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

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?

Yes

Comments:

Makurian rangeland is in bad condition. The land is largely degraded and dominated by the invasive species "Opuntia". Makurian Group Ranch has abandoned the in 2007 implemented "Holistic Management" principles. However, one has to take into account that Masai pastoralists have historically been squeezed from all sides into smaller areas. Compare Herger (2018).

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

The grazing principles of a Masai group ranch (pastoralists) deal with high numbers of livestock in semi-arid lands with very limited water resources. Makurian has abandoned "Holistic Management" principles and applies a more traditional management system today. There is a grazing plan for the rains, while during the dry season everybody seeks for water and pasture individually. Bare land is recovered by "Boma” technology (strategic corralling of animals overnight) and reseeding. The rangeland is due to high stocking rates severely degraded with lots of erosion, bare ground, and invasive species. High stocking rates have on the one hand historical and political reasons and on the other hand socioeconomic rationales.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

On Makurian Masai Group Ranch, livestock production management is through a combination of traditional livestock keeping practices and newly introduced management principles. Livestock production at Makurian is for subsistence and local use, and has very high cultural significance.
During the wet season, livestock are “bunched” together and rotational grazing in blocks is practiced. The management team (elders) group all livestock from each village (16 villages) and each uses the block next to their village. Livestock are hardly separated (cows, heifers, steers, bulls all herded together).
o Block 1: Lower Makurian - 1 month
o Block 2: Makurian Loruko - 2 weeks (next to Lolldaiga Northern Gate)
o Block 3: Munishoi Noosidan - 2-3 months
o Block 4: Mukogodo Forest - 1-2 months
o Block 5: Orieteti Conservation Area - 3 weeks. Soft grass, runs out quickly.
o Block 6: Ol Kinyei Mulango - 2 weeks. Next to Olenaisho
They apply resting periods of three months after usage (if this rule is broken, the owner is punished by a fine of one livestock unit).
When it becomes dry, everyone is responsible for their own livestock. Owners of livestock want to maintain and decide about their livestock individually, this is why "Holistic Management" and specific grazing plans for the dry season did not work.
In comparison to earlier days when the whole family moved, and livestock was herded by morans (young warriors), they hire external herders nowadays (800 herders in total). Herders seek whatever water and pasture remains on the group ranch, then move on to:
(a) Ngare Ndare forest: 1,000 cattle and 1,000 sheep and goats (shoats) per year on average, for 1-2 months, over an area of 250 km2;
(b) Mukogodo forest: 3,000 cattle and 4,000 shoats per year on average, for 3-4 weeks, over 250 km2, and
(c) Mount Kenya: 12,000 cattle and 5,000 shoats on average per year, for 1-2 months, on an undefined area.
In Mukogodo forest, Makurian Masai have also officially settled, in Ngare Ndare forest on the other hand they graze on the basis of an informal agreement and on Mount Kenya it is not official pasture - but grazing is tolerated). They are also assisted by private ranches to graze during droughts (Lolldaiga and Borana; for every 1,000 units, they usually pay 5 Ksh per cow per month: a token amount). On one private ranch (Borana) they also graze steers and cows for fattening and selling.

Furthermore, Laikipia rangelands support some of the highest densities of wildlife in Kenya, however, group ranches less so than private ranches. The wild herbivore biomass density on group ranches is by Georgiadis et al. (2007) estimated at 205 ha /TLU.
Bomas (corrals in Kiswahili) for the livestock are constructed in traditional style, where animals are kept closely bunched together in enclosures overnight. Bomas are strategically located on denuded land to rehabilitate the land (through dung accumulation and breaking the soil crust by hoof action). Every homestead has one boma (approximately 1,500 in total in the whole Group Ranch). When herders are moving with livestock, temporary bomas are constructed.
Sales are usually need-driven (e.g. for school fees) within a family. They sell to the nearest local markets (in DolDol and Nanyuki) or directly to butchers. Makurian is also part of the "Dung Market" in Mukogodo District, where livestock dung is sold as manure for crop production. Moreover, Makurian makes additional income by harvesting sand and selling it for construction.

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:

Kenya

Region/ State/ Province:

Laikipia

Further specification of location:

Mukogodo Division

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, specify area covered (in km2):

78.0

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

• 10-100 km2

Comments:

The area size of the group ranch is 68 km2, however, the total area affected by livestock is 78 km2.

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Holistic Management approach by Allan Savory was implemented in 2007, which was abandoned after a few years. This documentation focuses on the traditional system and new management principles they introduced since then. For Holistic Management see "Il Ngwesi" and "Borana" documentations.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity

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

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:

• Semi-nomadic pastoralism

Animal type:

• camels
• goats
• mules and asses
• sheep

• cattle

Products and services:

• meat
• milk

Species:

goats

Count:

20000

Species:

sheep

Count:

10000

Settlements, infrastructure

• Settlements, buildings

Remarks:

Villages, bomas, manyattas.
8'000 inhabitans.

Comments:

Main animal species and products: Cattle, goats, sheep, donkeys, camels. Meat and milk production (also blood) and as a bank/ value asset. Subsistence and local production. Livestock: 13,500 TLU, Stocking Rate 0.6 ha/TLU calculating the total area used by livestock (78 km2). Pressure on land (including wildlife density of 205 ha/TLU): 0.6 ha/TLU Livestock numbers: 15,000 cattle, 30,000 shoats (ratio goats - sheep 2:1) Livestock fluctuations (per year): -500 cattle sales, -4,000 shoats sales, +100 cattle purchase, +350 shoats purchase, -3,500 shoats slaughtered. +6,000 cattle, + 15,000 shoats due to natural breeding. On average, 2200 steers on Borana rangeland for fattening purpose. During droughts, livestock move to neighbouring private ranches (1,000 cows each on Lolldaiga and Borana on average) Wildlife: Giraffe, antelope/gazelle (e.g. gerenuk, impala, Thomson's gazelle), baboons, zebras, dikdik, hares, elephants, and more.

Number of growing seasons per year: 2
Short rains in November and December. Long rains in April and May. Rains from (October) November to December are usually better in this area. Rainfalls with strong local variations and changing regimes.
Livestock density: 13’500 TLU, Stocking Rate 0.6 ha/TLU

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
• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

management measures

• M2: Change of management/ intensity level
• M4: Major change in timing of activities

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

• Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
• Wg: gully erosion/ gullying

soil erosion by wind

• Et: loss of topsoil

physical soil deterioration

• Pc: compaction
• Pk: slaking and crusting
• Pi: soil sealing

biological degradation

• Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
• Bh: loss of habitats
• Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
• Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
• Bl: loss of soil life

Comments:

Across the grasslands and rangelands, an increase in bare land and bush has been a clear trend all over Laikipia for many years, both on community-owned lands and private ranches. Major identified ecological problems caused (partly) by livestock production in the research area are: major identified ecological problems (partly) caused by livestock production are: bare ground, low contents of soil organic carbon and plant-available nutrients, soil erosion (sealing, crusting, rills and gullies, water flow patterns, sheet erosion, pedestals), poor soil properties, undesirable species, and (increasing) woody and invasive species (Makurian is heavily affected by the invasion of Opuntia strica species). The current major problem on rangelands is the invasive species Opuntia stricta, which, however, only could spread that widely because of degraded land in the first place. The technology aims at improving vegetation cover of the land and thereby reducing further degradation and restoring degraded land.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

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

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

Comments:

Every family hires their own herder during the dry season. The family is staying put. Inhabitants are also considered as labor since they are usually all engaged in livestock production. However, milk and blood production are not considered.
Animal treatments consist of vaccination, spraying (ticks), injections.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Herders

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

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.

Red and brown sandy soils. Black cotton soil. Luvisol, Regosol, Vertisol
SOC 0.8 %
pH: 6.4
Clay: 9 %
Silt: 41 %
Sand: 50 %
Fore more data on rangeland health see Herger (2018)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Grassed acacia bushland. Bare land up to 70% during dry season. Loss of (native) vegetation. Invasive species coming in. Dominant grasses: Eragrostis species, Cynadon species, Hyparrhenia species, Kelenger species. Dominant shrubs: Opuntia, Lyceum europaeum, Barleria acuthodies. Dominant trees: Acacia drepanolobium, Acacia etbaica. Detailed list of all species (also wildlife) available (see Herger 2018).

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Masai people. 8'000 Masai living in Makurian. Traditional livestyle. Livestock with very high cultural value.
Have been historically "squeezed" from all sides into smaller areas for livestock keeping. Future of pastoralism is in question.

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

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

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

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

All listed impacts are as perceived by land users according to Milton Sepeika, Chief of Makurian. In his opinion, abandoning Holistic Management principles had many advantages. According to him, animal production has increased. Though he recognices the bad condition of the land and poor conditon of livestock. He mainly blames the drought and the Opuntia invasion for these problems. Results from a rangeland health assessment (only ecological conditions) show heavily degraded ecological conditions (dry season up to 70% bare soil, poor soil and vegetation, erosions features, inability of producing annual and perennial grasses after rains etc) (compare Herger 2018). A

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

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)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

• 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

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

Yes

If yes, indicate to which changing conditions it was adapted:

• climatic change/ extremes

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

Masai people have changed their livestock composition towards owning more smallstock (goats and sheep) than cattle. Goats are tolerant to drought, and as browsers they don't need grass. They can be turned into money much quicker than a cow in times of need. Their faster reproductive cycle means they can rebuild numbers faster than cattle after losses through drought.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

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

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Imfeld, N. (2016). Modeling Seasonal and Annual Precipitation using long-term Climate Records and Topography. MSc Thesis. University of Bern.

Available from where? Costs?

Online

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Herger, M.B. (2018). Environmental Impacts of Red Meat Production. MSc Thesis. University of Bern.

Available from where? Costs?

University of Bern

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Georgiadis, N.J., Olivero, I.N., Romanach, S.S. (2007). Savanna herbivore dynamics in a livestock-dominated landscape: I. Dependence on land use, rainfall, density, and time. Biology Conservation 137(3): 461-472.

Available from where? Costs?

Online