53 % in Kenya, down from 4.7 % in 2009/2010 and 7.7 % in Tanzania, up from 6.4 % in 2008/2009 (Ngombalu 2011: pp. 6–8), despite the fact that the majority of the latter’s citizens are involved in farming

(International Fund for Agricultural Development 2011). More importantly, both countries’ national adaptation BIRB 796 price responses [Tanzania National Adaptation Plan of Action (United Republic of Tanzania 2007) 52 pp.; Kenya National Climate Change Response Strategy (Government of Kenya 2010) 120 pp.] acknowledge that recent climate extremes as well as anticipated changes in climate dynamics in the future, will hit the agricultural sector the hardest. Furthermore, they emphasize the importance of guaranteeing food security to enable economic development. Yet, none of the proposed strategies to increase adaptive capacities within the agricultural sector involves or even mentions the role of gender inequality, the fragmentation of land or the limited labor compared with the labor

that agricultural CUDC-907 supplier intensification would require. The budget proposal in Kenya’s strategy further reveals that only 4.5 % of the total 236 billion Kenyan shillings has been allocated for agriculture; 1.1 % for gender, children and social development; and 0.5 % for public health. One could therefore argue that the proposed adaptation policies to cope with and reduce the vulnerability to climate variability and change are contradictory, since only a fraction of the proposed budget and no specific programmes reflect priorities to increase the livelihood security of those affected most disproportionately, such as female headed families with high disease burdens and many Nitroxoline children (Table 4). As Devereux and Edwards (2004: p. 28) so poignantly puts

it; “the extent to which climate change is taken seriously and is Cilengitide concentration effectively addressed depends primarily on political will”. In regard to the national responses to the predicaments of smallholders in the LVB such political will seems to be lacking. Table 4 Differences between female and male headed households in Onjiko   Femalec headed HH (n = 22) Male headed HH (n = 28) (a) (b) (a) (b) Median size of household 4 6 Food sufficiency (months/year)         (a) 10–12 months (b) 1–3 months 9 2 10 4 Animal protein consumed (days/week)         (a) 1–3 days (b) every day 14 0 21 2 Land size (acres/HH)         (a) <1 acre (b) 1–3 acres 12 8 8 17 Reliance on remittances         (a) very important (b) no importance 11 8 3 18 Mobile phone ownership 6 15 cOut of the 22 female headed HH, 15 are widows in the sample of a total of 50 households.