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

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 (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Daily combining of livestock from all households into a single herd to be driven to different designated portions of the communal grazing area. Grass can then recover by replenishing its reserves before being re-grazed some months later.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

This technology is currently being applied in communal areas 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, open grazing with a planned system. This gives grass a chance to recover in the growing season, and prepares the soil and grass for the forthcoming rainy season. In addition, fixed stocking rates based on carrying capacities are replaced by flexible stocking rates which track availability of forage. Two grazing plans are developed for one year; one when perennial grasses are growing and the other when they are dormant. Grazing plans may change, depending on the season and unanticipated events such as fire. A grazing plan is put in place for the growing season, that ensures plants are not re-grazed before they have recovered their root reserves. It is targeted at good animal performance . In the non-growing season, animal numbers are adjusted to ensure that there is sufficient grass to last until the next rains .
The grazing plans must take into account all factors that affect livestock performance as well as capacity of the livestock owner . These factors include occurrence of the first rains, presence of natural water pans, current and projected animal performance, availability of good quality forage for cows prior to bulling, avoiding poisonous plants, and timing of vaccinations, etc. Once the plan has been developed, the animals are moved by herders using low stress handling techniques to various parts of the farm or communal grazing area, according to the plan. Strategic moving of livestock by herding enables fire breaks to be created by deliberate over trampling. Each night the livestock are brought back to a kraal ( Afrikaans for corral) where they are kept overnight. Watering of livestock can take place in the kraal at night, in the morning, or alternatively in the field depending on water availability. This process is repeated day after day by the herders.
At the end of each growing season, the amount of forage available to the current herd is estimated. Animal numbers are adjusted to make sure that there is still sufficient forage to support them before the rains – and to leave enough ground cover to feed the soil organisms and protect the soil from erosion. Deciding when the forage produced will run out needs to be done using a method that livestock owners relate to. Livestock owners may decide to meet and reach consensus on this based on their knowledge and past experience of the effectiveness of rainfall. If it is decided that there is sufficient food to see the animals through until the next rains, then livestock owners will be satisfied; if there is excess forage they may be able to re-stock. If, however, a forage shortage is expected then de-stocking is required: the severity of the forage shortage determines how many livestock can be carried on the land during the off-season. Again, livestock owners can reach consensus on this. Deciding whose animals to sell and how many is always a thorny issue, so livestock owners will always move excess livestock to other areas if possible, or alternatively sell unproductive animals.

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
• 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

Comments:

Main animal species and products: Livestock, increased forage production, improved animal performance.

Number of growing seasons per year: 1
Livestock density: Livestock density is high as a result of herding, but stocking rate varies.

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management

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 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:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

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

4.4 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	Month	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
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					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.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

4.6 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	Month	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
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					1697.0

4.7 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 used 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	increase or decrease	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 into the system allows higher stocking rates, less drought risk and better quality animals, therefore higher income over time and consequently a better 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 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 deviate from aims.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It is cost-effective; genuine 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 than 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 on a larger scale could have a significant impact on mitigating climate change if all the degraded rangelands of the dry climates of the world were restored by using the principles embodied in this approach – one 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 enables improved quality of life for 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, livestock owners 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 online information

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