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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 495, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'University of Botswana (University of Botswana) - Botswana', 'template': 'raw'}

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

To conserve/sustain rangeland through controlled grazing of wildlife enterprise

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

This is a community project that proposesto farm wildlife in a ranch. The community will seek the land through the Land-board authorities. Department of wildlife (which is incharge of wildlife) will be consulted on animal species to ranch or to bring in. The main inputs will include fencing the ranch, water provision and labour to run the enterprise (a to be incurred by the community). The proposal has to be approved by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks who are incharge of all wildlife in the country. This will be done after the Rang Ecologists have surveyed the vegetation of the area; its suitability for game ranching. The purpose of this technology is to utilize some of the the available resources in the area so as to reduce poverty among the community members through returns gained from the enterprise and to conserve rangeland because wildlife species are more efficient users of semi - arid ecosystems. The community will seek land for game ranching from the land-board. Fencing is a pre-requisit in game faming for the purpose of rangeland conservation through controlled grazing. Water provision is also anecessity of which whould be well distributed within the ranch. Local wildlife species will be used to stock the ranch and if necessary some may be brought in from elsewhere. All the expenses will be the responsibility of the community. Day to day work in the ranch will be done by the community while technical advise will be provided by relevant expertise. Thetechnical knowledge from the community is very limited or low, professional advice would be needed time and again. The SLM technology is located on the fringes of the Makgadikgadi Salt Panswhich are prone to salty water, dusty locations because of bare ground and very fine soils. The community is of rural type where livilihoods are subsistence farming. The community is oriented more to livestock farming than to crop farming. Rangeland degradation is evident in the regionbecause of overstocking. Rainfall in the area is unpredictable and erratic with a mean of 450 - 500 mm per annum

2.3 Photos 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

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)

Comments (type of project, etc.):

This area is traditionally a wildlife area, and these people have been living with wild animals and hunting to supplement their food for many years

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

Comments:

Major cash crops: Sorghum, beans, melons, sweet- reeds
Major food crop: Sorghum, maize, beans, Bambara beans
Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Communal land use with limited management. Saline water, droughts, overgrazing by livestock
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Low formal education among members of the community

Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: With permanent place of residence

Ranching: Fenced grazing area with water borehole

Grazingland comments: Residents have cattle posts, crop-land and residential homes and move to these places each time. Game ranching is not applied in the Boteti area at the moment

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: Mixed cropping is traditional practice but government extension advise promote monocropping of which the majority find expensive and risky

Livestock is grazing on crop residues

Livestock density: 1-10 LU /km2

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

• area closure (stop use, support restoration)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures

Secondary measures: management measures

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Et: loss of topsoil

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion

Main causes of degradation: overgrazing, land tenure (Communal grazing land)

Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires), over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use, poverty / wealth (limited employment and income generating employment activities), population density (more animinals - overgrazing)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

Comments:

Main goals: prevention of land degradation

Secondary goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Pula

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

7.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Fencing Material	1
2.	Construction of Fences	1
3.	Borehole drilling (water source)	1
4.	Handling facilities	1

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	Labour		1.0	4.29	4.29
Construction material	Fencing material		1.0	3883.0	3883.0
Other	Borehole		1.0	12.36	12.36
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					3899.65
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					557.09

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 9 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Labour looking after the ranch	Permanently based at ranch
2.	Engine fuel	2,000 litres per year
3.	Borehole maintenance	once per year
4.	Fence Maintenance	once in 10 years

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	Labour		1.0	2.51	2.51
Construction material	Fencing material		1.0	158.0	158.0
Other	Borehole		1.0	0.54	0.54
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					161.05
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					23.01

Comments:

Calculations are based on a Game Ranch of 6 km x 6 km or 3600 hactres

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labour and Fencing material affected the cost of the ranch

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: 501-1000 m a.s.l. (Part of Makgadikgadi Basin)
Landforms: Plateau/plains (Flat plains with pans)
Slopes on average: Flat (ranked 1, low to flat land dominated by pans) and gentle (ranked 2, gentle topography (plains))

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil depth on average: Deep (ranked 1, sandy areas away from pans) and very shallow (ranked 2, cacareous - generally soils - about 40cm deep)
Soil texture: Coarse/light (ranked 1, away from depressions or pans - bacground soils) and fine/heavy (ranked 2, found in depressions)
Soil fertility: Very low (ranked 1, sandy soils - Arenosols) and medium (ranked 2, molapo farming - farming on flood plains)
Topsoil organic matter: Low (ranked 1, sandy areas are low in OM) and medium (ranked 2, flood plains - farming area)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Good (ranked 1, sandy soils are good in drainage) and medium (ranked 2, flood areas are medium)
Soil water storage capacity: Very low (ranked 1, sandy areas are low) and medium (ranked 2, flood areas)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Ground water table: > 50 m (ranked 1, boreholes) and 5-50 m (ranked 2, and dug Wells)
Availability of surface water: Poor/none (unreliable river flow. Available from pans during rainy sesons)
Water quality (untreated): Poor drinking water (treatment required, salty water in most areas)

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Biodiversity:
Low (ranked 1, low in communal grazing rangeland)
High (ranked 2, protected areas - game reserves)

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users
Population density: < 10 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 2% - 3%
30% of the land users are very rich and own 20% of the land (Cattle ranchers).
60% of the land users are average wealthy and own 30% of the land (Average farmes).
10% of the land users are poor and own 50% of the land (Subsistance farmers).
Off-farm income specification: Income opportunities for everyone in the area
Level of mechanization: Animal traction (ranked 1, draft animals such as oxen and donkeys) and mechanised (ranked 2, tractors)
Market orientation of production system: subsistence (self-supply), mixed (subsistence/ commercial), commercial/ market (tourism)

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:

• communal/ village
• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• individual

Comments:

Land is open access for use. Some individual own water wells. Dual grazing rights for private ranchers

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	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	not well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	well

Comments:

Drought/long dry spells are very risky to the survival of game animals because of decreased forage production and drinking water. Therefore, flexiblestockng rates and water sources are needed

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

Comments:

Project not yet started, but once established the project can run and maintain itself

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

Comments on acceptance with external material support: All interested persons are whle heartedly wishing to have a ranchto farm wildlife. Problem is that the venture costs a lot of funds

Comments on spontaneous adoption: Project not yet started

There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: This is the technology that rated at the top of the list. The community is really interested and want to do the project, but unfortunately funds do not permit

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Need more land How can they be sustained / enhanced? Need a sponsor to establish the ranch
Need hands from the government
To stock more diverse animal species How can they be sustained / enhanced? Supplement animals with hay and fodder

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Technology can enhence the livilihoods of the community How can they be sustained / enhanced? Addition of extra animal species to attract the tourists
Less management compared to livestock production How can they be sustained / enhanced? Good management
Wildlife is more adapted to the grazing conditions
Returns from the enterprise is faster How can they be sustained / enhanced? Good management and commitment

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?
Secure land from land-board authorities	Community project given preference
Wildlife and livestock competition/conflict for grazing areas	Some mediation needed from authority - compromise
Predators

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Very expensive to extablish a game ranch	Source for a sponsor
Productivity of the area is low (13 - 16 ha per livestock unit)	More land needed to stock more animals
Poor plant diversity	Land rehabilitation through use of correct stocking rate
Predator problem
Conflict between wildlife and livestock production

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Wire Fences: VanRooyen, JB Du Toit & Van Rooyen. 2001

Available from where? Costs?

Book available in Web

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Overview of Game Ranching in Southern Africa: D. Grossman and PL Holden

Available from where? Costs?

Report

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Upfront cost of Game ranching

Available from where? Costs?

Book available in Web