Investments to support pastoralists in Northern Kenya to adapt to the changing climate pay immediate dividends – but the benefits are even greater if the indirect impacts can also be taken into account.

Access to grazing is crucial for pastoralists in the drier parts of Kenya, but in Garba Tulla town, grazing animals would usually have eaten much of the vegetation from the drought reserve areas before the dry season had even arrived.
In 2014, local leaders came up with a strategy to tackle this problem, engaging their young people as resource scouts and ensuring that grazing patterns were carefully organised and monitored. Only when all other pastures were exhausted did anyone allow their herds to begin grazing in the drought reserve. As a result, all of the local herds survived the long dry season.

But how much did it cost to make this happen? Who paid for what? Was it worth the investment? And how long will the benefits last?
Read further following the lnks above
Caroline King-Okumu (caroline.king-okumu [at] iied.org (caroline[dot]king-okumu[at]iied[dot]org)) is a senior researcher at IIED on dryland ecosytems.
Climate change predictions (PDF) see the second link suggest that the frequency and severity of such events may increase in the future. This means that adaptation to climate change will have to include better drought preparedness.
To avoid costly drought emergencies, communities need to invest in building their resilience, but this has costs. Justifying the required investments (from individuals as well as local and national authorities) involves assessing the economic benefits. These can be assessed in terms of the value of avoided impacts and damages, plus any co-benefits (often referred to as ancillary benefits) generated by the implementation of adaptation measures.