Visit by Namibian livestock owners, herders and Ministry of Agriculture staff to learn from the Africa Centre for Holistic Management in Zimbabwe (Colin Nott)

Community grazing management (Namibia)

Omarisiro wovinamuinjo motjimbumba

Description

Agreement among community members to jointly manage their communal grazing area by combining their livestock into a single herd. The herd is managed and moved according to an agreed growing season plan that provides sufficient recovery for perennial grasses, and a non-growing season plan to graze in a way that prepares soil and plants for the next season. Regenerating rangeland productivity and well-being is the goal.

The approach is a partnership between an NGO, Ministry of Land Reform (MLR), Ministry of Agriculture , Water and Forestry (MAWF), the National Farmers Union (NNFU), traditional authorities, and regional and local government. The NGO raises awareness among the community about the damage caused to the rangeland by individual herds of livestock grazing continuously – and to appreciate the benefits of planned grazing. Livestock owners invite facilitators to compare the current state of their land with that of the past. The reasons for the decline are investigated. Once livestock owners understand that perennial grasses need recovery, they soon conclude that their management caused the loss of perennial grass and the increase in bare ground. At this point, the aim of the approach can be pursued. This is to regenerate rangeland productivity in the communal grazing area and thereby support higher livestock production. This in turn supports livelihoods.
If motivation to apply planned grazing exists among the community members, then their right to claim common property ownership needs to be established. In pioneering communities this requires at least 10 village level livestock owner meetings to decide on modalities of planned grazing. These meetings continue after planned grazing has started to deal with ongoing planning, animal production and marketing. Exposure visits to areas with successful grazing management help. On return frequent follow-up meetings, facilitated by the NGO and the MAWF, can resolve local issues, including traditional taboos, such as combining animals in one kraal, and whose bulls should be kept and managed.
Boundaries with neighbouring communities need to be mapped, recognised and respected by all. In case of grass poaching, the offenders must to be swiftly dealt with, preferably through customary law. A grazing plan needs to be agreed by all livestock owners, and endorsed by the local Traditional Authority. The grazing area (GA) is then mapped, while six herders, one of whom is their manager, are appointed from among the community though common agreement. Each livestock owner pays a portion of the herding and management cost pro-rata based on the number of his livestock. At night the cattle are separated and kraaled near the homesteads of their owners. In the morning, the herders collect cattle from the kraals. Different portions of the grazing area are grazed daily and only returned to when the grass has replenished its root reserves - some months later.
The process started at Erora in 2004, facilitated by the NGO, Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC). Implementation began in 2006, combining approximately 1200 cattle from 12 households. Livestock owners noticed a higher density of annual grasses after the first season; dramatic improvement in soil cover after three years with emergence of grass seedlings where none had grown for decades. Then after another three years, perennial grasses returned with increased biodiversity in many parts. However, when the extended drought started in 2011, planned grazing was interrupted and gullies expanded, down which rainwater flowed, dehydrating the rangelands. The drought lasted for five years, and the planned grazing was temporarily discontinued in 2013. During this period, rehabilitation work included constructing bush filters along key gullies: facilitation was taken over by another NGO, Conservation Agriculture Namibia (CAN). After successive years of severe drought, cattle became too weak to be rounded up, and in 2014 the community members decided to revert to keeping cattle near their homesteads. This was intended to be temporary but cattle only gained sufficient strength in 2017. The communal grazing management approach was extended to other villages in 2012, despite the drought. New boreholes were drilled and installed to facilitate improved planned grazing.

Location

Location: Erora village, 18.32637 South, 14.05912 East, Kunene Region, Namibia

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 14.05912, -18.32637
  • 14.17937, -19.36578
  • 19.28976, -17.92738

Initiation date: 2004

Year of termination: n.a.

Type of Approach
Ecological literacy on farmers’ land, discussing overgrazing and recovery periods to enable root growth (Kapi Uhangatenua)
Livestock owners from Erora have hosted livestock owners and facilitators from all over Namibia and beyond (Collin Nott)

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
To regenerate rangeland productivity for supporting livelihoods and improved quality of life.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Herding is customary, and the task is now shared among families
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: No bought inputs are required, and fewer herders needed than with many small herds. Also fewer losses from stock theft and predators
  • Institutional setting: A grazing area committee was established with support of livestock owners
  • Collaboration/ coordination of actors: Partnership approach with MLR, Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF) the NNFU, traditional authorities and regional and local government.
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): National Policy and strategy is in place which supports sound management principles
  • Policies: The approach is based upon the Namibia National Rangeland Management Policy and Strategy
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: The awareness exists among participating livestock owners and stakeholders
  • Markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices: The Namibia National Farmers Union is busy addressing markets north of the veterinary cordon fence, which maintains a zone free of foot-and-mouth disease to the south from where farmers are able to access the lucrative EU market
  • Workload, availability of manpower: Fewer herders are required for one large herd than for many small herds
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Herding no longer carries the high social status that it had previously.
  • Institutional setting: The grazing area committee is not legally recognised
  • Collaboration/ coordination of actors: Resolution of local issues to apply grazing plans needs to be resolved
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): Grass poaching by neighbouring communities is not adequately dealt with by the law
  • Policies: Common property rights are insufficiently promoted
  • Land governance (decision-making, implementation and enforcement): Lack of integration of different scales of management between conservancies at large scales and grazing areas at smaller scale is required
  • Markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices: During drought the drop in prices from sudden increase in supply, results in inability of farmers to sell livestock when sudden shortage of forage occurs
  • Workload, availability of manpower: The role of herders as rangeland managers lacks status and is not adequately appreciated, resulting in high turnover of trained herders and their manager.
  • Other: One large livestock owner at a given place can hinder efforts of the majority to improve rangeland management

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities Communities of Erora, Outokotorua and Nsindi To organise, plan and implement
community-based organizations Grazing Committee Oversee day to day implementation
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC), then Conservation Agriculture Namibia (CAN) and Namibia National Farmers Union (NNFU) To facilitate adoption and upscaling of the approach
researchers United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) To assess rangeland condition changes
NGO First IRDNC, then CAN To facilitate the approach
private sector Zakumuka Producers Cooperative To organise auctions for sale of livestock
local government Traditional authorities To support and enable agreed rules
national government (planners, decision-makers) Namibian Ministries of Lands & Agriculture Assist with facilitation and support
Farmers union Namibia National Farmers Union Enabling policy and legislation
Lead agency
Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC), taken over in 2014 by Conservation Agriculture Namibia (CAN)
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
x
The community, with focus on livestock owners, youth, women and herders, under facilitation by NGO by conducting exchange visits to neighbouring countries
planning
x
Feedback was given to communities by participants of exchange visits, grazing committees appointed to contextualise and re-plan for the way forward under guidance of NGO, Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF) and Namibia National Farmers Union (NNFU)
implementation
x
The grazing committee, livestock owners and herders carry out the grazing plan with support of NGO, MAWF and NNFU
monitoring/ evaluation
x
The grazing committee and livestock owners constantly plan and replan and evaluate results on livestock performance and rangeland and daily check where livestock have grazed and where they will graze next and feed results into re-planning. Annual assessments of forage in May, to determine stocking rate.
external assessment of data
x
External assessment by researchers of data gathered by USDA through Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA)
Flow chart

Flow chart of the process to facilitate community grazing management.

Author: Colin Nott
Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
  • Ministry of Agriculture, Namibia National Farmers Union.
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

On farm(s) exploration of root cause of degradation based on how it was in the past and how it looks now and why this change has happened.

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
  • Visits to successful farmers
Mostly through exchange visits, community meetings, on farm excursions and on-the-job training.
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
  • no
  • yes, a little
  • yes, moderately
  • yes, greatly
at the following level
  • local
  • regional
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Grazing Committee guides and implements the grazing plans and support organisations including Ministry of Agriculture, Namibia National Farmers Union and NGOs provide support and advice.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
Exchange visits, facilitation of meetings and on-the-job training. Drilling and equipping of boreholes. Redesign of water supply for livestock and combined kraaling system.
Monitoring and evaluation
To support decision making
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

USDA/IPA came to evaluate rangelands and consult key stakeholders

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: 10000.0
Major donor to initiate the project was Enagelica Entwikelins Diens (EED), through IRDNC and later funding came from the Millenium Challenge Account (MCA), the EU and now the Finnish Embassy through CAN. Cost is per grazing area for local level field facilitation.
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments
Financial/ material support provided to land users
Upgrades of boreholes, drilling and equipping of new boreholes that are elephant-proof and construction of lion-proof kraaling was funded through the NGO.
partly financed
fully financed
labour

Part payment to herders 2004-2007 in Erora only

x
Boreholes and kraals

Erora upgrade USD 10 000, second solar borehole half funded by community USD 10 000. Lion proof kraal funded by Africat – USD 2 000

x

Labour by land users was

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?

Through the whole approach.

x
Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?

Through observations by herders and livestock owners.

x
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

Combined herding through planned grazing.

x
Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?

Key stakeholders are all involved.

x
Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?

x
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?

Training provided the skills to self organise and implement activities based upon identification of root cause of land degradation.

x
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?

Ministries of Agriculture and Lands.

x
Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?

Key stakeholders are all collaborating, since the solution to rangelands cuts across various sectors.

x
Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?

Reinstated sense of community

x
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

Women-headed households now have their livestock herded communally.

x
Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?

Women-headed households now have their livestock herded communally.

x
Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?

Herders are mainly youth and young livestock owners, who appreciate improved rangeland and are now willing to remain.

x
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

The willingness to address appropriate land rights may initiate resolution of land issues.

x
Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?

Much during good rains and little during drought.

x
Did the Approach improve access to markets?

x
Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?

Access to borehole water was provided.

x
Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?

Solar installations were installed or replaced diesel where possible for pumping of water.

x
Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?

Improved grass growth in good rain years and improved survival in drought.

x
Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?

Herders and managers were appointed.

x
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

They mobilise themselves, appoint herders, do the implementation, do the planning jointly and, and only asking for some technical support.

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • By caring for the rangeland, farmers will have grass all year round and minimise effects of drought.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • It has proven to improve the resource base if applied properly.
  • It is viable and upscalable.
  • It has diverse benefits for the land user, including economic, social and environmental.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • If a new water point needs to be developed, then funds will be required Convince land users that by selling one or a few cattle to invest in a new water point, they will realise the returns from increased productivity within a few years.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • The herding is hard work, the status of herders is perceived to be low and they are poorly compensated. Convince livestock owners that they can adequately afford to compensate the herders.
    Start national and regional vocational training in herding, grazing management, low-stress handling, animal health, rangeland management, water management and financial and farm management.

References

Compiler
  • Ibo Zimmermann
Editors
Reviewer
  • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
  • Joana Eichenberger
Date of documentation: Aug. 4, 2017
Last update: Nov. 2, 2021
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Global case studies of grazing in nature’s image, Jim Howell, 2008, 1-4392-1610-X: www.booksuge.com
Links to relevant information which is available online
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International