Technologies

Game Ranching [Botswana]

Thuo ya diphologolo (Wildlife Ranching)

technologies_1386 - Botswana

Completeness: 80%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Perkins Jeremy

perkinsjs@mopipi.ub.bw

University of Botswana

Private Bag UB 00704. Gaborone.

Botswana

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

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

19/02/2008

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

Yes

2. Description of the SLM Technology

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

Country:

Botswana

Region/ State/ Province:

Boteti

Further specification of location:

Central District

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. Classification of the SLM Technology

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

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Main crops (cash and food crops):

Major cash crops: Sorghum, beans, melons, sweet- reeds
Major food crop: Sorghum, maize, beans, Bambara beans

Grazing land

Grazing land

Extensive grazing land:
  • Semi-nomadism/ pastoralism
  • Ranching
Comments:

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

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
Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 140 Longest growing period from month to month: Oct - Mar

Livestock density (if relevant):

1-10 LU /km2

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • area closure (stop use, support restoration)

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:
  • 10-100 km2
Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 10k m2.

SLM technology area (Ranch) still to be idntified through consultation with Land-board authorities

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V1: Tree and shrub cover
  • V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
  • V3: Clearing of vegetation
management measures

management measures

  • M1: Change of land use type
  • M2: Change of management/ intensity level
Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures

Secondary measures: management measures

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
soil erosion by wind

soil erosion by wind

  • Et: loss of topsoil
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. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: high (Very important)

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate (Should have knowledge)

Main technical functions: increase of biomass (quantity), promotion of vegetation species and varieties (quality, eg palatable fodder)

Secondary technical functions: increase in organic matter, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), increase of infiltration

Change of land use type: Game Ranching

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Pula

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

7.0

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

8.00

4.4 Establishment activities

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

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 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
Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 9 month(s)

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

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 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
Comments:

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

4.8 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. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

Annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:

450.00

Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

Seasonal summer rains

Agro-climatic zone
  • semi-arid

Thermal climate class: subtropics. Wet and dry season - subtropical. Open tree savannah (length of growing period = 75 - 179 days)

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
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

Soil depth on average:
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
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

Ground water table:

> 50 m

Availability of surface water:

poor/ none

Water quality (untreated):

poor drinking water (treatment required)

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

Species diversity:
  • low
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

Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • very poor
  • very rich
Individuals or groups:
  • groups/ community
Level of mechanization:
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
  • women
  • men
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 owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • small-scale
Comments:

Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology on grazing land:
5-15 ha (ranked 1, land is tribal owned - no individual household grazing of land - communal grazing)
1,000-10,000 ha (ranked 2, for fenced farms - rich farmers)

Size of grazing land per household. The land tenure system is that ofcommunity grazing- tribal land. Individual grazing land is very limited (private leasehold ranches). Most of the land is communal owned and the community graze their animals extensily, which means, there is no cotrol of grazing, no individual ownership of land but the tribe. Individuals can keep as many animals as they wish. However, each individual looks after his /her own animals for management purposes (water provision, castration, deworming, guard agaist predators etc)

Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology oncropland: 5-15 ha: On average is small fields

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

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased

crop quality

decreased
increased

fodder production

decreased
increased

fodder quality

decreased
increased

animal production

decreased
increased

wood production

decreased
increased

forest/ woodland quality

decreased
increased

non-wood forest production

decreased
increased

risk of production failure

increased
decreased

product diversity

decreased
increased

production area

decreased
increased

land management

hindered
simplified

energy generation

decreased
increased
Water availability and quality

drinking water availability

decreased
increased

drinking water quality

decreased
increased

water availability for livestock

decreased
increased

water quality for livestock

decreased
increased

irrigation water availability

decreased
increased

irrigation water quality

decreased
increased

demand for irrigation water

increased
decreased
Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased
decreased

farm income

decreased
increased

diversity of income sources

decreased
increased

economic disparities

increased
decreased

workload

increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved

health situation

worsened
improved

land use/ water rights

worsened
improved

cultural opportunities

reduced
improved

recreational opportunities

reduced
improved

community institutions

weakened
strengthened

national institutions

weakened
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

conflict mitigation

worsened
improved
Comments/ specify:

Increased economic inequity

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups

worsened
improved

Improved livelihoods and human well-being

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Technology not yet applied in Boteti

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quantity

decreased
increased

water quality

decreased
increased

harvesting/ collection of water

reduced
improved

surface runoff

increased
decreased

excess water drainage

reduced
improved

groundwater table/ aquifer

lowered
recharge

evaporation

increased
decreased
Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil loss

increased
decreased

soil accumulation

decreased
increased

soil crusting/ sealing

increased
reduced

soil compaction

increased
reduced

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased

salinity

increased
decreased

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased

acidity

increased
reduced
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Vegetation cover

decreased
increased

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased

plant diversity

decreased
increased

invasive alien species

increased
reduced

animal diversity

decreased
increased

beneficial species

decreased
increased

habitat diversity

decreased
increased

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased
Climate and disaster risk reduction

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

water availability

decreased
increased

reliable and stable stream flows in dry season

reduced
increased

downstream flooding

increased
reduced

downstream siltation

increased
decreased

groundwater/ river pollution

increased
reduced

buffering/ filtering capacity

reduced
improved

wind transported sediments

increased
reduced

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 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. References and links

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

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules