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)

Book project: Guidelines to Rangeland Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rangeland Management)

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

Department of Range and Wildlife Sciences, South Eastern Kenya University (SEKU) - Kenya

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

10/11/2017

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

On-farm indigenous pasture establishment demonstrations offer a practical approach to encourage adoption in the arid and semi-arid environments in Kenya.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The characteristic feature of the demonstration approach is the interaction of different stakeholders in on-farm showcasing of sustainable land management technologies. The stakeholders include land users, NGOs, SLM specialists, local government officials and university researchers. SLM specialists and university researchers, with the help of local government and NGO field officers demonstrate the entire process of grass reseeding from site selection, seedbed preparation, grass species selection, weeding, monitoring and evaluation of both plant and soil parameters. The method comprises on-farm demonstrations both at individual, and pastoral and agropastoral group sites, and a model demonstration site within the university premises. The role of the main stakeholders involved in the process are sharing the knowledge, skills and technology (the SLM specialists; researchers from the university), linking the SLM specialists with the pastoral communities, sharing their experiences through on-farm demonstrations and explanations of similar technologies local government (county officials), sharing knowledge of past experiences and skills (local NGOs). The end users of the technologies, namely the pastoral communities share their indigenous technical knowledge related to natural resource management. In this case study the end-users comprised approximately 40 livestock keepers. Over five visits and through the demonstrations, they liked the approach because it was more practical being on-farm (“seeing is believing”). It was appreciated as being easily replicated on their own land under the same local conditions of climate, soil type, grass species, methods of land preparation, and land use system. After interacting with the SLM specialists from the universities during the visits and on-farm demonstrations, land-users have adopted the technology to ensure a continuous supply of pasture for their livestock.

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

To demonstrate indigenous pasture establishment on-farm, and encourage land users to practice reseeding as a means of 1) rehabilitating their degraded lands, 2) providing forage for their livestock and 3) income generation through sale of surplus animal products i.e. milk, hay and seeds.

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	Local land users involved in the site selection and involved in the plans of the project. Local land users share their indigenous technical knowledge gained through years of experience on aspects such as: which species are preferred by grazing animals (i.e. ranking of different forage species); which grass species perform better under different rainfall regimes, topography and soil types; which grass species are best suited for soil conservation and soil erosion control.
planning	interactive	Local land users actively involved in deciding on schedule for land users visits and demonstrations. Local land users participate and contribute to the planning of sowing dates, methods of land preparation, grass species selection in relation to their individual taste and preference and intended use (fodder for livestock, soil conservation and combating degradation, large-scale seed production).
implementation	interactive	Demonstration conducted on individual 'farms'/ pastures and local land users implement the technologies as 'model land users'.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Constant communication through short message services (SMS) and telephone calls on progress and challenges as land users monitor changes, e.g. seed germination and seedling establishment. Local land users report this to the SLM specialists e.g. researchers in the university and post-graduate students involved in the projects.
Research	passive	Research is mainly conducted by SLM specialists at university and students. The local government is also involved in research since some of the students recruited to be part of the project: for example PhD and MSc students are permanently employed by the local government. Local land users share their indigenous technical knowledge through one-on-one informal discussions/sessions between them and the SLM specialists and students.

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:

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

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

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

The land users and field staff/advisers were drawn from both genders (male and female). University undergraduate students (both male and female students, between the ages of 20-24 years) were also involved in the training during on-farm practical sessions.

Form of training:

• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

site selection, seedbed preparation, choice of grass species, monitoring and evaluation (plant and soil attributes), maintenance and further 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

Describe/ comments:

Advisory services on-farm during visits.

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
• national

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

University (South Eastern Kenya University, SEKU) - extension and outreach and research and academic exchange programs with other research institutions e.g. Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation (KALRO), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Kenya Seed Company, and other universities, for example the University of Nairobi (UoN).

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Financial support from within university research funds and the National Research Fund (NRF), Kenya, through the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Capacity building through postgraduate training involving researchers from SEKU, KALRO, ICRISAT and UoN.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Adoption and uptake of the technologies among land users.

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

Yes

Comments:

The approach demonstrates sustainable land management technologies e.g. grass reseeding, on farm. This is aimed at increasing adoption and spread of the technology by other land users.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

By an SLM specialist: that is researcher at the university under a research project.

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):

Food and Business Applied Research Fund (ARF) funded by the The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), Netherlands.

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):

Land and seed bed preparation: hiring of casual labour and rent of machinery / equipment (ox-plough / tractor).

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• labour

• equipment

• agricultural

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

• voluntary

Comments:

This is mainly for maintaining, monitoring and evaluation of the on-farm sites e.g. aspects of maintaining the fence to keep of free-ranging livestock from damaging the established pastures and assisting other hired labourers e.g. in seeding.

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:

Approach is practical and involves the use of already existing knowledge and skills e.g. use of ox-ploughs for site preparation is not foreign; local land users have interacted through their knowledge of the indigenous grasses.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Ease of understanding and appreciation because of its practical nature.
Approach allows a close interaction and exchange between the different stakeholders (land users, NGOs, local government officials, SLM specialists, universities) i.e. provides a science-practice link; learning by doing.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
On-farm and practical approach for easy adoption by other land users.
Takes advantage of group dynamics where different stakeholders share and provide immediate feedback and seek clarification throughout the process thus enriching the discussions.

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?
Source of conflict between land user where the on-farm demonstration has been conducted and other neighbouring land users e.g. diverting runoff in the upland thus reducing the volume of rainwater reaching farms located down-slope.	Continuous capacity building, knowledge sharing and sensitization.
Choice of on-farm demonstration site at an individual land owner can lead to jealousies among other land users. Choice of on-farm demonstration site at an individual land owner can lead to aggravation among other land users.	Use of communal or group owned land for on-farm demonstrations.
Allocation of time to attend the on-farm demonstrations. The approach is often conducted before the onset of the rains, when the land users are busy preparing their own farms for sowing. This might lead to low turn-out during demonstrations.	In consultation with the land users, set the date(s) when majority of the land users are available.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Language barrier (SLM specialists and land users).	Involving a local land user/personnel to bridge the gap.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

KZ Mganga, NKR Musimba, DM Nyariki. 2015. Competition indices of three perennial grasses used to rehabilitate degraded semi-arid rangelands in Kenya. The Rangelands Journal 37: 489-495

Available from where? Costs?

The Rangeland Journal, USD 25

Title, author, year, ISBN:

KZ Mganga, NKR Musimba, DM Nyariki. 2015. Combining sustainable land management technologies to combat land degradation and improve rural livelihoods in semi-arid lands in Kenya. Environmental Management 56: 1538-1548

Available from where? Costs?

Environmental Management, USD 38

Title, author, year, ISBN:

KZ Mganga, NKR Musimba, MM Nyangito, DM Nyariki, AW Mwang’ombe. 2015. The choice of grass species to combat desertification in semi-arid Kenyan rangelands is greatly influenced by their forage value for livestock. Grass and Forage Science 70: 161-167.

Available from where? Costs?

Grass and Forage Science, USD 38

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Competition indices of three perennial grasses used to rehabilitate degraded semi-arid rangelands in Kenya

URL:

http://www.publish.csiro.au/rj/RJ15023

Title/ description:

Combining sustainable land management technologies to combat land degradation and improve rural livelihoods in semi-arid lands in Kenya

URL:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-015-0579-9

Title/ description:

The choice of grass species to combat deserti􀀹cation in semi-arid Kenyan rangelands is greatly in􀁇uenced by their forage value for livestock

URL:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gfs.12089/abstract