1.2 تفاصيل الاتصال بالأشخاص الرئيسيين لمصدر المعلومات والمؤسسات المشاركة في تقييم وتوثيق التقنية

1.3 الشروط المتعلقة باستخدام البيانات الموثقة من خلال WOCAT

متى تم تجميع البيانات (ميدانيا)؟:

22/01/2017

يوافق جامع المعلومات والشخص (لاشخاص) الرئيسي لمصدر المعلومات على الشروط المتعلقة باستخدام البيانات الموثقة من خلال WOCAT:

نعم

1.4 إعلان بشأن استدامة التقنية الموصوفة

هل التقنية الموصوفة هنا تمثل مشكلة فيما يتعلق بتدهور الأراضي، بحيث لا يمكن إعلانها تقنية مستدامة لإدارة الأراضي؟:

كلا

التعليقات:

Yes and no, only time will tell here.
Grazing principles and management (with partly applied Holistic Managment) of Il Ngwesi Group Ranch are said to be exemplary for group ranches in the area. In evaluation processes since the introduction of the new principles and also in reports, they were rated as "best practice". Land recovery is according to these reports in full swing. However, in the field the picture looks partially different. The land is in large areas (still) heavily degraded. Data suggests that vegetation and soil is in a rather bad condition - many erosion features characterize the land. Nevertheless, according to land users, land coverage has significantly improved since the introduction of the new technologies.

2.1 وصف مختصر للتقنية

تعريف التقنية:

A group ranch belonging to the Masai (traditionally, nomad pastoralists) has applied "Holistic Management" grazing principles. The principles consist of separate, planned grazing in villages during the rains, then “bunching” and moving of all animals in herds during the dry season. Denuded land is recovered by a "Boma” technology: i.e. strategic corralling of animals overnight, and reseeding.

2.2 وصف تفصيلي للتقنية

الوصف:

On Il Ngwesi Masai Group Ranch, livestock production management is a combination of traditional livestock keeping and holistic grazing management principles which were introduced in 2007. Livestock production at Il Ngwesi is for subsistence and sales - and has very high cultural significance. 80% of the land is used for conservation, where wildlife and their habitat are protected. The vision is to integrate community development and sustainable environmental management.
Holistic Management (HM) was originally conceived by Allan Savory (1988), and is facilitated by the Laikipia Wildlife Forum. It integrates decision-making, planning, and livestock keeping. On the land, this means bunching of all livestock close together (in order to act as a "bulldozer" and break the soil to allow seeds, nutrients, and water to infiltrate) resulting in better plant growth. By moving the animals together from block to block, HM aims at managing high numbers of livestock while restoring degraded land. Instead of individual livestock-owning families herding and trekking their own animals, consolidated herds are now managed and moved together, and overseen by herders and supervisors. This allows intensive grazing in restricted areas while resting the remaining land - instead of continuous open grazing. However, Holistic Management principles are still a matter of controversy.
The group ranch land consists of a settlement and a conservation area. The conservation area is further subdivided into a small core zone, measuring 500 hectares and a larger buffer zone of 6,000 hectares. Within this buffer zone, pastoralists are permitted to graze livestock during the dry season.
Besides these two main grazing areas in their group ranch, they use additional grazing areas outside their territory such as pasture in forests. In one forest - Mukogodo - they have settled officially; in Ngare Ngare and on Mount Kenya, on the other hand, it is more of an informal agreement. In Il Ngwesi, HM principles are very strictly applied in the conservation area; elsewhere only partly or not at all. During the movements to the forest glades and Mount Kenya, HM principles are maintained as far as possible.
This documentation describes the combined grazing management system. During the rains, the grazing system is largely by traditional management: animals remain in and around villages managed individually by households. During the dry season, all livestock are bunched together and managed as one herd.
During the wet season, grazing at Il Ngwesi Group Ranch is organized by elders within their seven villages. HM principles are only partly applied. During the dry season, once all the grazing land is eaten, livestock are bunched together and managed by a few herders and overseers. The block system rotation starts. To seek new pasture and water, cattle and smallstock are led to forest glades, and then to the Il Ngwesi conservation area. As soon as the forest pasture is gone, they move on to the conservation area. Usually, this movement of livestock to forests and conservation area starts in February; then they return to the villages in April; and then back to the forests and conservation area until the next rains in November.
Whilst the livestock are bunched together, large bomas (corrals in Kiswahili) are constructed for overnight enclosure. Bomas are sited on bare land where dung accumulation and crust breaking by hooves helps rehabilitate land. Every year the boma sites are shifted slightly according to a plan. The total area that can be restored per year is almost 1% of the area of Il Ngwesi.

2.3 صور التقنية

2.5 البلد/المنطقة/المواقع التي تم تنفيذ التقنية فيها والتي يغطيها هذا التقييم

2.6 تاريخ التنفيذ

اذكر سنة التنفيذ:

2007

2.7 إدخال التقنية

حدد كيف تم إدخال التقنية:

• كجزء من النظام التقليدي (> 50 عامًا)
• من خلال المشاريع/ التدخلات الخارجية

التعليقات (نوع المشروع، الخ):

Holistic Management approach by Allan Savory.
In Laikipia, it was introduced by Richard Hartfield, Laikipia Wildlife Forum and funded by Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF), Lewa Conservancy and Northern Rangeland Trust (NRT) (approximately 50% of all additional costs of Il Ngwesi since the implementation were covered by funding). Agreement with elders was reached first, then the community was trained.

3.1 الغرض الرئيسي ( الأغراض الرئيسية) للتقنية

• تحسين الإنتاج
• الحد من تدهور الأراضي ومنعه وعكسه
• الحفاظ على النظام البيئي
• الحفاظ على/تحسين التنوع البيولوجي

3.2 نوع (أنواع) استخدام الأراضي الحالية حيث يتم تطبيق التقنية

3.3 مزيد من المعلومات حول استخدام الأراضي

إمدادات المياه للأرض التي يتم تنفيذ التقنية عليها:

• بعلية

عدد مواسم الزراعة في السنة:

• 2

حدد:

Short rains in November and December. Long rains in April and May. Rains from (October) November to December are usually better in this area. Rainfalls with strong local variations and changing regimes.

كثافة الثروة الحيوانية (إذا كانت ذات صلة):

4’800 TLU; Stocking rate: 3.3 ha/TLU. Pressure on land: 3.3 ha/TLU

3.4 مجموعةالإدارة المستدامة للأراضي التي تنتمي إليها هذه التقنية

• الرعي وإدارة المراعي
• تحسين الغطاء الأرضي/النباتي

3.5 انتشار التقنية

حدد انتشار التقنية:

• منتشرة بالتساوي على مساحة

إذا كانت التقنية منتشرة بالتساوي على منطقة ما، فحدد المنطقة التقريبية المغطاة:

• 100-10 كم2

التعليقات:

Il Ngwesi has an area size of 87 km2. However, the total affected land by livestock is 157km2. The technology is also applied on other ranches (mainly private ranches, see the documentation for neighboring "Borana") in Mukogodo division.

3.6 التدابير التقنية في مجال إلادارة المستدامة للأراضي

3.7 الأنواع الرئيسية من تدهور الأراضي التي تناولتها التقنية

التعليقات:

Across the grasslands and rangelands an increase in bare land and bush has been a clear trend all over Laikipia for many years, both on community-owned lands and private ranches. Major identified ecological problems (partly) caused by livestock production are: bare ground, low contents of soil organic carbon and plant-available nutrients, soil erosion (sealing, crusting, rills and gullies, water flow patterns, sheet erosion, pedestals), poor soil properties, undesirable species, and (increasing) woody and invasive species. However, Il Ngwesi is not affected by the invasive species Opuntia stricta. For more information on rangeland health see Herger (2018). The technology aims at improving vegetation cover of the land and thereby reducing further degradation and restoring degraded land.

3.8 منع أو حد أو عكس تدهور الأراضي

تحديد هدف التقنية فيما يتعلق بتدهور الأراضي:

• الحد من تدهور الأراضي
• اصلاح/إعادة تأهيل الأراضي المتدهورة بشدة

4.1 الرسم الفني للتقنية

4.2 المواصفات الفنية/شروحات الرسم الفني

Grazing map of Il Ngwesi in Mukogodo Division

Grazing Principles:

- Rotational, planned grazing
- Bunching
- Resting periods for pasture
- Bomas for bare patches (night corrals)

Value Chain:

• Natural Breeding/buying (Ranches & individually)
• Grazing
o Settlement area (in red, during the wet season, until pasture is gone, organised by elders, bunching of all animals as soon as it gets dry)
o Mukogodo Forest / Ngare Ndare Forest (30% of total livestock, remainder to conservation area for grazing directly)
o Conservation area (6 blocks)
o Mukogodo Forest/Ngare Ndare Forest/Mount Kenya (Ngare Ndare Forest as corridor to Mount Kenya, about 40% of total livestock goes to Mount Kenya)
• Need-driven sales to local butcheries/NRT/Ranches

Il Ngwesi Masai also started to buy land outside their Group Ranch.

4.3 معلومات عامة بخصوص حساب المدخلات والتكاليف

حدد كيفية احتساب التكاليف والمدخلات:

• لكل وحدة تقنية

حدد العملة المستخدمة لحساب التكاليف:

• دولار أمريكي

4.4 أنشطة التأسيس

	النشاط	نوع التدبير	التوقيت
1.	Training of elders and community by project leaders	إدارية
2.	Grazing planning for bunched animals (livestock from all households)	إدارية
3.	Hiring herders, supervisors, watchmen etc	إدارية

4.5 التكاليف والمدخلات اللازمة للتأسيس

	تحديد المدخلات	الوحدة	الكمية	التكاليف لكل وحدة	إجمالي التكاليف لكل مدخل	% من التكاليف التي يتحملها مستخدمو الأراضي
العمالة	Costs for establishment unknown

التعليقات:

Trainings were funded by NRT, LWF and Lewa Conservancy. No figures on this.

4.6 الصيانة/الأنشطة المتكررة

	النشاط	نوع التدبير	التوقيت/الوتيرة
1.	Herders, supervisors, watchmen etc	إدارية
2.	Animal treatments (vaccination, spraying, injections)	زراعية
3.	Planning activites	إدارية
4.	Boma Management (mainly movement of Bomas)	إدارية

4.7 التكاليف والمدخلات اللازمة للصيانة/للأنشطة المتكررة (سنويًا)

	تحديد المدخلات	الوحدة	الكمية	التكاليف لكل وحدة	إجمالي التكاليف لكل مدخل	% من التكاليف التي يتحملها مستخدمو الأراضي
العمالة	Herders, watchmen	Person-days	250,0	540,0	135000,0	100,0
العمالة	Supervisors	Person-days	3,0	720,0	2160,0	100,0
العمالة	Planning activities, management	Person-days	20,0	1500,0	30000,0	100,0
العمالة	Livestock-owning families (for wet season, no wages paid, livelihood)	Person-days	8000,0	300,0	2400000,0
مواد البناء	Boma Movement
غير ذلك	Animals treatments (spraying against ticks)	Per livestock unit	5000,0	5,0	25000,0	100,0
غير ذلك	Injections, vaccine	Per livestock unit	5000,0	3,0	15000,0	100,0
إجمالي تكاليف صيانة التقنية					2607160,0

إذا تحمل مستخدم الأرض أقل من 100% من التكاليف، حدد من قام بتغطية التكاليف المتبقية:

Overall additional costs since introduction of new technology are estimated at 20% higher than before. 50% are covered by project funding (LWF, NRT, Lewa Conservancy)

التعليقات:

Costs per unit are multiplied by days.
According to the interviewed manager, total costs are only USD 18'000 (without herders). However, the listing of all costs results in much higher total costs. Total animal treatment costs for Makurian Group Ranch in comparison are USD 428'000 (labor USD 380'000, animal treatment USD 48'000, without livestock-owning families).
Also, people living in the area (population of 8'000 inhabitants) are involved in livestock keeping and are included here in calcuations as labor (for 3 months, wet season, 10% of total population).
Cost/benefit is currently negative for livestock keeping. Income due to livestock sales is roughly estimated USD 340'000 (price for cattle on average USD 400 per unit, sales around 500 p.a., price for goats and sheep each USD 40 per unit, sales around 2'000 p.a., slaughtered units (for subsistence use) cattle: 50, shoats: 1'000 - detailed figures available Herger 2018)

4.8 أهم العوامل المؤثرة على التكاليف

قدم وصفا لأهم العوامل التي تؤثر على التكاليف:

- Managing of one big herd, many supervisors needed.
- Movement of bomas
- Livestock-owning families (although they obviously don't receive any salary): this is simultaneously their livelihood and used for subsistence. But once all their livestock is bunched in a big herd, they lose their nutritional source (milk, blood) and livelihood (sometimes they keep back a few units for this reason).

5.1 المناخ

5.2 طوبوغرافيا

وضح ما إذا كانت التقنية مطبقة على وجه التحديد في:

• غير ذات صلة

التعليقات والمواصفات الإضافية بشأن التضاريس:

Hilly areas (e.g. Sanga village) and flat areas in lower altitude (conservation area).

5.3 التربة

إذا كان متاحًا، قم بإرفاق وصف كامل للتربة أو تحديد المعلومات المتوفرة، على سبيل المثال نوع التربة، الرقم الهيدروجيني/ درجة حموضة التربة، قدرة التبادل الكاتيوني، النيتروجين، الملوحة وما إلى ذلك.

Red and brown sandy soils. Black cotton soil. Luvisol, Regosol, Vertisol
SOC 1.1-1.4 %
pH: 6.3
Clay: 12%
Silt: 53%
Sand: 35%
More information in Herger (2018)

5.4 توافر المياه ونوعيتها

هل تعتبر ملوحة الماء مشكلة؟:

كلا

هل تحدث فيضانات في المنطقة؟:

كلا

تعليقات ومواصفات أخرى بشأن نوعية المياه وكميتها:

Few springs, Ngare Ndare river, no boreholes. Source is Mount Kenya

5.5 التنوع البيولوجي

التعليقات والمواصفات الإضافية بشأن التنوع البيولوجي:

Grassed acacia bushland. Bare land up to 70% during the dry season. Loss of (native) vegetation. Invasive species coming in. Dominant grasses: Eragrostis species, Cynadon species, Hyparrhenia species, Kelenger species. Dominant shrubs: Solyneum inconum, Ipomea hildebranditi, Lyceum europaeum, Barleria acuthodies. Dominant trees: Acacia tortilis, Acacia mellifera, Acacia nilotica, Acacia etbaica, Boscia angustifolia. Detailed list of all species (also wildlife) available (see Herger 2018).

5.6 خصائص مستخدمي الأراضي الذين يطبقون التقنية

اذكر الخصائص الأخرى ذات الصلة لمستخدمي الأراضي:

Masai people. 8'000 Masai living in Il Ngwesi. Traditional lifestyle. Livestock with very high cultural value. About 10% subsistence use, 90% is sold for local and national markets (mainly local).
Very little agriculture; tourism (award-winning eco-lodge in conservation area); people start to diversify. Schooling of children has a high importance today (e.g. smallstock is sold for school fees). Children and young warriors are traditionally herders, however, it is shifting towards hiring herders and sending children to school.
Have been historically "squeezed" from all sides into smaller areas for livestock keeping. Future of pastoralism is in question.

5.7 متوسط مساحة الأرض المملوكة أو المستأجرة من قبل مستخدمي الأراضي الذين يطبقون التقنية

5.8 ملكية الأراضي، وحقوق استخدام الأراضي، وحقوق استخدام المياه

ملكية الارض:

• مجتمعي/قروي

حقوق استخدام الأراضي:

• مجتمعي (منظم)

حقوق استخدام المياه:

• وصول مفتوح (غير منظم)

5.9 الوصول إلى الخدمات والبنية التحتية

6.1 الآثار التي أظهرتها التقنية في الموقع

الآثار الاجتماعية والاقتصادية

الإنتاج

توافر المياه ونوعيتها

الدخل والتكاليف

الآثار الاجتماعية والثقافية

الآثار الايكولوجية

دورة المياه / الجريان السطحي

التربة

التنوع البيولوجي: الغطاء النباتي، الحيوانات

الحد من مخاطر المناخ والكوارث

6.2 الآثار التي أظهرتها التقنية خارج الموقع

تعليقات بشأن تقييم الأثر:

All listed impacts are as perceived by land users according to Patrick Leseri, Conservation Manager. In his opinion, vegetation cover has thanks to the new technologies improved. Planning activities significantly increased and therefore also socio-economic and ecological conditions improved. Results from a rangeland health assessment (only ecological conditions) show on the other hand partly heavily degraded ecological conditions (poor soil and vegetation, erosions features, inability of producing annual grasses after rains etc) (Herger 2018). Land users and experts are aware that the ecological conditions of this Group Ranch are still far from optimal, but do see good progress and exemplary management as well as slightly better conditions than on other Group Ranches.

6.3 تعرض التقنية وحساسيتها لتغير المناخ التدريجي والظواهر المتطرفة/الكوارث المرتبطة بالمناخ (كما يراها مستخدمو الأراضي)

تغير مناخ تدريجي

تغير مناخ تدريجي

	الموسم	نوع التغير المناخي/ المتطرف	كيف تتعامل التقنية مع ذلك؟
تغير مناخ تدريجي آخر	Greater variation of seasonal rainfall, higher intensity of rainfall events, change in rainfall regimes in general (see Schmocker 2013 and Imfeld 2016).	زيادة	جيدا

الظواهر المتطرفة / الكوارث المرتبطة بالمناخ

الكوارث المناخية

	كيف تتعامل التقنية مع ذلك؟
موجة حر	جيدا

التعليقات:

Improved rangeland health, better internal organization, and cooperations make them less vulnerable to climate change impacts.

6.4 تحليل التكلفة والعائد

كيف يمكن مقارنة العوائد نسبة لتكاليف الإنشاء (من وجهة نظر مستخدمي الأراضي)؟

كيف تتم مقارنة العوائدمع كلفة الصيانة/التكاليف المتكررة (من وجهة نظر مستخدمي الأراضي)؟

6.5 اعتماد التقنية

• 50-10‏%

إذا كان متاحًا، قم بتحديد الكمية (عدد الأسر المعيشية و/أو المساحةالمغطاة):

50%

من بين جميع الذين تبنوا التقنية، كم عدد الذين فعلوا ذلك بشكل تلقائي، أي دون تلقي أي حوافز مادية/مدفوعات؟:

• 10-0‏%

6.6 التكيف

هل تم تعديل التقنية مؤخرًا لتتكيف مع الظروف المتغيرة؟:

نعم

إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم، وضح الظروف المتغيرة التي تم تكييفها معها:

• تغير المناخ / التطرف

حدد تكيف التقنية(التصميم، المواد/الأنواع، الخ.):

Masai people have changed their livestock composition towards owning more smallstock (goats and sheep) than cattle. Goats are tolerant of drought, and as browsers, they don't need any grass. Also, they can be turned into money much quicker than a cow in times of need and because of their more rapid reproductive cycle. They can also recover number more quickly after livestock losses through drought

6.7 نقاط القوة / المزايا / الفرص التي توفرها التقنية

نقاط القوة/ المزايا/ الفرص من وجهة نظر مستخدمي الأراضي
Proper utilisation of pasture – controlled usage/grazing
Land recovery (more cover, more water, more fodder, less erosion)
Carrying capacity increased
Traditional knowledge is still used
More dialogue in community: brings everyone in the community together – they have a common point – everyone has the same interest
Improving breeds is easier (because all are bunched together)
Easy vaccination of all livestock at once
Approving cultural lifestyle of Masai: the higher the livestock numbers – the better for the land
Better for disadvantaged community members: for instance for those who could not afford to move their livestock to Mt Kenya on their own before

نقاط القوة/ المزايا/ الفرص من وجهة نظر جامع المعلومات أو غيره من الاشخاص الرئيسيين لمصدر المعلومات

The listed advantages from Patrick Leseri, the land user, are for the most part shared share with the compiler's view. Improved planning of livestock production with planned grazing and long resting periods, improved dialogue in the community, and the named advantages of a big herd (like easy vaccination etc) are important advantages. Regarding Holistic Management (HM) principles, there remains uncertainty about land recovery. On the one hand, it is generally questionable to state as in HM: “the more animals the better” (as long as they are managed properly they can even recover degraded land), which seems dangerous in areas with such high livestock numbers and cultural value of livestock keeping - without scientific proof of the principles in similar ecological conditions. We have witnessed rather poor condition of the land, and the much-vaunted good land was difficult to find. Favourable descriptions might also be related to funding of the project. Results from a rangeland health assessment show (partly) heavily degraded ecological conditions (bare ground, poor soil and vegetation, erosion features, partly an inability of producing perennial and annual grasses after rains etc) (see Herger 2018). However, an evaluation of change over time is impossible to assess. Further monitoring is necessary. Land users and experts are aware that the ecological conditions of this Group Ranch are still far from optimal, but do see good progress and exemplary management as well as slightly better conditions than on other Group Ranches. However, the efforts towards good management and a sense of community was not difficult to notice.

6.8 نقاط ضعف / مساوىء / مخاطر التقنية وسبل التغلب عليها

نقاط الضعف/ المساوىء/ المخاطر من وجهة نظر مستخدم الأراضي	كيف يمكن التغلب عليها؟
Higher costs. Above 20% more than normal costs. NRT, Laikipia Wildlife Forum and Lewa conservancy as main funders for applying holisitc management principles. Since 2007 they covered about 50% of all costs..
More labour intensive. 20-30% above normal (supervision, watchmen, moving big bomas)
Challenge to bring people together (and their livestock) and agree on a joint management
Some families still prefer to manage their livestock on their own and make their own decisions. There are no individual decisions anymore: principles apply to everyone
Breeding can also be a problem – those with good genetic material (better livestock) may lose and those with poor may win by mixing
Conflicts among animals; bulls fight a lot. No separation of heifers, cows, steers and bulls
Management of high numbers of big herds is a challenge
Diseases are easily transmitted
Once livestock is collected to big herds, individual families lose their nutritional basis (milk, blood). However, some also keep a few livestock units back.
Sometimes trees are cut for bomas

7.1 طرق جمع/مصادر المعلومات

7.2 المراجع للمنشورات المتاحة

العنوان، المؤلف، السنة، النظام القياسي الدولي لترقيم الكتب ISBN:

Herger, M.B. (2018). Environmental Impacts of Red Meat Production. MSc Thesis. University of Bern.

متاح من أين؟كم التكلفة؟:

University of Bern

العنوان، المؤلف، السنة، النظام القياسي الدولي لترقيم الكتب ISBN:

Modeling Seasonal and Annual Precipitation using long-term Climate Records and Topography. Master’s Thesis. Noemi Imfeld (2016).

متاح من أين؟كم التكلفة؟:

University of Bern

العنوان، المؤلف، السنة، النظام القياسي الدولي لترقيم الكتب ISBN:

Savory, A (1988). Holistic Resource Management. Gilmour Publishing, Harare, Zimbabwe

متاح من أين؟كم التكلفة؟:

Online