1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

11/02/2018

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The establishment of a community wildlife conservancy facilitates (1) 'holistic rangeland management' refering to a to the implementation of a suite of management practices aimed at sustaining and/or improving rangeland productivity such as 'bunched grazing' (livestock concentrated for short duration intensive grazing), short-term 'bomas' (livestock corrals occupied for ~7 days), clearing invasive species and reseeding with grass to assist land rehabilitation/restoration; and (2) High end tourism and monetary donations facilitated by the Northern Rangelands Trust provide funding for the implementation of improved grazing practices and additional income for the community and the reduction of livestock grazing pressure.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Kalama Community Wildlife Conservancy has been established with a hierarchical structure led by a board of 13 members (5 female, 8 male), one representing each of the 13 'zones' of the Conservancy. There are also three subcommittees for grazing, finances and tourism. The main aims are to improve the involvement of the community members in the overall management of the conservancy, the generation of additional income from high end tourism and wildlife conservation and the investment into improved land management. The main sources of funding are revenue from contracted high end tourism operation and donations (facilitated by Northern Rangelands Trust). The approximate breakdown of the funding sources is: Tourism including selling of handicrafts (60%), Donors (25%), County Government (5%), Livestock Trading (5%), Camping (5%). Improved livelihood and ownership in the management as well as shared responsibility and benefits are key incentives for the community members.
Within the conservancy an attractive site on a hill overlooking the plains has been leased to an investor for the establishment of an exclusive tourist lodge on the principle of “invest, operate and transfer”, where the investor builds the infrastructure operates is for an agreed period and then transfers it to the community. Further several comping grounds are available for lower budget tourists. The conservancy profits from the neighbouring Samburu Game Reserves. This provides regular income from the lease of the land the entrance fees into the conservancy, employment opportunities for conservancy members (for catering, kitchen, house cleaning, rangers providing security for tourists and protection for wildlife as well as guides for safaris and for entertainment) and a market for selling handicrafts and souvenirs. Another cornerstone is their relationships with two trusts (Northern Rangeland Trust and the Grevy’s Zebra Trust). They have been supportive in the implementation of several holistic rangeland management practices, which include 'bunched grazing' (livestock concentrated for short duration intensive grazing), short-term 'bomas' (livestock corrals occupied for ~7 days), clearing invasive species and reseeding with grass to assist land rehabilitation/restoration. The main aims are to maintain and/or improve rangeland productivity. Regarding methods, 'bunched grazing' is implemented by a team of herders ensuring the livestock are in a tight herd. Short-term 'bomas' are established on bare ground in the traditional manor (i.e. laying cut thorny woody vegetation on the ground to encircle livestock and help protect them from depredation during the night). Invasive woody vegetation can be used to erect these 'bomas'. Invasive species (predominantly Acacia reficiens) is cleared by hand using machetes during the dry season; branches cut ~1 m above the ground to prevent regrowth. Cut branches are laid on the bare ground beneath and seeds of Cenchrus ciliaris hand-broadcasted prior to the onset of rains. Members of the Kalama Community Wildlife Conservancy carry out these activities, both paid (clearing invasive species and reseeding) and unpaid ('bunched grazing' and short-term 'bomas'). Land users and tourists enjoy and value the benefits of increased forage availability in areas successfully rehabilitated but are dissatisfied with the limited extent of the rangeland improvement.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The main objectives of the approach are to maintain and/or improve rangeland productivity.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	interactive	Using their experience setting up other community conservancies in Kenya, the Northern Rangelands Trust was able to assist in defining the organisational structure of Kalama Conservancy. However, conservancies are not set up without the interest of the community in question.
planning	interactive	Kalama Conservancy's board, which plans the Holistic Rangeland Management activities, is composed of members of Kalama Conservancy and those elected by the members of the conservancy. The Northern Rangelands Trust, in particular, helps to plan activities. For example, the Northern Rangelands Trust raised funds to enable members of Kalama Conservancy to visit a ranch in Zimbabwe where Holistic Rangeland Management activities are practiced.
implementation	interactive	Members of Kalama Conservancy carry out the Holistic Rangeland Management activities. However, 25% of the costs are covered by donations and training related to specific activities is provided by Northern Rangelands Trust and Grevy's Zebra Trust.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	The Northern Rangelands Trust commissioned a baseline survey of rangeland health in Kalama Conservancy, which was conducted in 2013. However, the Rangeland Coordinator, Benson Lelukai, was also trained by Northern Rangelands Trust to conduct informal rangeland health monitoring. As yet, no reports are available documenting the success or otherwise of the approach.

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

The Holistic Rangeland Management activities are closely modeled on those advocated by the Savory Institute. The Northern Rangelands Trust facilitated the introduction of the practices (e.g. bunched grazing and more frequently moved livestock corrals), which were implemented following consultation with Kalama Conservancy's members.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• public meetings

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

• personal communication

Describe/ comments:

The community work closely with Northern Rangelands Trust, which can provide advice.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Establishment of board and grazing committee facilitate conservancy-level decisions.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Northern Rangelands Trust provide financial assistance (USAID funding) and training together with Grevy's Zebra Trust (FAO funding).

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

But, so far, monitoring is informal and available documentation reporting outcomes of the approach is limited.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

Nee

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Nee

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Indicate the annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach in US$:

24447.00

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Main sources of funding are revenue from contracted high end tourism operation and donations (facilitated by Northern Rangelands Trust). Rough breakdown: Tourism including selling of handicrafts (60%), Donors (25%), County Government (5%), Livestock Trading (5%), Camping (5%).

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Ja

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Financial support provided to cover costs associated with activities (e.g. labour, logistics).

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• labour

• other

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• paid in cash

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Nee

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Lack of funding prevents larger areas from being rehabilitated through clearing of invasive species and reseeding with grass. Moreover, inability to control grazing pressure to give adequate rest to rehabilitating areas has led to unsuccessful restoration efforts. However, restoration efforts may gradually become voluntary in the future and land users may be incentivised to adhere to local grazing rules.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Land previously considered unproductive is now considered grazing land.
Increased infiltration, reduced run-off and soil erosion.
Regeneration of the grassland in the 'core conservation area' (a central area with minimised grazing pressure demarcated for tourism) attracts wildlife, which in turn benefits tourism.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Where implemented, restoration activities and reduced grazing pressure have increased productivity and diversity or grasses and forbs for livestock and wildlife forage.
Takes advantage of inherent capacity of the land to recover.
Improved attractiveness for tourism

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
The expectation from the community regarding the tourism-related jobs and income are too high.	Raising awareness about the limitations of benefits from tourism.
Increased pressure on 'Core Area' due to higher grass/forage production.	Strictly enforce local by-laws that restrict grazing in the 'Core Area'.
Rangers under-equipped and lack sufficient capacity.	Source more equipment and provide training/capacity building for rangers.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Very few land users are implementing the practices (e.g. short-term 'bomas' and 'bunched grazing').	Although likely unfeasible, one possible solution might be for the community to manage the livestock communally and share the produce rather than individual ownership, which creates conflicts in motivation between the individual and the wider community.
Paying community members to undertake restoration activities has limited the area rehabilitated to date and led to a reliance on donor funding for land restoration. This may also be eroding the community's social capital by placing a monetary value on land health and thus devaluing it and replacing the inherent sense of value of land health that may have existed previously.	Encouraging voluntary participation in restoration activities may not only increase the area rehabilitated but also improve long-term maintenance through cultivating a sense of ownership.
Lack of adherence to and enforcement of grazing rules limits the success of sustainable land management efforts.	Strictly enforce local grazing rules and by-laws.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Northern Rangeland Trust: Baseline assessment of rangeland health - Kalama and Namunyak conservancies, Leigh A. Winowiecki & Tor-G. Vågen2014

Available from where? Costs?

Available online at no cost.

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Northern Rangeland Trust: Baseline assessment of rangeland health - Kalama and Namunyak conservancies

URL:

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/65671/nrtReport_march2014.pdf?sequence=1