https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1777-9173
Figures
Abstract
Smallholder livestock farmers in Ethiopia face increasing climate-related risks, including drought, frost, and flooding, which threaten livelihoods and food security. While adaptation is often examined at the household level, less attention has been given to how institutions collectively shape farmers’ adaptive capacity and the coordination mechanisms that influence adaptation outcomes. This study examines the roles of public, private, and civil society institutions in supporting climate risk adaptation among smallholder livestock farmers in North Wollo Zone, Ethiopia, using an institutional and systems-oriented perspective. A qualitative case study approach was employed, drawing on Focus Group Discussions with 32 farmers and Key Informant Interviews with 33 institutional experts. Data were analyzed thematically using a hybrid coding strategy. The findings show that public institutions form the backbone of adaptation through technology generation and dissemination, extension services, coordination, and climate risk management. Private institutions contribute through financial services, input supply, and resilience-building programs, while civil society institutions strengthen grassroots adaptation through collective action and peer learning. Institutional interventions in breed improvement, livestock husbandry management, and natural resource management enhance livestock productivity and reduce climate-related losses. However, adaptation efforts are constrained by fragmented institutional coordination, weak research-extension-farmer linkages, limited financial and technical resources, and inadequate feedback mechanisms. The study also identifies important opportunities for strengthening institutional support through formal multi-stakeholder coordination platforms, improved information sharing, joint planning, stronger farmer feedback systems, and integration of climate information, livestock health, and financial services. These findings demonstrate that effective climate risk adaptation depends not only on the contributions of individual institutions but also on the quality of coordination and collaboration among them. Strengthening integrated and climate-responsive institutional governance is therefore essential for enhancing the adaptive capacity and resilience of smallholder livestock systems.
Citation: Assefa H, Kibwika P, Kyazze FB (2026) Institutions and climate risk adaptation among smallholder livestock farmers in North Wollo Zone, Ethiopia. PLOS Clim 5(8): e0000751. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000751
Editor: Sejian Veerasamy, National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, INDIA
Received: October 13, 2025; Accepted: July 10, 2026; Published: August 12, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Assefa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The dataset has been deposited in the Zenodo repository and is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21631844.
Funding: This research was supported by the Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM) through funding from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). Institutional support was provided by the Andasa Livestock Research Center, Amhara Agricultural Research Institute, and Makerere University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Africa is among the most vulnerable continents to climate change [1]. Climate change has been described as one of the greatest human and environmental crises on the continent [2]. It disproportionately affects rural populations by increasing environmental risks, reducing livelihood opportunities, and placing stress on existing social systems [3]. In sub-Saharan Africa, climate change manifests through recurrent droughts, floods, disease outbreaks, food shortages, migration, and damage to infrastructure [4]. These impacts are particularly severe for livestock farmers in Eastern Africa, who are constrained by widespread poverty, dependence on rain-fed agriculture, and limited adaptive capacity [5, 6]. Ethiopia is one of the countries most exposed and least prepared to respond to climate change. The livestock sector, which supports more than 70% of the population [7], faces persistent threats from recurrent drought, animal disease, frost, and flooding [8, 9]. These risks undermine both food security and rural incomes.
Adaptation to climate change requires not only individual and household strategies but also the support of institutions [10]. Institutions are generally understood as socially constructed patterns of roles, norms, and behaviors that provide order and stability in society [11]. They shape political, social, cultural, and economic interactions [12, 13]. Institutions can be classified as concrete institution, like organizational structures, government agencies, cooperatives, and NGOs, and abstract institutions, like norms, traditions, and rules [14]. This study focuses on concrete institutions in Eastern Amhara Region and their contributions to reducing livestock farmers’ vulnerability to climatic risks.
The effectiveness of adaptation depends on the existence and function of exiting institutions. They could influence choices, distribute resources, and guide collective action in a particular community [6, 15]. Ethiopia has adopted several agricultural development frameworks since the 1990s, including the Agricultural Development-Led Industrialization (ADLI) strategy, the Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP), and the Growth and Transformation Plans (GTP I and II) [16, 17]. These policy frameworks enabled institutions to expand agricultural research and development, generate new technologies, and provide farmers with different forms of support for climate risk adaptation.
Despite these efforts, livestock farmers in Eastern Amhara Region, particularly North Wollo zones, remain highly vulnerable to climate-related risks [18]. Agricultural productivity in the area is low, livestock production struggles to meet growing household needs, and many households depend on the Productive Safety Net Program to secure their food [19]. Previous studies in Ethiopia have largely focused on climate change impacts [20, 21], adaptation strategies [8,22,23], and climate perceptions [24, 25]. Some research has concentrated on specific areas, such as southern Ethiopia [26], or on particular sectors, such as the importance of local institution in natural resource management and food security [27, 28]. Few studies have examined institutions directly, and provided only narrow perspectives. For example, focusing on self-help groups or social development organizations [29, 30]. This lack of comprehensive evidence leaves important questions unanswered about how existing institutions in Eastern Amhara Region, particularly North Wollo zone, contribute to the adaptive capacity of smallholder livestock farmers. Addressing this gap is critical for designing effective adaptation strategies that strengthen rural livelihoods under increasing climate risks. Thus, this study aimed to examine the role of institutions in supporting climate risk adaptation among smallholder livestock farmers in North Wollo Zone, Ethiopia. Specifically, it sought to (i.) identify and compare the roles of public, private, and civil society institutions in addressing climate-related risks; (ii) Examine key institutional interventions and adaptation strategies supporting livestock production and resilience; and (iii) identify coordination gaps and opportunities for strengthening institutional support to adaptive capacity.
Conceptual framework
Institutions play a critical role in shaping how smallholder livestock farmers adapt to climatic risks by influencing access to resources, regulating risk, and structuring social, political, and economic interactions [31]. In this study, institutions are embedded within a systems-oriented conceptual framework that conceptualizes climate risk adaptation as a dynamic and co-produced process arising from continuous interactions among climate risks, institutional responses, and farmers’ adaptive practices. Moving beyond linear and unidirectional models, the framework emphasizes bidirectional relationships and feedback loops through which institutions respond to farmer demands and climate signals, while farmers actively engage with, negotiate, and reshape institutional interventions [32]. In the Eastern Amhara Region, particularly in North Wollo Zone, smallholder livestock farmers depend on diverse institutional arrangements to cope with recurrent droughts, flooding, frost, and associated livelihood shocks.
Institutions are understood as predictable arrangements or processes that structure political, social, cultural, and economic relationships within society [12,13]. They may be formal or informal and may operate either as concrete organizational entities or as abstract rules, norms, and traditions that guide behavior [6,11,14]. This study focuses on concrete institutions, as they provide direct, organized, and observable support to smallholder livestock farmers’ adaptation efforts. Within the systems framework, institutions are conceptualized not as isolated service providers but as interconnected and interactive domains that engage with farmers and climate risks through learning, coordination, accountability, and feedback processes over time.
Concrete institutions are categorized into three interrelated domains: public, private, and civil society institutions [13,31]. Public institutions provide policy direction, regulation, research, extension services, early warning systems, and large-scale risk management; private institutions, including NGOs, microfinance organizations, and agro-dealers, supply credit, insurance, inputs, veterinary services, training, and market access; while civil society institutions, such as cooperatives and farmer development groups, facilitate collective action, peer learning, and trust-building. Through interventions such as forage development, feed preservation, animal health services, livestock breeding, and natural resource management, these institutions directly influence the adaptive capacity of smallholder livestock farmers. The framework incorporates critical feedback loops whereby climate shocks shape farmer practices and institutional responses, farmer experiences and outcomes inform institutional service provision and accountability, and institutional successes or failures influence trust, participation, and future engagement. Through these feedback mechanisms, climate risk adaptation is understood as an iterative learning system that determines how effectively households in North Wollo Zone can withstand, adapt to, and recover from climate-related challenges. With these concepts, the study was framed with the following conceptual framework (Fig 1).
Research methodology
Ethics statement
This study was conducted as part of a PhD research project and followed established ethical standards. According to the host institution’s regulations at the time, formal Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was not required for survey-based research involving non-clinical adult participants. The research adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, their right to withdraw at any time, and confidentiality measures. Verbal informed consent was obtained prior to Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), and was documented by the researcher, with a local facilitator serving as a witness during interviews. No personal or identifiable information was collected, and all data were recorded anonymously and handled confidentially.
Study area and climate risks
The study was conducted in Eastern Amhara Region, particularly North Wollo Zone. This zone is a predominantly rural, agro-ecologically diverse area with elevations ranging from lowland valleys to highland peaks above 4,200 m.a.s.l. [33]. Its steep topography and rugged landscape constrain land use and contribute to soil erosion and land degradation, with a large proportion of land being classified as degraded and only a minority as arable or pastureland. The zone’s climate is characterized by a bimodal rainfall pattern (Belg and Kiremt seasons) and prolonged dry periods, resulting in high variability in precipitation and frequent droughts that directly disrupt both crop and livestock production. This climatic variability, coupled with temperature shifts and water scarcity, has intensified moisture stress, reduced vegetation cover, and increased livestock disease and nutritional challenges, reinforcing North Wollo’s status as one of the most climate-vulnerable and food-insecure zones in the region [34].
Livelihoods in North Wollo are dominated by smallholder mixed crop-livestock systems. In the zone, livestock serve as critical asset for food security, draft power, and income [35]. Households commonly rear cattle, sheep, goats, equines, and poultry, but productivity and resilience are often constrained by recurrent drought, feed and water shortages, and limited access to veterinary and extension services. Smallholder livestock farmers in the zone employ multiple adaptation strategies, such as feed conservation, diversified husbandry practices, improved animal healthcare, water harvesting, and shelter improvements, to manage climatic risks [18]. A range of public, private, and civil-society institutions also play roles in supporting smallholder livestock farmers to adapt to recurrent climate risks. However, many areas suffer from weak institutional linkages, highlighting the need for stronger collaboration, improved access to climate information, and enhanced extension services tailored to local agro-ecologies. These measures are essential for improving adaptive capacity and livestock resilience.
Research design and sampling
This study adopted a multiple-case study research design to examine how institutions contribute in building the adaptive capacity of smallholder livestock farmers to climatic risks. A case study approach is particularly appropriate for investigating complex real-life phenomena within their contextual settings and for generating in-depth insights into actors, processes, and institutional interactions [36]. Consistent with the objectives of this study, the design is well suited to addressing “how” and “why” questions related to contemporary institutional responses to climate risks that cannot be controlled or manipulated by the researcher [37]. The multiple-case approach enabled comparative analysis across different institutional domains and enhanced the robustness and analytical generalizability of the findings.
Cases were purposively selected to capture the diversity of public, private, and civil society institutions involved in livestock production, livelihood improvement, and climate risk adaptation in North Wollo Zone. As summarized in Table 1, the selected public institutions included the Fishery and Livestock Resource Development Agency (LFRDA), Disaster Prevention and Food Security Program Coordination Office (DPFSCO), Administrative Office (ADO), Sirinka Agricultural Research Center (SARC), and Woldia University (WU). Private institutions comprised the Organization for Rehabilitation in Amhara (ORDA), Save the Children (SVC), Mekaneyesus Project, Amhara Credit and Saving Institute (ACSI), and agro-dealers (AD). Civil society institutions included Multipurpose Agricultural Cooperative Unions (MACU) and Farmer Development Groups (FDG). These cases were selected based on their active engagement in livestock-related interventions, climate risk management, and service provision to smallholder farmers. The study examined institutional interventions implemented between 2014 and 2018, a period characterized by recurrent droughts, food insecurity, and heightened climate stress in the study area.
Study participants were drawn from both farming communities and the selected institutions to capture multiple perspectives on climate risk adaptation and institutional performance. A total of 32 smallholder livestock farmers participated in Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), while 33 institutional experts were interviewed through Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). Participants included elders, community leaders, development agents, researchers, and sectoral experts with direct experience in livestock production, institutional service delivery, and climate risk response. Importantly, no personal or identifiable information (such as names, contact details, or any direct identifiers) was collected from participants during the FGDs or KIIs. All data were collected anonymously, and responses were recorded in a manner that ensured confidentiality and prevented the identification of individual participants. This approach was followed to uphold ethical research standards and protect respondents’ privacy.
This combination of respondents and data collection methods enabled triangulation of evidence and facilitated a comprehensive understanding of institutional roles, farmer agency, and feedback processes shaping adaptive capacity in North Wollo Zone.
Data collection and analysis
To examine the contribution of the existing institutions to climate risk adaptation, the research employed a qualitative approach. Data collection combined fieldwork and desk studies. An exploratory assessment was first carried out to identify the major institutions and livestock farming practices in North Wollo. Then, incremental reviews of relevant literature were undertaken to refine the research questions, framework, and design, and to complement field data. Primary data were gathered through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant interviews (KIIs) conducted at peasant association (PA), district, and zonal levels. They were designed to collect information on institutional characteristics, including the type of institution, institutional objectives, climate risks addressed, target groups, and intervention areas. They also examined institutional coordination by assessing collaboration, information sharing, joint planning, resource mobilization, and the coordination mechanisms employed to support climate risk adaptation.
A checklist was used to guide the FGDs, while a semi-structured interview checklist, comprising both close-ended and open-ended questions, was administered during the KIIs. Although the interview checklist included both closed-ended and open-ended questions, the KIIs were conducted as qualitative interviews. The closed-ended questions were primarily used to guide the discussion, ensure consistency across interviews and facilitate the collection of comparable information from respondents, rather than to generate quantitative data for statistical analysis. The open-ended questions enabled participants to elaborate on their experiences, perceptions, and institutional practices related to climate risk adaptation. The FGDs facilitated discussions with members of the farming community, whereas the semi-structured questionnaire was employed to interview experts from selected institutions. All interviews and discussions were conducted between November and December 2019. With the consent of participants, discussions were recorded, transcribed, and supplemented with field notes.
All FGD and KII data were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis to identify recurring themes, patterns, and insights relevant to the study objectives. A hybrid coding strategy was applied, combining deductive codes derived from the study objectives, conceptual framework, and relevant literature with inductive codes that emerged from the data during iterative review of interview transcripts and documents. An initial codebook was developed to guide the analysis and was refined iteratively as new themes emerged. Data coding and management were conducted using a systematic spreadsheet-based approach, which facilitated transparent organization, comparison across cases, and theme development. As coding was conducted by a single researcher, formal inter-coder agreement procedures were not applicable. However, analytic rigor was maintained through repeated review of coded data and reflexive engagement with the data throughout the analysis.
To enhance the credibility of the findings, triangulation was undertaken across multiple data sources, including interviews with diverse institutional actors and document review. In addition, preliminary findings were validated through a half-day stakeholder workshop with experts from the Zonal and District Livestock and Fishery Resource Development Agency. Feedback from this workshop was used to confirm interpretations and refine the final results.
Result and discussion
Result
Characteristics of supportive institutions.
The ability of smallholder livestock farmers in North Wollo Zone to adapt is largely influenced by the institutions in their communities. These institutions serve various purposes, address specific climate risks, and focus on different groups of farmers, contributing to resilience in several ways [31]. As shown in Table 2, they are classified as public, private, or civil.
Public institutions made up the majority of supportive players. Their main goal was to boost livestock production and strengthen livelihood strategies by generating, sharing, and promoting better technologies. Institutions like the Srinka Agricultural Research Center (SARC) and Woldia University (WU) developed agricultural technologies, while the Livestock and Fishery Resource Development Agency (LFRDA) promoted these at the community level. Additionally, public institutions played key roles in managing severe risks and coordinating responses. For instance, the Disaster Prevention and Food Security Program Coordination Office (DPFSPCO) focused on drought, frost, and flooding risks by coordinating humanitarian and Safety Net support, specifically for households facing food insecurity. Similarly, the Zonal Administrative Office organized interventions, allocated resources, approved action plans, and resolved conflicts, targeting all smallholder farmers at risk from climate issues. Overall, public institutions addressed major climate shocks like drought, frost, and flooding while helping both smallholder livestock farmers as well as vulnerable groups such as food-insecure households.
Private institutions had more varied purposes, depending on whether they were non-profit or profit-driven. Non-profit organizations, such as the Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara (ORDA), Save the Children (SVC), and the Mekaneyesus (MKY) project, mainly focused on building resilience in households and communities. Their efforts aimed to lessen the impacts of drought and flooding through natural resource conservation, diversifying livelihoods, and improving adaptation practices. They often targeted vulnerable groups like Safety Net beneficiaries, malnourished households, and communities at risk of flooding. In contrast, profit-driven private entities, like the Amhara Credit and Saving Institute (ACSI) and local agro-dealers (AD), provided services including credit, feed supply, and agricultural inputs. These services mainly addressed drought-related risks and aimed at smallholder farmers and Safety Net beneficiaries who needed access to financial support and materials to maintain livestock production. Thus, private institutions covered both drought and flooding risks, with greater attention to vulnerable households and smallholders reliant on inputs.
Civil institutions, though fewer, played a vital role in support. The main civil actors were Multipurpose Agricultural Cooperative Unions (MACUs) and Farmer Development Groups (FDGs). Their key aim was to strengthen adaptive capacity through collective action, peer learning, and sharing resources. MACUs focused on providing agricultural inputs and managing livestock practices, while FDGs promoted the adoption of new farming technologies, crossbreeding, and natural resource conservation. These organizations mainly targeted their members, ensuring that even at the community level; farmers could learn from each other and improve their adaptation strategies. Civil institutions addressed both drought and, to some degree, flooding risks by promoting strategies to reduce feed shortages and conserve natural resources.
When comparing the different categories, it is evident that public institutions are the foundation of adaptation efforts. They combine the creation of better technologies with large-scale risk management and coordination, reaching a wide range of smallholder livestock farmers. Private institutions, although more fragmented, provide essential financial and material resources and help improve resilience among vulnerable groups such as malnourished households, Safety Net beneficiaries, and flood-affected communities. Civil institutions, despite being fewer in number, bring a unique advantage by encouraging collective action and sharing experiences, which builds trust and sustainability at the grassroots level. The interplay between public, private, and civil institutions highlights the need for stronger integration and collaboration. Coordinated efforts would ensure that interventions are not only widespread but also deeply rooted, addressing urgent climate shocks like drought, frost, and flooding while also fostering long-term adaptive capacity among a variety of farmers.
Institutional interventions.
Table 3 shows that institutions in the North Wollo zone made various interventions to support the adaptive capacity of smallholder livestock farmers. With their interventions, they addressed different adaptation strategies, such as breed improvement, livestock husbandry management, and natural resource management.
Breed improvement. Breed improvement was one of the main actions taken by supportive institutions in the study area. The aim was to improve the genetic potential of livestock to boost productivity and resilience in changing climate conditions.
Public institutions like the Livestock and Fishery Resource Development Agency (LFRDA), Srinka Agricultural Research Center (SARC), and Woldia University (WU) played leading roles. They engaged in crossbreeding programs, artificial insemination, and the selection of breeds that fit local conditions. These efforts sought to increase milk and meat production, enhance drought resistance, and lower mortality rates during extended dry periods. Civil institutions, especially Farmer Development Groups (FDGs) and Multipurpose Agricultural Cooperative Unions (MACUs), also helped by providing access to improved breeds for their members. They created platforms for sharing knowledge, organizing group purchases, and demonstrating better livestock management practices. Private players like local agro-dealers had less direct involvement in genetic improvement but supported the process by supplying inputs and services that complemented breeding programs.
Despite these efforts, challenges persisted. Limited infrastructure for artificial insemination, a shortage of skilled workers, and poor coordination between research institutions and extension services reduced the effectiveness of breed improvement initiatives. Additionally, introducing exotic breeds sometimes conflicted with local conditions, raising concerns about their long-term adaptability. In general, breed improvement initiatives in North Wollo showed promise for boosting livestock productivity and resilience. However, making them sustainable requires stronger technical support, better coordination among institutions, and a greater focus on the suitability of breeds in local climate challenges.
Livestock husbandry management. Livestock husbandry management was another major area of institutional intervention in the study area. The focus was on improving feeding, housing, and general care practices to make animals less vulnerable to climate risks such as drought, frost, and disease outbreaks.
Public institutions, especially the Livestock and Fishery Resource Development Agency (LFRDA) and the Agricultural Development Offices (ADOs), provided training on better feeding systems, disease prevention, and forage cultivation. Development agents at the PA level played a vital role in teaching practical techniques like preserving feed through silage and hay-making, as well as improving housing to reduce cold stress during frost periods. Civil institutions, particularly Farmer Development Groups (FDGs) and Multipurpose Agricultural Cooperative Unions (MACUs), contributed by promoting collective learning and the adoption of improved practices. They organized demonstrations on forage production, rotational grazing, and community-based disease prevention. These grassroots groups also encouraged peer-to-peer knowledge sharing, which helps to increase the use of husbandry innovations. Private organizations, including agro-dealers and the Amhara Credit and Saving Institute (ACSI), indirectly supported livestock husbandry by providing access to inputs like veterinary drugs, feed supplements, and small-scale credit for housing improvements.
Despite these efforts, farmers faced significant challenges. A shortage of land for forage production, high input costs, and limited access to veterinary services reduced the effectiveness of husbandry improvements. Additionally, weak market incentives for livestock products discouraged some households from investing in better management practices. Overall, livestock husbandry initiatives contributed to improving animal productivity and lowering losses from climate shocks. However, their success relied on ongoing institutional support, access to affordable inputs, and stronger market connections to motivate adoption.
Natural resource management. Natural resource management was seen as a crucial area of intervention since the sustainability of livestock production in North Wollo heavily depends on grazing land, water, and vegetation cover. Climate-related issues like recurrent droughts and land degradation have significantly reduced these resources, leading institutions to focus on conservation and rehabilitation efforts.
Public institutions, particularly the Disaster Prevention and Food Security Coordination Office (DPFSCO) and Agricultural Development Offices (ADOs), coordinated large-scale watershed management and soil and water conservation programs. These included terracing, repairing gullies, and tree planting campaigns that aimed to restore degraded lands. The government also promoted cut-and-carry feeding systems to lessen pressure on communal grazing lands. Civil institutions such as Farmer Development Groups (FDGs) and cooperatives engaged local communities in collective actions, including creating enclosures and practicing rotational grazing. These efforts improved pasture regeneration and encouraged community ownership of natural resources. Private entities played a limited role, but agro-dealers helped by supplying tree seedlings, forage seeds, and water-harvesting tools. In some instances, NGOs like ORDA supported building small-scale irrigation schemes and community ponds to help reduce water shortages for both livestock and households.
Despite these efforts, challenges remained. High population pressure and a lack of land limited the scale of resource restoration. The poor enforcement of communal grazing rules also led to overgrazing in certain areas. The absence of continuous funding and technical support weakened the long-term effectiveness of conservation programs. These results clearly show that natural resource management interventions were vital for enhancing the adaptive capacity of smallholder livestock farmers. They not only help to restore degraded ecosystems but also reduce the risks from feed shortages and water scarcity. However, stronger institutional coordination and enforcement are needed to ensure lasting impacts.
Coordination gaps and opportunities for strengthening institutional support.
The findings revealed that public, private, and civil society institutions were actively involved in supporting climate risk adaptation among smallholder livestock farmers in North Wollo Zone. These institutions implemented a range of adaptation interventions, including livestock breed improvement, livestock husbandry management, natural resource conservation, climate information dissemination, financial services, and capacity-building activities. However, respondents consistently reported that coordination among these institutions was limited, with most adaptation activities implemented independently rather than through integrated planning and implementation.
Key informants indicated that public institutions, including the Livestock and Fishery Resource Development Agency, Agricultural Development Offices, Sirinka Agricultural Research Center, and the Disaster Prevention and Food Security Program Coordination Office, were engaged in related adaptation activities. Despite their complementary mandates, collaboration among these institutions was largely project-based and irregular, with limited mechanisms for joint planning, information sharing, monitoring, and learning. Respondents also reported weak linkages between research institutions, extension services, and farmers. While research institutions generated improved technologies and management recommendations and extension agents facilitated their dissemination, feedback from farmers and frontline extension personnel to researchers was reported to be limited. According to the respondents, this reduced opportunities to incorporate farmers’ experiences and emerging climate-related challenges into research and technology development.
The findings further showed that adaptation interventions were often fragmented across institutions. Several organizations implemented similar activities, particularly in natural resource management, feed improvement, and capacity building, within the same communities without coordinated planning or joint monitoring. As reported by key informants, this resulted in duplication of some services, whereas other communities had limited access to climate information, breed improved, animal health service and natural resources management support. In addition, resource constraints were also identified as a major challenge affecting institutional coordination and service delivery. Respondents indicated that several public institutions experienced shortages of financial resources, transportation facilities, veterinary supplies, and technical personnel. Likewise, non-governmental organizations were reported to rely primarily on short-term project funding, limiting the continuity and coverage of their adaptation interventions.
Despite these coordination challenges, respondents identified several opportunities for strengthening institutional support for climate risk adaptation. They explained that the presence of diverse public, private, and civil society organizations provides an existing institutional foundation for collaborative action. Existing local platforms, including Farmer Development Groups, district-level development platforms, cooperatives, and cooperative unions, were identified as mechanisms that facilitate interaction among farmers, extension agents, researchers, and development partners. Respondents further indicated that many institutions share common objectives related to improving livestock productivity, promoting sustainable natural resource management, and enhancing climate resilience. They suggested that these shared goals could facilitate joint planning, resource sharing, and complementary implementation of adaptation interventions.
Key informants also emphasized the need for formal multi-stakeholder coordination platforms to strengthen information exchange, reduce duplication of interventions, improve institutional accountability, and enhance collaboration among stakeholders. In addition, respondents highlighted the importance of strengthening feedback mechanisms between farmers, extension services, and research institutions and integrating climate information services with livestock insurance, animal health, and advisory services to improve the effectiveness of climate risk adaptation interventions.
Discussion
Characteristics of supportive institutions.
The study clearly shows the rich diversity of public, private and civil society institutions supporting climate risk adaptation in North Wollo. Public sector institutions proved to be dominant actors. These included generating and disseminating technologies; conducting training and extension services; disaster management and coordinating other stakeholders. The finding align with works of Agrawal (2008) [32] and Brown & Sonwa [6] that public institutions are major pillars of adaptation capacity building due to their role in supporting policies, resource mobilization and service provision. Private institutions also acted as crucial supporting institutions by extending financial services (credit); supplying agro-inputs; providing humanitarian support and implementation of resilience building programs. They also engaged with the most vulnerable households and climate exposed communities, underscoring the role of non-state actors in climate change adaptation efforts. Anyonge et al. [15] reported that private sector development and other international development organizations filled significant institutional gaps and expand access to resources in their areas of operations. Similarly, civil society organizations contributed with collective action, experience sharing and community Mobilization. They also helped in Technology adoption and in sustainable natural resource management, even in cases with relatively few members as compared to other types of organizations. Our study result is in line with the study of Mowo et al. [27] and Bekele et al., [26] who indicated that local organizations and CSOs build the adaptation process by improving communication, facilitating trust, collaboration and collective participation.
In addition, various organizations responded to diverse adaptation challenges and aspects. Public organizations primarily involved in broad extension service provision and risk management, while private organizations focused more on providing resources and building resilience, and civil society organizations were mainly instrumental in facilitating local participation and information sharing among farmers and strengthening resource conservation. This complementarity suggests that no single institution can effectively address climate risks alone. Effective adaptation requires collaboration among institutions with different capacities and mandates
However, the presence of many institutions does not guarantee effective adaptation outcomes. The diversity of actors creates opportunities for comprehensive support but also requires strong coordination to ensure that interventions are complementary and responsive to farmers’ needs. This finding reinforces the systems perspective that adaptive capacity is shaped by interactions among institutions rather than by individual organizations acting independently.
Institutional interventions.
The findings show that institutions supported climate risk adaptation through three major intervention areas: livestock husbandry management, breed improvement and natural resource management. These interventions addressed key challenges associated with drought, frost, and flooding and contributed to improving the adaptive capacity of smallholder livestock farmers.
Livestock husbandry management interventions focused on improving feeding, animal health, and housing practices. Public institutions played a leading role through training and extension services, while private and civil society organizations supported access to inputs and collective learning. These findings support previous studies that identify improved husbandry practices as effective adaptation measures for reducing livestock vulnerability to climate shocks [8,9]. Improved feeding and health management help farmers in maintaining livestock productivity during periods of climatic stress.
Breed improvement was a major intervention implemented mainly by public institutions, with support from civil society and private actors. The promotion of crossbreeding, artificial insemination, and improved breed selection aimed to increase livestock productivity and resilience. This finding is consistent with FAO [7], which highlights genetic improvement as an important strategy for enhancing livestock performance under changing climatic conditions. However, challenges such as limited technical capacity, inadequate infrastructure, and weak research-extension linkages reduced the effectiveness of these interventions.
Natural resource management was another critical intervention area. Institutions promoted SWC, watershed rehabilitation, tree plantation, forage development, and controlled grazing practices. Similar findings were reported by Mowo et al. [27], who emphasized the importance of natural resource conservation in strengthening rural resilience to climate change. These interventions help address feed and water shortages, which are among the most significant constraints to livestock production in drought-prone areas.
The findings further indicate that institutional interventions were complementary. Public institutions provided technical leadership and coordination, private organizations supplied financial and material support, and civil society institutions mobilized communities for collective action. This complementarity reflects the systems perspective of adaptation, where multiple actors contribute different resources and capacities to address complex climate challenges.
Despite these contributions, the effectiveness of institutional interventions was constrained by limited resources, weak coordination, inadequate technical support, and poor market linkages. These challenges suggest that the success of adaptation interventions depends not only on the technologies and practices promoted but also on the strength of institutional arrangements that support their implementation and sustainability.
Coordination gaps and opportunities for institutional support.
The findings indicate that although multiple public, private, and civil society institutions are involved in supporting climate risk adaptation among smallholder livestock farmers, coordination among these institutions remains weak. Respondents reported that institutional collaboration was largely project-based and temporary. This resulted in fragmented implementation, limited information sharing, and weak joint planning. Similar challenges have been reported in Ethiopia, where research-extension linkages and multi-stakeholder collaboration have often been constrained by organizational, financial, and institutional barriers, limiting the effectiveness of agricultural development interventions [38]. The weak linkage between research institutions, extension services, and farmers observed in this study further suggests that institutional learning and feedback mechanisms are insufficient. Although research institutions generate technologies and extension organizations disseminate them, limited feedback from farmers reduces opportunities to refine technologies based on local needs and climate-related challenges. This finding is consistent with the Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) perspective, which argues that agricultural innovation is most effective when knowledge is generated through continuous interaction, learning, and collaboration among researchers, extension workers, farmers, and other stakeholders rather than through a linear transfer of technology [39,40].
The reported duplication of interventions in some communities and inadequate provision of climate information, insurance, and market linkage services in others also reflects weaknesses in institutional coordination. Such fragmentation may reduce the efficiency of adaptation investments because institutions with complementary mandates implement similar activities independently while leaving important service gaps elsewhere. Previous studies similarly show that weak institutional coordination reduces the effectiveness of climate adaptation programmes and limits the capacity of institutions to respond collectively to climate-related risks [40]. Resource limitations were another important constraint identified by respondents. Shortages of operational budgets, transportation, veterinary supplies, and technical personnel, together with the dependence of many non-governmental organizations on short-term project funding, reduced the continuity of adaptation interventions and limited opportunities for sustained collaboration. Similar institutional and financial constraints have been identified as major barriers to strengthening agricultural innovation systems and delivering effective climate adaptation services in developing countries [39].
Despite these challenges, the study identified considerable opportunities for strengthening institutional support. Existing Farmer Development Groups, district development platforms, cooperatives, and cooperative unions provide an institutional foundation for enhancing collaboration among researchers, extension workers, development partners, and farmers. These existing structures could be used to facilitate joint planning, information exchange, resource mobilization, and collective monitoring of adaptation interventions. Experiences from Ethiopia show that multi-stakeholder innovation platforms can strengthen institutional learning, improve coordination among actors, and enhance the effectiveness of agricultural development initiatives when they are adequately institutionalized [38,41].
Overall, the findings reinforce the institutional and systems perspective that climate adaptation is a collective governance process rather than the responsibility of individual institutions. Effective adaptation depends not only on the presence of multiple institutions but also on the quality of interactions, coordination, information exchange, and feedback among actors within the agricultural innovation system [39,40]. Strengthening institutionalized coordination mechanisms and promoting continuous collaboration among research institutions, extension services, farmers, and development partners would therefore improve the effectiveness and sustainability of climate adaptation interventions for smallholder livestock farmers in North Wollo Zone.
Conclusion and recommendation
Conclusion
This study advances the understanding of climate risk adaptation among smallholder livestock farmers in North Wollo Zone by adopting an institutional and systems-oriented perspective. Unlike household-centered approaches, it demonstrates that adaptive capacity is shaped through the interactions of public, private, and civil society institutions. The result highlights adaptation as a collaborative process influenced by institutional coordination, service delivery, and continuous feedback between farmers and supporting organizations. The findings show that public institutions play a central role in technology generation, extension services, coordination, and disaster risk management, while private institutions contribute through financial services, input supply, and resilience-building investments. Civil society organizations complement these efforts by strengthening community-based adaptation through collective action, local resource governance, and peer learning.
The study further reveals that institutional interventions, particularly in livestock breed improvement, livestock husbandry management, and natural resource management, have contributed to improving productivity and reducing climate-related losses. However, the effectiveness and long-term sustainability of these interventions are constrained by weak institutional coordination, fragmented implementation, limited financial and technical resources, and inadequate mechanisms for incorporating farmers’ experiences into institutional planning. The findings therefore demonstrate that successful climate risk adaptation depends not only on the presence of multiple institutions but also on the quality of collaboration, communication, and coordination among them. Strengthening institutional linkages and creating more integrated adaptation systems are essential for building resilient livestock production systems under increasing climate variability.
Recommendations
Based on the findings, the study recommends establishing formal multi-stakeholder coordination platforms at district and zonal levels to strengthen collaboration, joint planning, information sharing, accountability, and continuous learning among public, private, and civil society institutions. Such platforms would reduce fragmented interventions and enhance the overall effectiveness and sustainability of climate adaptation efforts.
Extension systems should be strengthened by establishing effective farmer-institution feedback mechanisms that enable local knowledge, experiences, and emerging climate challenges to inform institutional planning and decision-making. Livestock input delivery should be better integrated with climate information services and early warning systems to support timely and climate-responsive management decisions. In addition, financial services, including credit and livestock insurance, should be closely linked with technical advisory and extension services to encourage farmers’ investment in climate-resilient livestock production practices.
Finally, greater institutional support should be provided to cooperatives and farmer organizations to enhance collective action, strengthen local resource governance, facilitate knowledge exchange, and improve community resilience. Improving institutional coordination, resource mobilization, and learning mechanisms across all stakeholders will be critical for achieving effective, inclusive, and sustainable climate risk adaptation in the livestock sector of North Wollo and similar agro-ecological contexts.
Supporting information
S1 Dataset. De-identified qualitative dataset.
The anonymized qualitative dataset underlying the findings of this study. The dataset has been deposited in the Zenodo repository and is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21631844.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000751.s001
(DOCX)
S1 Text. Focus Group Discussion guide.
Guide used to facilitate discussions with smallholder livestock farmers.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000751.s002
(DOCX)
S2 Text. Key Informant Interview guide.
Semi-structured interview guide used to collect qualitative data from representatives of public, private, and civil society institutions.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000751.s003
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Serdeczny O, Adams S, Baarsch F, Coumou D, Robinson A, Hare W, et al. Climate change impacts in Sub-Saharan Africa: from physical changes to their social repercussions. Reg Environ Change. 2016;17(6):1585–600.
- 2. Tadesse D. The impact of climate change in Africa. ISS Papers. 2010;220(November):20.
- 3. Niang I, Ruppel OC, Abdrabo MA, Essel A, Lennard C, Padgham J, et al. Africa. In: Barros CBF, Dokken BGDJ, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, et al., editors. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability - Contributions of the Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 1199–265.
- 4. Moore S, Colwell R. Climate change and the resurgence of waterborne diseases: focus on Sub-Saharan Africa. The Veolia Institute Review. 2025;27(27):66–70.
- 5. Tofu DA. Evaluating the impacts of climate-induced east Africa’s recent disastrous drought on the pastoral livelihoods. Scientific African. 2024;24:e02219.
- 6. Peach Brown HC, Sonwa DJ. Rural local institutions and climate change adaptation in forest communities in Cameroon. E&S. 2015;20(2).
- 7.
FAO. The future of livestock in Ethiopia: Opportunities and challenges in the face of uncertainty. United States Development Agency, International. 2019.
- 8. Assefa H, Kibwika P, Kyazze FB, Mekuriaw Z, Kalanzi F. Climatic risk adaptation strategies by smallholder livestock farmers in Eastern Amhara Region, Ethiopia. EJFOOD. 2020;2(3).
- 9. Fiseha Lomiso T. Climate change, its effect on livestock production and adaptation strategies in Hawassa Zuria and Hula Districts of Sidama Region, Southern Ethiopia. IJEMA. 2020;8(5):117.
- 10. Agrawal A. The role of local institutions in adaptation to climate change. The Role of Local Institutions in Adaptation to Climate Change. 2008.
- 11.
Wijk JV, Vellema S, Wijk JV. Institutions, partnerships and institutional change: towards a theoretical framework. 9(9).
- 12. Schouten G, Vink M, Vellema S. Institutional diagnostics for African food security: approaches, methods and implications. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 2018;84(1):1–5.
- 13.
Uphoff N, Buck L. Strengthening rural local institutional capacities for sustainable livelihoods and equitable development. In: Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD) Paper, 2006.
- 14. Mubaya CP, Mafongoya P. The rolle. Climate Risk Management. 2017;16:93–105.
- 15.
Anyonge T, Jonckheere S, Romano M, Gallina A. Strengthening institutions and organizations. IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2013. Available from: www.ifad.org
- 16.
FAO. Ethiopia country programming framework 2012-2015. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations; 2011.
- 17.
MoARD. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. 2010 (June). 2010.
- 18.
Assefa H. Strategies for climatic risk adaptation by smallholder livestock farmers in North Wollo Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Makerere University. 2024. Available from: http://makir.mak.ac.ug/handle/10570/13310
- 19. Aragie T, Genanu S. Level and determinants of food security in North Wollo Zone (Amhara Region – Ethiopia). JFS. 2017;5(6):232–47.
- 20. Bekele S. Impacts of climate change on livestock production: a review. Journal of Natural Sciences Research. 2017;7(8):7.
- 21. Fereja GB. The impacts of climate change on livestock production and productivities in developing countries: a review. Int J Res Granthaalayah. 2016;4(8):181–7.
- 22. Belay A, Recha JW, Woldeamanuel T, Morton JF. Smallholder farmers’ adaptation to climate change and determinants of their adaptation decisions in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Agric & Food Secur. 2017;6(1).
- 23. Mekuyie M, Jordaan A, Melka Y. Understanding resilience of pastoralists to climate change and variability in the Southern Afar Region, Ethiopia. Climate Risk Management. 2018;20:64–77.
- 24. Asrat P, Simane B. Farmers’ perception of climate change and adaptation strategies in the Dabus watershed, North-West Ethiopia. Springer. 2018;7(7):1–13.
- 25. Gedefaw M, Girma A, Denghua Y, Hao WAG. Farmer’s perceptions and adaptation strategies to climate change, its determinants and impacts in Ethiopia: evidence from Qwara District. J Earth Sci Clim Change. 2018;09(07).
- 26. Bekele F, Tolossa D, Woldeamanuel T. Local institutions and climate change adaptation: appraising dysfunctional and functional roles of local institutions from the bilate basin agropastoral livelihood zone of Sidama, Southern Ethiopia. Climate. 2020;8(12):149.
- 27. Mowo J, Adimassu Z, Catacutan D, Tanui J, Masuki K, Lyamchai C. The importance of local traditional institutions in the management of natural resources in the highlands of East Africa. Working paper. 2011.
- 28. Virtanen P, Palmujoki E, Dereje TG. Global climate policies, local institutions and food security in a pastoral society in Ethiopia. The Journal of Sustainable Development. 2011;5(1):96–118.
- 29. Kasahun D, Mulugeta B. Indigenous voluntary urban associations and thereby community solidarity among residents of Debre Markos town, Ethiopia. Global Journal of HUMAN-SOCIAL SCIENCE: H Interdisciplinary. 2015;15(10):16–22.
- 30. Teshome E, Zenebe M, Metaferia H, Biadgilign S. Participation and significance of self-help groups for social development: exploring the community capacity in Ethiopia. Springerplus. 2014;3:189. pmid:24790831
- 31.
Lobo C. Institutional and organizational analysis for pro-poor change - meeting IFAD’s millennium challenge. IFAD. 2008. Available from: http://ifad.org/english/institutions/sourcebook.pdf
- 32.
Agrawal A. The Role of Local Institutions in Adaptation to Climate Change. In: Paper prepared for the Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Social Development Department, 2008. Available from: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/28274/691280WP0P11290utions0in0adaptation.pdf?sequence=1
- 33. Gebre E, Berhan G, Lelago A, Change C, Ababa A. Application of remote sensing and gis to characterize agricultural drought conditions in North Wollo Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Journal of Natural Sciences Research. 2017;7(17):41–50.
- 34. Desalegn D, Angualie GS. Geospatial identification of potential rainwater harvesting sites for agricultural sustainability in the Gurnd Watershed, North Wollo, Ethiopia. Discover Applied Sciences. 2025.
- 35. Taye Y, Taye M, Alemayehu K, Tesema Z. Production system analysis and breeding practices of indigenous goats in North Wollo zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia. Journal of Applied Animal Research. 2024;52(1).
- 36. Zainal Z. Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan. 2007; Bil.
- 37. Yin RK. Case study research and applications: design and methods. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. 2018;53(5).
- 38. Mamusha L e m m a, Tesfaye B e a m l a k. From research-extension linkages to innovation platforms: formative history and evolution of multi-stakeholder platforms in Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development. 2016;4(7):496–504.
- 39. Brooks S, Loevinsohn M. Shaping agricultural innovation systems responsive to food insecurity and climate change. Natural Resources Forum. 2011;35(3):185–200.
- 40. Kamruzzaman M, Daniell KA, Chowdhury A, Crimp S. The Role of Extension and Advisory Services in Strengthening Farmers’ Innovation Networks to Adapt to Climate Extremes. Sustainability. 2021;13(4):1941.
- 41. Lema R, Kraemer-Mbula E, Rakas M. Innovation in developing countries: examining two decades of research. Innovation and Development. 2021;11(2–3):189–210.