The task was developed based on a framework of adaptation typology by Pelling which provides a sound analytical framework to analyse and understand key characteristics of adaptation options. The study has shown that smallholders in the Borana farming systems adopted a wide range of adaptation measures and tried to remain flexible to overcome what they perceived as changing climatic conditions. Supplementary feeding, off-farm employment and herd mobility to remote areas are the three most commonly used adaptive strategies smallholders and their communities pursued as responses to climate change . Declining seasonal rainfall with often below average extreme lows, its uneven seasonal distribution and increased temperature are key features of perceived climate change they responded to.
Particularly, increasingly frequent as well as intense drought conditions continue resulting in scarcity of pasture and water resources challenging the sustainability of traditional pastoralism. Broadly,4x8ft rolling benches speaking, amid constraining barriers, small-holders responded to climate change mainly through adjustment of farming practices and shifting into non-pastoral livelihoods. While adaptation options stated as most commonly used measures were closely similar across pastoral and agropastoral systems, there are few differences. More households are engaged in cultivation of food crops and off-farm employment in predominantly agropastoral systems as compared to pastoral ones . Whereas herd mobility to remote areas and supplementary feeding of animals are identified as the most commonly used option by more households in pastoral systems than agropastoral counterparts.
The variation can be attributed to the fact that livestock rearing is a primary source of livelihood which makes an important source of in-come in pastoral systems. Subsequently, average livestock holding is relatively larger among pastoral households than their agropastoral counter-parts. Adaptation options taken up were mostly reactive rather than proactive implying that adaptation in the study area was a response to pressures. This, therefore, confirms that the PSR model is a suitable framework for analysing adaptation to climate change in the study area. While most of the measures target to deal with current pressures from climate change, few, flood and drain table such as moving from cattle-only herd to mixed-herd , water development , and cultivation of food crops envisage proactive adaptation to anticipated climate change as they get implemented before the next hazard manifests itself. We also found that locally adopted options featured two important features: 1) inherently resilience or transitional modes of adaptation, and 2) reliance on indigenous knowledge and local resources . Adaptation options adopted in the study area reflect a strong preference for resilience or transitional within existing institutional and cultural arrangements. Most of the adaptation options identified among the Borana envisage the goal of maintaining stability or marginal changes that utilise elasticity in farming systems and local livelihoods . In other words, buffering or coping against shocks, which represents often autonomous resilience approach to adaptation, is a favourable response to moderate negative effects of climate variability which is an essential element of dealing with climate change among resource poor farmers .
For example, the use of supplementary feed and increased herd mobility to remote areas are means by which livestock can be taken through the dry spells when drought-induced feed shortage is critical and would result in massive die-offs if no action is taken.In other words, it keeps the system on its pre-existing trajectory through maintaining the essence and integrity of the system which underpins the elasticity of the system. In view of current level of vulnerability, it appears that a predominantly resilience approach to adaptation involves low degree of intervention and does little to adequately reduce vulnerability to current and anticipated climate change and ensure co-benefit of improving rural livelihoods. Further to that, it possibly undermines long term adaptation suggesting temporal trade-off with short term resilience approaches, and increases the risk of maladaptation as these resilience measures are often autonomous and ad hoc.