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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 50, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Book project: Guidelines to Rangeland Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rangeland Management)', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

26/03/2018

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

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Selected livestock are bought from the communities, then fattened and marketed by the Mugie conservancy management on a ‘resource sharing’ basis – generating income for both the conservancy and the community. This encourages the development of local value chains and market-based incentives for better rangeland management and animal husbandry outside the conservancy area. Breeding, agricultural shows and on-going education in sustainable rangeland management provide support for the longer-term.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Mugie conservancy is a private company covering nearly 20,000 hectares. It is involved in ecotourism, wildlife conservation and livestock production. Simultaneously, Mugie cooperates with community members surrounding the conservancy by fattening and marketing their cattle. Both parties share in the risks and successes of the initiative – and this is key to building trust. Community livestock owners ‘resource share’ in the program by supplying selected animals in line with standards and a quota stipulated by the conservancy. Currently the cattle are weighed and graded at the conservancy headquarters, but a purpose-built facility on the edge of the conservancy is being constructed for this purpose.
While the conservancy manages the livestock from the community, there is a joint stake in the livestock as the eventual profits are divided. The conservancy takes over full management of the livestock from the community members including herding and grazing, dipping, providing veterinary treatment, monitoring weight, marketing and sales. The division and remittance of funds generated is according to the contract agreed with the community committee. Contracts vary in nature and are often no more than just verbal agreements based on trust. The original owners have visiting rights on Saturdays during weighing and the spray-race, where they inspect their animals and interact with conservancy livestock staff.

The program aims to build value chains, encourage livestock businesses and the local economy through provision of a fair price market for local communities’ products. It also strives to build peace across communities and ethnicities - there is no room for fighting when talking business. Developing market-based incentives to produce better quality livestock is another aim, thus stimulating improved rangeland management and a higher standard of animal husbandry. It is also hoped to build a sustainable livestock business for the conservancy to pay for its wildlife and biodiversity conservation efforts - because conservation doesn’t pay for itself and tourism is volatile, and can’t cover conservations costs in most situations.
The total turnover of the program to-date (April 2018) is approx. US $ 825,000. The conservancy takes 10% of the sales, plus US $ 4.00 per animal per month to cover grazing, animal health and management. Cattle are sold live to various brokers and dealers, depending on the market conditions and the quality of the cattle.
This process of community participation and partnership building is nurtured and reinforced in various ways: (i) through continuous outdoor meetings (updates on changes needed to agreements; requirements for livestock; updating on conditions of the market; talking about the need to maintain a supply of high quality livestock through better rangeland management, etc.); (ii) by development of community committees; (iii) establishing community SACCOs (co-operatives registered with the county government); and (iv) drawing up contracts between the committees and the conservancy.

The implementation of this approach is an ongoing, dynamic and ever-evolving process. However the broad sequence is as follows: (i) introduction of the approach to communities, encouraging them to embrace the idea of improving livestock quality and to enter into an agreement with the conservancy, (ii) formation of committees within the community to ensure that livestock owners are heard and can agree the value of livestock, as well as avenues for communication, complaints and negotiations, (iii) negotiation of contracts with these committees, covering revenue sharing and proposed number of livestock involved, (iv) livestock management, fattening and marketing by Mugie conservancy, (v) continuous monitoring and reviews.
As implementation progresses there are also breeding schemes to introduce better genetic material into community livestock. These improved breeds produce cattle of higher quality for the beef market. Ongoing education and an annual agricultural show increase the potential and awareness of sustainable range management approaches and opportunities to all members of surrounding communities, including livestock producers: men, women and the youth.

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

• recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

1. Promote peace & stability
2. Incentivise and educate in sustainable rangeland management and use of natural resources
3. Provide local market opportunities
4. Encourage and educate in responsible livestock production in rural areas
5. Encourage local economic growth
6. Ensure sustainable food production
7. Encourage the formation of strong institutions in the area (such as co-operatives, businesses and business-orientated group ranches)

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	Both Mugie conservancy and local land users were involved in negotiations over the period of conflict around the 2017 Kenya presidential elections - out of this innovative resource sharing approaches were developed to benefit all stakeholders.
planning	interactive	Community leaders were presented with the options and limitations by Mugie management. Committees were then formed under several different themes, and they then negotiated contracts.
implementation	interactive	Community committees continue to be the main point of contact as the program develops organically, balancing the market, environment and needs of various stakeholders. However, the main implementer continues to be Mugie but with integrated community support. Changes in the market are seeing more individual community members using the scheme to market livestock themselves without Mugie involvement, but using the reputation of the brand.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Communities raise problems that occur and work hand in hand with Mugie management to resolve issues.

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:

Mugie handles the administration of the program and therefore decides on what technologies best fit their management requirements. Communities are always consulted on all changes and developments of the program.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• research findings
• 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

Form of training:

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

Subjects covered:

Grazing management, rangeland management (planning), Lifecycles of plants, water cycling, solar cycling, mineral cycling, importance of suitable breeds, market awareness, forming (SACCO), Basic business planning.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

No

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
• regional

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Cooperatives (SACCOs), Community Conservancies, Local businesses.

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

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

Yes

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• ecology
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Project developers from Mugie.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 2,000-10,000

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

All funding presently from Mugie. The program could be greatly improved with outside funding, donations or support.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

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

• voluntary

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)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

At the time of writing the approach is still less than a year old and this remains to be seen.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Benefits from the increase in the value of cattle. Few other livestock programs achieve this.
It has created peace in the area.
There are now opportunities for business growth opening up in the area.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
This is a key stepping stone in creating resilience in the area and rehabilitating degraded land through the financial market based incentives provided through the approach.
The approach has provided the necessary financial services and a sustainable road map forward to alleviate poverty through the changing of local attitudes from a wealth based society where the tragedy of the commons is degrading landscapes and societal structures, into a cash based society with strong institutions, a sustainable way of life and future.
Increase in peace and stability can further provide an incentive for local land users to invest in SLM practices and the return of biodiversity.

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?
Changeability of the market and lack of guaranteed prices.	Further banding together to guarantee good products (livestock) dependent upon sustainable rangeland management and agreed contracts with wholesalers.
Still a lack of good rangeland outside of the main conservation area of Mugie	Further increase stability and peace in the area and develop cooperatives of landowners who can rehabilitate and manage their land sustainably using economies of scale. This requires further guarantees of the markets and their products.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Administrative burden is huge and might prevent replication of the approach to organisations without a body of well-educated staff.	Development of a resource sharing management application (App).
Corruption in the markets and with large-scale contracts for livestock products

7.1 Methods/ sources of information