TITLE: A POSITION PAPER ON SUSTAINABLE RANGELAND MANAGEMENT IN ARID AND SEMI ARID COUNTIES IN KENYA
Author: John Oyan Naivest
Date: “February 02, 2026” output: html_document
1. INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Kenya’s Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) constitute approximately two-thirds of the country’s total land surface area and form the backbone of pastoral and agro-pastoral livelihoods (See figure 1). These regions are characterized by low and highly variable rainfall, fragile ecosystems, and extensive rangeland systems that are best suited for livestock production rather than crop agriculture. ASAL counties therefore play a central role in national food security, climate resilience, biodiversity conservation, and socio-economic stability.
Data from the 2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census indicate that ASAL counties host the highest concentration of livestock-rearing households in the country, relying predominantly on indigenous cattle, sheep, goats, and camels (See Figure 2). This level of dependence underscores the strategic importance of sustainable rangeland management as a national development and governance priority rather than a marginal sectoral issue.
Figure 1: Distribution of ASAL Counties in Kenya
Figure 1 illustrates the spatial distribution of Arid and Semi-Arid Land (ASAL) counties in Kenya, which together occupy more than 80% of the country’s land surface area and form the dominant rangeland ecosystem.
Figure 2: Total Livestock Population by ASAL County (Indigenous Cattle, Sheep, Goats, Camels) (KNBS 2019)
Figure 2 illustrates the share of Kenya’s total livestock population accounted for by individual ASAL counties. The results demonstrate a high concentration of livestock within ASAL regions, confirming the central role of indigenous cattle, sheep, goats, and camels in pastoral livelihoods.
Figure 3: Share of National Livestock Population by ASAL County (Indigenous cattle, sheep, goats and camels) – KNBS 2019
2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Despite their central role in Kenya’s livestock economy, rangelands in ASAL counties are under increasing pressure due to the high concentration of livestock populations dependent on natural grazing systems. Analysis of the 2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census shows that pastoral production in ASAL counties is dominated by indigenous cattle, sheep, goats, and camels, species that rely almost entirely on rangeland forage and water. The 17 ASAL counties collectively account for a substantial share of Kenya’s total livestock population, thereby concentrating grazing pressure within ecologically fragile dryland environments. (see figure 3)
This concentration of livestock, combined with limited and unevenly distributed agricultural land, implies rising stocking pressure per hectare, increasing the risk of overgrazing, vegetation loss, and declining rangeland productivity. These pressures are intensified by recurrent droughts, land fragmentation, and the erosion of traditional livestock mobility systems that historically enabled pastoral adaptation to climate variability. If not adequately addressed, continued rangeland degradation will undermine livestock productivity, heighten food insecurity, and increase the likelihood of resource-based conflicts, ultimately weakening Kenya’s capacity to adapt to climate change. (see figure 4)
Figure 4: Stocking Pressure Risk Ranking in ASAL Counties (Livestock per Hectare of Agricultural Land) – KNBS 2019
Counties in the “High” band exhibit the greatest livestock pressure per hectare, indicating higher rangeland degradation risk and priority areas for grazing management, restoration and drought preparedness investments.
3. JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM
The prioritization of sustainable rangeland management is justified by clear empirical evidence and alignment with national policy obligations. Analysis of the 2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census shows that ASAL counties concentrate a substantial share of Kenya’s livestock within ecologically fragile dryland systems, with Annex Table 1 demonstrating that high livestock populations are supported on relatively limited areas of agricultural land, resulting in elevated stocking pressure per hectare (see Figure 4). This concentration means that even modest declines in rangeland productivity would have disproportionate impacts on pastoral livelihoods, county economies, and national food security. Beyond livelihoods, ASAL rangelands underpin significant contributions to the national meat supply, employment, and trade, while providing critical ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, soil conservation, and water regulation. These risks and opportunities are explicitly recognized under the National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands (ASAL Policy) and the Climate Change Act (2016), both of which mandate sustainable natural resource management and climate resilience. Failure to address rangeland degradation would therefore impose escalating economic, environmental, and social costs, while effective rangeland management represents a high-impact, policy-aligned investment in Kenya’s climate adaptation and long-term development.
Annex Table 1 ranks ASAL counties by livestock stocking pressure per hectare and classifies rangeland degradation risk into low, medium, and high categories.
Rank | County | Total_Livestock | Agricultural_Land_Ha | Stocking_Pressure | Risk_Band |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Garissa | 8,827,096 | 151,460 | 58.280048 | High |
2 | Isiolo | 2,282,161 | 117,310 | 19.454105 | High |
3 | Mandera | 10,110,344 | 542,731 | 18.628647 | High |
4 | Tana River | 1,356,593 | 81,049 | 16.737936 | High |
5 | Wajir | 7,421,699 | 513,445 | 14.454711 | High |
6 | Laikipia | 1,253,419 | 90,702 | 13.819089 | High |
7 | Marsabit | 1,808,412 | 185,529 | 9.747328 | Medium |
8 | Baringo | 1,662,015 | 182,613 | 9.101296 | Medium |
9 | Turkana | 3,626,532 | 435,576 | 8.325831 | Medium |
10 | Samburu | 1,596,915 | 205,508 | 7.770573 | Medium |
11 | Lamu | 224,437 | 42,592 | 5.269464 | Medium |
12 | West Pokot | 1,491,200 | 303,114 | 4.919601 | Low |
13 | Narok | 3,308,158 | 718,141 | 4.606558 | Low |
14 | Kilifi | 807,752 | 227,776 | 3.546256 | Low |
15 | Kajiado | 2,486,444 | 824,874 | 3.014332 | Low |
16 | Taita Taveta | 342,195 | 125,192 | 2.733362 | Low |
17 | Kwale | 767,697 | 304,761 | 2.519013 | Low |
4.SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS / STATEMENT OF THE POSITION
Analysis of county-level livestock data from the 2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census indicates that ASAL pastoral systems are strongly adapted to arid and semi-arid ecological conditions, with indigenous cattle, sheep, goats, and camels forming the dominant production base. Species composition reflects climatic gradients, with camels playing a critical adaptive role in the most arid counties, while exotic livestock breeds remain marginal, confirming the continued relevance of extensive rangeland-based systems. However, Figure 2 and Figure 4 show that ASAL counties collectively hold a large share of Kenya’s livestock, and Annex Table 1 further demonstrates that a significant proportion of these counties fall within the high stocking-pressure risk band, supporting large livestock populations on relatively limited areas of agricultural land. This combination of high livestock concentration and elevated pressure per hectare increases vulnerability to rangeland degradation and climate shocks, particularly where herd diversification is limited. The position of this paper is that sustainable rangeland management must be treated as a core pillar of national development, climate adaptation, and devolution, requiring coherent policy implementation, predictable financing, and strengthened county-level institutions to manage grazing pressure, protect livestock mobility, and restore degraded rangelands. These findings underscore the need to address the governance, climatic, and institutional challenges limiting effective rangeland management, and to implement targeted mitigation measures capable of reducing degradation risks and strengthening resilience.
Figure 5: Herd Diversification and Resilience Bands in ASAL Counties (Simpson Index; KNBS 2019)
Counties in the high-resilience band exhibit more diversified herds, which spreads drought risk across species and strengthens household coping capacity under climate variability.
Rank | County | Diversification index (Simpson) |
|---|---|---|
1 | Wajir | 0.69 |
2 | Marsabit | 0.68 |
3 | Garissa | 0.68 |
4 | Mandera | 0.67 |
5 | Tana River | 0.66 |
6 | Narok | 0.66 |
7 | Samburu | 0.64 |
8 | Isiolo | 0.64 |
9 | Kajiado | 0.63 |
10 | Lamu | 0.63 |
11 | West Pokot | 0.62 |
12 | Laikipia | 0.62 |
13 | Turkana | 0.60 |
14 | Baringo | 0.60 |
15 | Kwale | 0.59 |
16 | Taita Taveta | 0.56 |
17 | Kilifi | 0.48 |
5. CHALLENGES AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Key Challenges
Analysis of livestock concentration and stocking pressure (Figure 4 and Annex Table 1) shows that recurrent droughts and climate variability pose the most immediate threat to ASAL rangelands, as high livestock pressure per hectare accelerates forage depletion during dry periods. Counties in the high-risk band are particularly vulnerable to productivity losses when rainfall variability coincides with limited grazing alternatives.
Weak enforcement of rangeland governance frameworks further compounds these pressures. The loss of livestock mobility corridors and dry-season grazing reserves, historically critical for managing spatial and temporal variability in forage—has reduced pastoral adaptive capacity and intensified localized overgrazing. In addition, limited investment in rangeland restoration, data-driven monitoring, and early warning systems constrains counties’ ability to respond proactively to degradation risks.
The concentration of livestock within shrinking grazing areas also heightens resource-based conflicts and competition with other land uses, including agriculture, settlement, and infrastructure development. As shown by diversification patterns (Figure 5 and Annex Table 2), counties with less diversified herds face greater exposure to climate shocks, further amplifying socio-economic vulnerability.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation efforts should prioritize strengthened implementation of the ASAL Policy and the Rangeland and Pastoralism Management Strategy, with a specific focus on managing stocking pressure in high-risk counties identified in Annex Table 1. This includes protecting and legally recognizing grazing reserves and livestock mobility corridors to restore pastoral movement as a climate adaptation mechanism.
Counties should also promote multi-species herd diversification and conservation of indigenous breeds, as evidenced by higher resilience levels in counties with more diversified herds (Figure 5 and Annex Table 2). Enhancing county technical capacity in rangeland planning, spatial monitoring, and data use is essential for translating livestock and land-use data into targeted interventions. Finally, integrating traditional pastoral knowledge into formal governance systems can strengthen compliance, reduce conflict, and improve the sustainability of rangeland management outcomes.
6. IMPLICATIONS
The analysis underscores that sustainable rangeland management in ASAL counties is not only an environmental priority but a legal, economic, and governance imperative. Evidence on livestock concentration and stocking pressure (Figure 4; Annex Table 1), together with diversification-based resilience patterns (Figure 5; Annex Table 2), provides a strong empirical basis for advancing the objectives of the Constitution of Kenya (2010), the ASAL Policy, and the Climate Change Act (2016). These findings reinforce the statutory obligation to integrate climate resilience, ecosystem protection, and sustainable land use into national and county development planning.
From an environmental perspective, reducing excessive stocking pressure in high-risk counties would slow rangeland degradation, improve vegetation cover, and strengthen ecosystem services such as biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration. Economically, improved rangeland condition and herd diversification would enhance livestock productivity and income stability in ASAL counties, which collectively hold a significant share of the national herd. This approach would also reduce reliance on recurrent drought-related emergency expenditures, enabling a shift toward more cost-effective, preventive investments in resilience.
Socially and culturally, sustainable rangeland management protects pastoral livelihoods by maintaining access to grazing resources and preserving mobility systems that underpin traditional coping strategies. Strengthening grazing governance and reducing land-use conflicts would enhance social cohesion and reduce vulnerability among pastoral communities. Politically, the adoption of evidence-based rangeland management strategies strengthens devolution by enabling counties to prioritize interventions transparently based on risk and resilience profiles, while reducing the potential for resource-based conflicts that undermine stability and service delivery.
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
This position paper demonstrates that ASAL rangelands are central to Kenya’s livestock economy and climate resilience, yet are increasingly constrained by high livestock concentration, elevated stocking pressure, and uneven herd diversification. Evidence from livestock composition, stocking pressure analysis (Figure 4; Annex Table 1), and diversification-based resilience patterns (Figure 5; Annex Table 2) confirms that rangeland degradation is not uniformly distributed, but is concentrated in specific high-risk counties. These pressures threaten pastoral livelihoods, food security, ecosystem services, and the effectiveness of devolution if left unaddressed. Sustainable rangeland management therefore emerges as a national priority that aligns legal obligations, climate adaptation goals, and inclusive economic development.
Recommendations
Target high-risk counties for intervention: Prioritize counties in the high stocking-pressure band for immediate rangeland restoration, grazing management, and drought preparedness investments, using the risk rankings in Annex Table 1 to guide resource allocation.
Strengthen rangeland governance and mobility: Legally protect and operationalize grazing reserves and livestock mobility corridors to restore adaptive pastoral movement and reduce localized overgrazing.
Promote herd diversification and indigenous breeds: Support multi-species herd structures and conservation of indigenous livestock breeds as a cost-effective climate adaptation strategy, particularly in counties with low diversification and resilience (Figure 6; Annex Table 2).
Enhance county technical capacity: Invest in county-level rangeland planning, monitoring, and data systems to enable evidence-based decision-making and continuous assessment of stocking pressure and rangeland condition.
Integrate traditional knowledge into formal systems: Institutionalize pastoral knowledge and community-led governance mechanisms to improve compliance, conflict resolution, and sustainability of rangeland management interventions.
Closing statement
Implementing these recommendations will reduce rangeland degradation risks, strengthen pastoral resilience to climate variability, and deliver long-term economic, environmental, and social benefits, positioning sustainable rangeland management as a cornerstone of Kenya’s climate-resilient development pathway.
REFERENCES
Government of Kenya (2010). The Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Nairobi: Government Printer.
Government of Kenya (2012). National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Northern Kenya and Other Arid Lands (ASAL Policy). Nairobi: Government of Kenya.
Government of Kenya (2016). Climate Change Act, No. 11 of 2016. Nairobi: Government Printer.
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2019). 2019 Kenya Population and Housing Census: Volume IV – Distribution of Livestock by County. Nairobi: KNBS.