
that the increasing number of young, educated extension workers who
were familiar with beef production could be consulted for their capacity
to guide the mitigation of climate change impacts on production
through measures such as proper rainwater harvesting and storage.
The respondents considered the lack of available pasture as a major
constraint to increasing beef production in Laikipia's semi-arid lands,
particularly under increasing climate variability and climate change.
Thus, although Kenya's feed industry for beef fattening was in private
hands, the respondents suggested that both public and private parties
conduct research into alternative feeds that pastoralists could afford.
Another respondent proposal related to the breeds component of the
beef value chain's input stage and was aimed at reducing the devas-
tating loss of animals during droughts. The proposal entailed the public
sector collaborating with its private counterpart to develop supple-
mentary feeding, especially survival feeding during drought and dry
spells, to preserve the breeding stock.
With respect to the ‘live animal’ and ‘meat’ subcomponents of the
livestock market chain (Fig. 1), the respondents felt that any increase in
the production component of the beef value chain would need to be
accompanied by improved public road infrastructure. There is currently
minimal government support for repairing such infrastructure in the
ASALs in preparation for, or even after, extreme weather such as
droughts and floods. The respondents did, however, acknowledge the
institution of a public sector policy via Kenya's National Drought
Management Authority to end drought emergencies in the country
(Carabine et al., 2015).
Other climate change adaptations and private sector investment
opportunities proposed by the respondents included the following:
S.W. Ndiritu Journal of Arid Environments 181 (2020) 104216

Table 2
Cost–benefit analysis of the current beef feedlot fattening programme.
Source: Author compilation, using data from the Nanyuki Ranching Feedlot Programme
Line items Narrative Unit cost (KSh) Amount (KSh)

Cost of a 200-kg animal bought KSh25,000 is the price offered to pastoralists for emaciated livestock 25,000
from pastoralists
Feed cost for 90 days A 200-kg animal takes 6 kg of feeds daily, Feeds per kg is KSh34 Therefore 90 days @ KSh204 18,360
6*34 = KSh204 per day
Additional feed cost per month If you assume the animal increase feeds by 1 kg per month (30 days) Second month extra feed cost 3,060
34*30 = 1,020
Third month extra feed cost
34*60 = 2,040
Labour cost The monthly pay of one worker who takes care of 50 animals is KSh8,000 (1 cow for 90 480
days requires a labour cost of 8,000*3 = 24,000/50 = 480)
Total cost 46,900
Potential income Assuming the animal has gained 90 kg within the fattening period and the final weight is Assuming a 10% margin 51,590
290 kg (1.1*46,900)
Assuming a 20% margin 56,280
(1.2*46,900)

• Increasing awareness of climate change impacts on the livestock
sector
• Conducting capacity-building in indigenous knowledge, livestock
insurance schemes, extreme weather early warning systems, live-
stock management and livestock breeding
• Restoring degraded pasture lands
• Strengthening land use management systems, including rangeland
management, fodder banks and strategic reserves
• Enhancing the selection, breeding and management of animals with
a view to improving their capacity to adapt to climate change
• Establishing price stabilisation schemes and strategic livestock-
based food reserves, and
• Promoting livelihood diversification through other value chains
such as: camels, indigenous poultry, beekeeping, rabbits, emerging
livestock - quails, guinea fowls, ostriches, etc.

Table 3
Potential further adaptation and investment options for the beef value chain in Laikipia County.
Source: Author compilation
Value chain component Climate change impact Potential adaptation measure Stakeholder responsible
for investment

INPUTS
•
Water Water scarcity • Change water management through improved
efficiency in the use of water
Public and/or private

• Offer training in water storage/harvesting

• Develop permanent water points, e.g. drill more
boreholes and sink dams
• Pasture Shifting of planting and harvesting seasons for feed input
crops
Research and develop alternative feed sources Public and/or private

• Fodder • Variable feed input supplies • Sensitise producers as to the returns on investment Private
• Increased competition for feed inputs in commercial feeds such as hay
• Promote the storage/purchase of hay and holistic
management of pasture land at group ranches
• Promote the adoption of environment-friendly
silvopastoral production systems for cattle ranching
at group ranches
• Veterinary services Increased pests and diseases Improved vaccination and improved disease
surveillance.
Public and/or private

• Breeds Low-quality breeds Introduce compulsory artificial insemination to improve

pastoralists' breeds
Public

PRODUCTION
• Higher incidence of disease • Sensitise producers as to climate issues Public and private
• Render better veterinary services
• Provide options to maintain and increase
productivity
• Overstocking of group ranches • Destock excess herd Private
• Enable communities to enhance their management
of common natural pasture areas
LOCAL TRADING (Livestock Impassable roads and trade routes • Prioritise national infrastructure projects in ASALs Public
trading) • Implement standard guidelines for climate-proofed
design infrastructure
• Provide County with the capacity to plan, contract
and implement infrastructure
LOCAL PROCESSING Local processing of beef supply compromised by
unpredictable rainfall patterns and extreme weather
• increase
Offer feedlot finishing and fattening programmes to
beef quality and enhance smoothness of
Private

events such as droughts and floods supply in the market

DISTRIBUTION (Meat Supply scarcity Promote and support beef marketing groups Public and/or private
trading)

7
S.W. Ndiritu
5. Discussion, conclusions and policy implications
5.1. Discussion and conclusions
The extensive livestock production systems that typify Kenya are
conventional in many African countries as well, and all of them are
similarly confronted with the need to be understood and supported
through innovative dryland management strategies (Herrero et al.,
2009; Mtimet et al., 2015; Robinson et al., 2011). This was the back-
ground that prompted a study of the beef value chain in Kenya's Lai-
kipia County.
In mapping the value chain, it was revealed that two parallel live-
stock production systems were in simultaneous operation in the County:
one was more formal and incorporated fattening livestock on privately
owned ranches, while the other was more informal and tended towards
traditional extensive pastoralism. This result contrasts with other beef
value chain studies, which show mainly informal production systems in
operation in Africa, on the one hand (Carabine and Simonet, 2017;
Mtimet et al., 2015), and very formal production systems in developed
countries, on the other (Francis et al., 2008; Katz and Boland, 2000).
Another unique outcome revealed by the current study was that
local livestock markets were dominated by brokers who under-ap-
proximated the weight of animals and set low prices that were unfair to
pastoralists.
There was a similarity with the beef value chain in Senegal, how-
ever; as in Kenya, producers bore the costs relating to the primary
constraint on the value chain, namely for inputs such as water, fodder
and veterinary services (Carabine and Simonet, 2017).
The study further revealed that all respondents in Laikipia County's
beef value chain believed there had been noticeable changes in rainfall
patterns. These changes entailed persistent drought and temperature
fluctuations, in turn leading not only to livelihood vulnerability, but
also to businesses being affected by the low availability of livestock in
the market; the poor quality of livestock being marketed; low income
for local traders; and a low purchasing power for meat. Moreover, cli-
mate risks such as drought led to higher livestock deaths in the pas-
toralist production system in particular; furthermore, the animals that
did survive were weak due to poor growth and emaciation (loss of live
weight), causing a decline in milk yields and meat production. These
findings, based on respondents' feedback, corroborate evidence pre-
sented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,
2014), which states with high confidence that climate change would
interact with non-climate-related drivers and stressors to increase the
vulnerability of Africa's ASALs.
The study showed that all pastoralists in northern Laikipia had lost
livestock due to severe droughts that had become increasingly frequent.
Indeed, pastoralists in northern Laikipia ranked drought as the most
critical climate impact on their livelihoods. In northern Kenya as a
whole, livestock losses due to drought amounted to 86% in the 1990s
(Oba, 2001). The 2004/2005 drought caused up losses of up to 70% in
some pastoral communities. Even in Kenya's northern Kajiado County,
also a classified semi-arid area, livestock losses were as high as 43%
despite the 2004/2005 drought being mild there. Those high stock
losses were due to pasture scarcity caused by an influx of livestock
responding to drought elsewhere (Nkedianye et al., 2011). This live-
stock losses have not changed with recent droughts – clearly showing
the need to step up the drought preparedness/climate change adapta-
tion measures.
Respondents such as livestock producers, butchers, meat suppliers
and livestock traders stated that, in their view, the best strategies for
adapting to climate change included the following: diversifying liveli-
hoods, e.g. pursuing sand harvesting and kitchen gardening; managing
pasture holistically; conserving the environment; raising public
awareness about climate change; setting up robust early warning sys-
tems; reducing herd sizes; stocking adaptable breeds; and commercia-
lising pastoralism through feedlot fattening. These adaptation strategies
8
Journal of Arid Environments 181 (2020) 104216
resonate with the Kenyan Government's efforts to promote sustainable
livestock production, which also specifically target enhancing the li-
velihoods of the nation's pastoral communities (GoK, 2015, 2018).
The main strategy that all pastoralist producers employ to cope with
climate risks – especially drought – is mobility. For example, pastoralist
herders in Laikipia county move their stock to the highland areas
around Mount Kenya during times of drought. There, they practise
rotational grazing where access to sufficient parts of the area allows.
As Martin et al. (2014) have shown, pastoralist mobility is an ex-
cellent practical instance of locally adapted livelihood strategies in
dryland areas, and higher aridity may imply an increase in pastoral
mobility for household livelihood sustenance. However, as climate
change has accelerated, pastoralists have altered how they migrate,
when and where they do so, and for how long. A case in point was
presented by the PRISE study on Kenya's ASALs by Abuya et al. (2019),
who found that, as a way of coping with climate change and variability,
those ASALs that were more prone to frequent and prolonged droughts
experienced more internal migration within and between counties
compared with migration beyond Kenya's borders. However, the sus-
tainability of pastoral mobility is highly questionable with today's
realities in Kenya's semi-arid areas. For example, in Maasailand (areas
occupied by Maasai pastoralists), there is no more so-called no-man's-
land and little if any underutilised land. Thus, as a strategy to escape
drought, pastoral mobility in Kenya today means moving onto lands
utilised by others – and, often, to far-flung areas (Nkedianye et al.,
2011), which in turn ratchets up the potential for conflict.
There are opportunities for those who occupy Kenya's semi-arid
lands to explore innovative sustainable livestock management through
the integration and natural intensification of production that is climate-
smart and has been tested in other parts of the world. For instance, in
Colombia, the World Bank has engaged with local partners to pilot
innovative approaches to sustainable cattle ranching production, such
as silvopastoral systems, to enable degraded areas to be converted to
silvopastoral land (Familiar Calderon, 2018). A silvopastoral system is a
type of agroforestry that purposefully combines fodder plants such as
grasses and leguminous herbs with shrubs and trees, and it allows the
intensification of cattle production based on natural processes that are
recognised as an integrated approach to sustainable land use (Broom
et al., 2013; Chará et al., 2018; Murgueitio et al., 2011; Nair et al.,
2009). Given the high degradation of Kenya's semi-arid lands, there is a
need not only to adopt such a silvopastoral system, but also to integrate
livestock feed from annual crops with perennial feed, particularly from
deep-rooting legumes. Applying these widely tested climate-smart
measures in Kenya will promote soil health and provide additional
quality forage during dry periods.
5.2. Policy implications
The findings of this study have several policy implications. Firstly,
to strengthen the beef value chain, the private sector, especially the
pastoralist, needs to invest in fattening to increase the quality of the
beef they produce. Building partnerships with community-structured
via community-oriented information and awareness-raising campaigns
will enable more pastoralists to shift towards managing their livestock
as a business in group ranches as well as enable them to negotiate with
processors on the consistent market for their prime beef. As regards the
public sector's contribution to strengthening elements in the beef value
chain, there is an opportunity for the Kenyan Government to support
and establish systems geared at commercialised livestock feed produc-
tion and animal traceability. Enhanced access to affordable livestock
feeds encourages livestock production and will increase the country's
capacity to meet the demand for meat in both local and export markets.
Secondly, as an adaptation strategy for dry spells and droughts,
there are opportunities for the private sector to invest in the feedlot
finishing and fattening programmes. Fattening is the best profitable
strategy applied by advanced beef production: fattened cattle will have
S.W. Ndiritu
increased market access and will fetch higher prices than their un-
fattened counterparts (Katz and Boland, 2000; Malope et al., 2007;
Mlote et al., 2012, 2013; Prasetyo et al., 2012; Sarma et al., 2014;
Sirajuddin et al., 2016; Umar et al., 2008). However, although pro-
moting the uptake of finishing and fattening is an innovative way of
fighting the uncertainty of beef supply due to climate change, it also
presents very fundamental issues in respect of feed availability and the
commercial viability of ventures – given the high cost of feeds in Kenya.
Nonetheless, feedlotting can be explored as a potential market for
emaciated livestock. As regards opportunities for the public sector,
during a drought the Government could invest in the feedlot salvaging
of livestock for breeding once the drought has passed. This would re-
duce the current loss of livestock in semi-arid lands during drought
periods. In addition, given the shortage of fattening feeds in the
country, the Government could allow them to be imported duty-free.
Furthermore, the Government could support feedlot fattening pro-
grammes, e.g. by developing feedlots in semi-arid areas by accessing
leased land and then offering pastoralists financing at low interest rates
so that they can utilise such feedlots during droughts.
Thirdly, pasture rehabilitation campaigns can increase the avail-
ability of pasture for dry-season grazing. Such campaigns, which could
be operated by the private sector in partnership with County govern-
ment structures, would entail reseeding high-yield grass that is adap-
table to drylands and rehabilitating degraded rangelands. There are
also significant opportunities for livestock sector to work with com-
munities living in Kenya's semi-arid lands to build resilience to extreme
weather events and climate variability (Carabine et al., 2015). One of
the adaptation options in this context would comprise the private sector
building partnerships with County government structures and local
communities to establish and expand irrigation pasture production
areas and identify high-capacity pasture varieties and seeds suited for
use in semi-arid lands. Further support may be provided to Counties via
research by private and public bodies to identify their comparative
advantage in pasture production in line with national climate change
action plan (NCCAP) priority adaptation of proper management of
pasture lands, controlled grazing and fodder banks (GoK, 2018). For
example, semi-arid and high-potential Counties present a better en-
vironment for fodder production, while arid Counties present more
favourably as users of the fodder and as markets for the livestock.
Fourthly, the demand for beef is increasing in Kenya's urban areas.
To benefit optimally from this growing market, pastoralist production
systems will need strategies for increasing supply and quality and for
improving value chain efficiency. Increased local production will also
require improvements in herd and group ranch management.
Furthermore, the Government needs to invest in climate-proof infra-
structure in semi-arid lands.
Lastly, one of the important lessons learned from the field study was
that the pastoralists faced a very particular marketing constraint: they
were usually exploited by brokers and livestock traders, who under-
approximated the weight of the animals sold. To minimise this ex-
ploitation, County government structures should invest in livestock
scales at every market. In this way, animal weights can be determined
accurately, and the traders’ exploitation of pastoralists will decline.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the guidance of Elizabeth
Carabine and Catherine Simonet of the Overseas Development Institute
(ODI) in respect of the Value Chain Analysis for Resilience in Drylands
approach. For their valuable comments, advice and support, I also
thank the reviewers, wider PRISE team, Mohammed Said, and the
Kenya Market Trust staff, as well as PRISE workshop participants.
Financial support under the Collaborative Adaptation Research
Initiative in Africa and Asia (CARIAA) from the United Kingdom's
Department for International Development and the International
Development and Research Centre in Canada, managed by the ODI and
9
Journal of Arid Environments 181 (2020) 104216
Kenya Market Trust for the Pathways to Resilience in Semi-arid
Economies (PRISE) project is highly appreciated. English language
editing of the final submission was done by Sandie Fitchat through the
generous support of Jesper Stage and the Jan Wallander and Tom
Hedelius Foundation.The usual disclaimers apply.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2020.104216.
References
Abuya, R., Atela, J., Muhwanga, J., Said, M., Moiko, S., Atieno, F., Ndiritu, S.W.,
Bedelian, C., 2019. Contextualising Pathways to Resilience in Kenya's ASALs under
the Big Four Agenda. Kenya Markets Trust, Nairobi.
Anastasiadis, F., Poole, N., 2015. Emergent supply chains in the agrifood sector: insights
from a whole chain approach. Supply Chain Manag. 20 (4), 353–368.
Assan, N., 2014. Possible impact and adaptation to climate change in livestock production
in southern Africa. IOSR J. Environ. Sci. Toxicol. Food Technol. 8 (2), 104–112.
Behnke, R., Muthami, D., 2011. The contribution of livestock to the Kenyan economy. In:
IGAD Livestock Policy Initiative Working Paper No. 03–11. Intergovernmental
Authority on Development Livestock Policy Initiative, Addis Ababa.
Bergevoet, R., Van Engelen, A., 2014. The Kenyan Meat Sector: Opportunities for Dutch
Agribusiness. LEI Report 2014–032. LEI Wageningen UR (University and Research
Centre), Den Haag.
Broom, D.M., Galindo, F.M., Murgueitio, E., 2013. Sustainable, efficient livestock pro-
duction with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proc. Biol. Sci. 280,
20132025.
Carabine, E., Simonet, C., 2017. Value Chain Analysis for Resilience in Drylands:
Identification of Adaptation Options in Key Sectors. Overseas Development Institute,
London. https://www.odi.org/publications/10755-value-chain-analysis-resilience-
drylands-identification-adaptation-options-key-sectors, Accessed date: 10 October
2019.
Carabine, E., Jouanjean, M., Tsui, J., 2015. Kenya ending drought emergencies policy
review: scenarios for building resilience in the ASALs. In: Report Prepared by the
Technical Consortium, a Project of the Consultative Group for International
Agricultural Research. Technical Report Series No. 2: Strengthening the Evidence
Base for Resilience in the Horn of Africa. International Livestock Research Institute,
Nairobi.
Chará, J., Reyes, E., Peri, P., Otte, J., Arce, E., Schneider, F., 2018. Silvopastoral Systems
and Their Contribution to Improved Resource Use and Sustainable Development
Goals: Evidence from Latin America. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Centre for Research on Sustainable Agriculture & Agri Benchmark, Cali.
Downie, K., 2011. A Review of Good Practice and Lessons Learned in Programming for
ASAL Populations in the Horn of Africa. UNICEF ESARO, Nairobi.
Familiar Calderon, J., 2018. Colombia – Mainstreaming Sustainable Cattle Ranching
Project: Restructuring (English). World Bank Group, Washington, D.C. http://
documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/965391516379363201/Colombia-
Mainstreaming-Sustainable-Cattle-Ranching-Project-restructuring, Accessed date: 9
October 2019.
Farmer, E., Mbwika, J., 2012. End Market Analysis of Kenyan Livestock and Meat: A Desk
Study. ACDI/VOCA, Washington, D.C.
Francis, M., Simmons, D., Bourlakis, M., 2008. Value chain analysis in the UK beef
foodservice sector. Supply Chain Manag. 13 (1), 83–91.
GoK/Government of Kenya, 2013. Kenya's National Climate Change Action Plan. Kenya
Government, Nairobi.
GoK/Government of Kenya, 2015. Ending Drought Emergencies – Common Programme
Framework. National Drought Management Authority, Ministry of Devolution and
Planning, Nairobi. http://www.ndma.go.ke/index.php/resource-center/category/
43-ending-drought-emergencies, Accessed date: 25 October 2019.
GoK/Government of Kenya, 2018. National Climate Change Action Plan (Kenya)
2018–2022. Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Nairobi.
Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., 2013. Livestock and global change: emerging issues for
sustainable food systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110 (52), 1–4.
Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Gerber, P., Reid, R.S., 2009. Livestock, livelihoods and the
environment: understanding the trade-offs. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1 (2),
111–120. https://doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.10.003.
IPCC/Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge/New York.
Kaplinsky, R., Morris, M., 2001. A handbook for value chain research. In: Working Paper
Prepared for the IDRC [Canada's International Development Research Centre].
Institute for Development Studies, Brighton.
Katz, J., Boland, M., 2000. A new value‐added strategy for the US beef industry: the case
of US Premium Beef Ltd. Supply Chain Manag. 5 (2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.
1108/13598540010320018.
Laikipia County, 2013. First County Development Integrated Development Plan
2013–2017. County Government of Laikipia, Nanyuki.
Malope, P., Tsopito, C.M., Aganga, A.A., Madibela, O.R., 2007. Profitability of dry season
beef feed-lotting in grain deficit countries: the case of Botswana. Livest. Res. Rural
S.W. Ndiritu
Dev. 19 (6) Article#81. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/6/malo19081.htm, Accessed
date: 31 October 2019.
Martin, R., Müller, B., Linstädter, A., Frank, K., 2014. How much climate change can
pastoral livelihoods tolerate? Modelling rangeland use and evaluating risk. Global
Environ. Change 24, 183–192.
Mlote, S.N., Mdoe, N.S.Y., Isinika, A., Mtenga, L.A., 2012. Value addition of beef cattle
fattening in the Lake Zone in Tanzania: challenges and opportunities. Livest. Res.
Rural Dev. 24 (6) Article #95. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/6/mlot24095.htm,
Accessed date: 31 October 2019.
Mlote, S.N., Mdoe, N.S.Y., Isinika, A., Mtenga, L.A., 2013. Profitability analysis of small
scale [sic] beef cattle fattening in the Lake Zone in Tanzania. J. Agric. Econ. Dev. 2
(5), 203–216.
Moiko, S.S., 2015. Landscape Management and Governance, Il'Ngwesi Group Ranch –
Laikipia, Kenya. ILRI Project Report. International Livestock Research Institute,
Nairobi.
Mtimet, N., Mamba, T.X., Hendrickx, S., 2015. Innovative Beef Value Chain Development
Schemes in Southern Africa – Cattle Producers, Fatteners and Traders' Production and
Marketing Behaviour and Access to Credit: A Case Study from Swaziland.
International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi.
Murgueitio, E., Calle, Z., Uribe, F., Calle, A., Solorio, B., 2011. Native trees and shrubs for
the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. For. Ecol. Manag. 261
(10), 1654–1663.
Nair, P.K.R., Kumar, B.M., Nair, V.D., 2009. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon se-
questration. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 172 (1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.
200800030.
Nkedianye, D., De Leeuw, J., Ogutu, J.O., Said, M.Y., Saidimu, T.L., Kifugo, S.C., Kaelo,
D.S., Reid, R.S., 2011. Mobility and livestock mortality in communally used pastoral
areas: the impact of the 2005–2006 drought on livestock mortality in Maasailand.
Pastoralism: Res. Pol. Pract. 1, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-1-17.
Oba, G., 2001. The effect of multiple droughts on cattle in Obbu, Northern Kenya. J. Arid
Environ. 49 (2), 375–386.
Prasetyo, E., Sunarso, S., Santosa, P.B., Rianto, E., 2012. The influence of agribusiness
subsystem on beef cattle fattening farm's profit in Central Java. J. Indones. Trop.
Anim. Agric. 37 (2), 121–126. https://doi.org/10.14710/jitaa.37.2.121-126.
Rich, K.M., Ross, R.B., Baker, A.D., Negassa, A., 2011. Quantifying value chain analysis in
the context of livestock systems in developing countries. Food Pol. 36 (2), 214–222.
Robinson, T.P., Thornton, P.K., Franceschini, G., Kruska, R.L., Chiozza, F., Notenbaert, A.,
10
Journal of Arid Environments 181 (2020) 104216
Cecchi, G., Herrero, M., Epprecht, M., Fritz, S., You, L., Conchedda, G., See, L., 2011.
Global Livestock Production Systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome, and International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi.
Routroy, S., Behera, A., 2017. Agriculture supply chain: a systematic review of literature
and implications for future research. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 7 (3), 275–302.
Sarma, P.K., Raha, S.K., Jørgensen, H., 2014. An economic analysis of beef cattle fattening
in selected areas of Pabna and Sirajgonj Districts. J. Bangladesh Agric. Univ. 12 (1),
127–134. https://doi.org/10.3329/jbau.v12i1.21402.
Savory, A., 1983. The Savory Grazing Method or holistic resource management.
Rangelands 5 (4), 155–159.
Savory, A., 1991. Holistic resource management: a conceptual framework for ecologically
sound economic modelling. Ecol. Econ. 3, 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-
8009(91)90031-9.
Savory, A., with, Butterfield, J., 1999. Holistic Management: A New Framework for
Decision Making, second ed. Island Publishing, Washington, D.C.
Shukla, M., Jharkharia, S., 2013. Agri‐fresh produce supply chain management: a sta-
te‐of‐the‐art literature review. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 33 (2), 114–158. https://
doi.org/10.1108/01443571311295608.
Sirajuddin, S.N., Asnawi, A., Rasyid, I., Mangalisu, A., Masnur, [no initial], 2016.
Competitiveness of beef cattle fattening in kulo subdistrict, sidrap district South su-
lawesi. Adv. Environ. Biol. 10 (1), 171–175.
Strauch, A.M., Kapust, A.R., Jost, C.C., 2009. Impact of livestock management on water
quality and streambank structure in a semi-arid, African ecosystem. J. Arid Environ.
73 (9), 795–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.03.012.
Tully, T.G., 2014. Analysis of the Kenyan Livestock Market and Feasibility Study of a
Livestock Business. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Nicholas School of the
Environment, Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Umar, A.S.S., Alamu, J.F., Adeniji, O.B., 2008. Economic analysis of small scale [sic] cow
fattening enterprise in Bama Local Government Area of Borno State, Nigeria. Prod.
Agric. Technol. 4 (1), 1–10.
Wanyoike, E.N., Owuor, G., Lagat, J., Wanjiru, E., 2015. Determinants of pastoral com-
munities' participation in community based [sic] eco-tourism enterprises as a liveli-
hood diversification strategy. J. Econ. Sustain. Dev. 6 (6), 235–239.
Weru, J., 2016. Commercial hay growing gives Laikipia farmers a lifeline. Standard
Digital 1 May 2016. https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000200262/
commercial-hay-growing-gives-laikipia-farmers-a-lifeline, Accessed date: 1
November 2019.