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

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

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

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

Namibia University of Science and Technology ( NUST) - Namibia

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

Conservation Agriculture Namibia (Conservation Agriculture Namibia) - Namibia

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

20/06/2017

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

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Daily combination of livestock from all households into a single herd to drive to different designated portions of the communal grazing area so that grass may recover to replenish its food reserves before being regrazed some months later.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology is currently being applied in communal as well as commercial farms of Namibia. It is particularly effective in areas with no fences and areas with high incidence of stock theft and predator losses. The technology aims to replace continuous grazing with planned grazing which allows recovery of grass plants in the growing season and prepares the soil and grass plants for the upcoming rainy season during the non growing season. In addition fixed carrying capacities are replaced by flexible stocking rates which track availability of forage. Two grazing plans are developed per year, one when perennial grasses are growing and one when they are dormant. The grazing plans may change depending on the season and unanticipated events such as fire. During the growing season a grazing plan is in place that ensures plants are not regrazed before they have recovered their root reserves and that animal performance is good. In the non growing season animal numbers are adjusted to ensure there is sufficient grass to last until rains are reliably expected. Several selections are planned for to ensure animal performance is good.

The grazing plans must take into account all factors that affect the livestock performance as well as the farmer. These factors include first rains, natural pans, animal performance, ensuring good quality forage for cows prior to bulling, poisonous plants, time for vaccinations, where the livestock should be when the farmer is on leave etc. Once the plan has been developed, the animals are herded using low stress handling techniques according to the plan to various parts of the farm or communal grazing area. Moving livestock by herding enables fire breaks to be created by deliberate overtrampling. Each night the livestock are brought back to a kraal where they are kept overnight. Watering of livestock can take place in the kraal at night or in the morning or in the field depending on water availability. This process is repeated day after day.

At the end of each growing season the amount of forage available to the current herd is estimated and animal numbers are adjusted to ‘ensure’ that rains will have been received whilst there is still sufficient forage for the livestock and leaving enough soil cover to feed the soil organisms and protect the soil. Deciding when the forager grown in the last growing season will run out must be done using a method that farmers relate to. Farmers may decide to meet and reach consensus on this based on their knowledge of the effectiveness of rainfall during this season and past experience. If it is decided that there is sufficient food to see the animals through until the next rains can be expected, then farmers have enough forage and may even be able to re-stock if there is a food excess. If however a forage shortage is expected, because too little grass was grown in the last growing season to see them through to the next rains, then de-stocking is needed. The severity of the forage shortage determines how many livestock can be carried on this land during this non-growing season. Again farmers can reach consensus on this. Deciding whose animals to sell and how many is always a thorny issue so farmers will always move excessive animals to other areas if possible or sell unproductive animals first if needed.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2004

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Community projects facilitated by NGO "Conservation Agriculture Namibia"

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• reduce risk of disasters
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• mitigate climate change and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact
• create beneficial social impact

• Reduce human-wildlife conflict

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Livestock density (if relevant):

Livestock density is high as a result of herding, but stocking rate varies

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• 100-1,000 km2

Comments:

Animals are herded over the entire area – except areas that are too steep for livestock to walk up.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

The technology does not involve a change in land use. The grazing plan means that livestock will only be on a particular piece of land twice in any given year (once in the growing season and once in the non growing season). The animal density is however high, leading to increased impact for a very short period.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

The control of over-trampling which otherwise leads to rill and gulley erosion

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

Comments:

Land is severely degraded but can be restored by change in management

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Schematic diagram of planned grazing of a growing season grazing plan. In this diagram grazing started in the bottom left hand camp, marked d1, and the livestock were grazed in this area for this day. The next day the herd of livestock were taken to the area marked d2 and grazed there. This continued until day 41 where the livestock are currently. If deviations from plan occur then the actual grazing map is marked according to what actually happened. This is the map that helps inform next year's grazing plan to avoid using certain camps at the same time of year. The degree of greenness in the diagram indicates the amount of recovery of grass since being grazed. It is lightest in the area just grazed, marked d40. By the time the herd reaches day 120, which has the darkest green indicating readiness to be re-grazed, then the grass in the area marked d1 was planned to have recovered sufficiently to be regrazed. This plan has a built in recovery period of 120 days. It is possible that growth rates are slower than expected and it may be necessary to reduce numbers of cattle in the herd to slow down the movement to ensure the desired recovery period is achieved.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• US Dollars

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Three meetings for mobilisation of communities	Management	Month 1
2.	Exchange visit to local farmers using this practise	Management	Month 4
3.	Assess water infrastructure, site and drill and install additional water point	Structural	Month 6
4.	Grazing planning meeting with stakeholders	Management	After adequate grass growth to enable planned grazing
5.	Appoint, equip and train herders	Management	After 4
6.	Planning meeting and determination of starting date	Management	After 5
7.	Build overnight kraals at new water points	Structural	When needed
8.	Build temporary kraals for improved grass growth	Structural	When needed

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Six herders (four on duty per day) for 400 cattle	Months	6.0	77.0	462.0	100.0
Labour	One manager	Month	1.0	115.0	115.0	100.0
Equipment	Overalls, boots and hat that may need replacement after one year	Set	7.0	100.0	700.0	100.0
Construction material	Housing for herders built from mud and dung	Shelter	3.0	100.0	300.0	100.0
Other	Laminated grazing chart and map per year	Document	2.0	10.0	20.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					1597.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Grazing maps and charts prodcuded by CAN (support NGO), but will be taken over soon by farmers

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Daily herding, watering of livestock and health checks and treatment	Management	Daily
2.	Maintenance of kraals and water points	Structural	Quartery

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Six herders (four on duty per day) for 400 cattle	Months	6.0	77.0	462.0	100.0
Labour	One manager	Month	1.0	115.0	115.0	100.0
Equipment	Overalls, boots and hat, replaced annually	Set	7.0	100.0	700.0	100.0
Construction material	Maintenance of clay and dung housing for herders	Shelters	3.0	100.0	300.0	100.0
Other	Diesel for pumping water per month	Litres	100.0	1.0	100.0	100.0
Other	Laminated grazing chart and map per year	Documents	2.0	10.0	20.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					1697.0

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Appreciation by land users that investment in herders will pay back, especially from the second year onwards.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

In dry years all livestock may move to another cattle post. But they return to the sedentary site as their main grazing area. A significant number of land users take up employment in the nearest town.

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• state

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Comments:

Land is communal and organised but no rights to enforce management are yet in place through formal structures.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	moderately
annual rainfall		decrease	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local thunderstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	moderately
land fire	well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

The ability to bring back perennial grasses results in higher stocking rates, less drought risk and better quality animals, therefore higher income over time and therefore a good cost benefit analysis.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

20,000 ha

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 0-10%

Comments:

This is a key issue undergoing lobbying of government and the communal farmers union to establish through a consultative process legislation that enables grazing plans to be enforced from within and from outside. This is lacking at the moment.

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Yes

other (specify):

Adaptive management

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

Addition of erosion control and overnight kraaling to assist with gully control. Refining re-planning in response to monitored results that show deviation from aims.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It is cost effective, real improvement is seen in grass production while livestock losses to predators are significantly reduced.
For absentee owners they can leave a manager and herders in place to get on with the work and this can be easily evaluated after time since animals wondering around leave evidence.
Livestock are better cared for as they used to be and a sense of community has been restored.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
This is a viable and upscaleable technology for both communal and commercial farmland in Namibia and beyond.
It addresses the root cause of livestock related degradation and at a global scale can have a significant impact on mitigating climate change if all the degraded rangelands of the dry climates of the world are restored by using the principles embodied in this approach – which has been adopted in the National Rangeland Management Policy and Strategy. Moreover it can improve the quality of lives of millions of people who live in areas where livestock is the only viable land use.
This is a true triple bottom line technology that improves the resource base whilst increasing profits and enbables an improved quality of life of residents.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Herders are difficult to find, train and keep.	National level vocational training of herders is required.
Water infrastructure tends to result in overtrampling of the same routes.	The Directorate of Rural Water Supply should change its water specifications to include the provision of water for livestock – which can be cheap and effective.
Grass poaching takes place by neighbours and the majority will of people in an area is sometimes overrun by a small minority.	Farmers Unions must address these issues and get enforceable mechanisms in place for improved rangeland management.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
There is insufficient national buy-in from line ministries in terms of implementation to address many of the issues that have been raised.	Line ministries should support implementation to address these problems. Joint implementation, joint review and adaptation by government, unions, farmers and support providers will assist in solving many issues for resource base improvement.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Holistic mangement, Savory, A. & Butterfield, J., 1991

Available from where? Costs?

Island Press

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Volkmann, W. (2011). Community based rangeland and livestock management. Windhoek: GOPA-CBRLM.

URL:

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