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

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Southern African Science Service Centre for climate change and Adaptive Land management (SASSCAL)

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Book project: Guidelines to Rangeland Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rangeland Management) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6107, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Zakumuka Producers Co-operative (Zakumuka Producers Co-operative) - Namibia', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6107, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Zakumuka Producers Co-operative (Zakumuka Producers Co-operative) - Namibia', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

2017

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

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

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.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

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.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.4 Videos 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

• Science informs the traditional practice

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

To regenerate rangeland productivity for supporting livelihoods and improved quality of life.

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	The community, with focus on livestock owners, youth, women and herders, under facilitation by NGO by conducting exchange visits to neighbouring countries
planning	interactive	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	interactive	The grazing committee, livestock owners and herders carry out the grazing plan with support of NGO, MAWF and NNFU
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	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	external support	External assessment by researchers of data gathered by USDA through Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA)

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

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 land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

After exposure to sound management techniques and on farm identification and agreement on the root cause of the degradation – the farmers themselves decide if they will continue or not.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

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

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• Ministry of Agriculture, Namibia National Farmers Union.

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Inclusion of youth, women and herders.

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• public meetings

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.

Comments:

A number of issues including: Rangeland management, focussing on the needs of grass plants and soil. Needs of herders, people and stakeholders and how these various needs can be met. Institutional support for grazing committee, focussing on budgeting and financial management.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

• Visits to successful farmers

Describe/ comments:

Mostly through exchange visits, community meetings, on farm excursions and on-the-job training.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

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

• local
• regional

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.

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give 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.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

To support decision making

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

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

USDA/IPA came to evaluate rangelands and consult key stakeholders

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

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

10000.00

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

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.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

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

Upgrades of boreholes, drilling and equipping of new boreholes that are elephant-proof and construction of lion-proof kraaling was funded through the NGO.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• labour

• other

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

• paid in cash

Comments:

Only for first four years at one of the villages to enable proof of concept to be established.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

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

No

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)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

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

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
By caring for the rangeland, farmers will have grass all year round and minimise effects of drought.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the 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.

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?
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 in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be 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.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Global case studies of grazing in nature’s image, Jim Howell, 2008, 1-4392-1610-X

Available from where? Costs?

www.booksuge.com

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Community based rangeland and livestock management

URL:

https://rmportal.net/groups/cbrlm/cbrlm-for-review/namibia-community-based-rangeland-livestock-management-cbrlm-2nd-edition/view