1.2 Detalles de contacto de las personas de referencia e instituciones involucradas en la evaluación y la documentación del Enfoque

Nombre del proyecto que facilitó la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque (si fuera relevante)

Book project: Guidelines to Rangeland Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rangeland Management)

Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)

Department of Range and Wildlife Sciences, South Eastern Kenya University (SEKU) - Kenia

1.3 Condiciones referidas al uso de datos documentados mediante WOCAT

¿Cuándo se compilaron los datos (en el campo)?

10/11/2017

El compilador y la/s persona(s) de referencia claves aceptan las condiciones acerca del uso de los datos documentados mediante WOCAT :

Sí

1.4 Referencia/s al/los Cuestionario(s) de Tecnologías MST

2.1 Breve descripción del Enfoque

On-farm pasture establishment demonstrations offer a practical approach to encourage adoption in the arid and semi-arid environments in Kenya.

2.2 Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST

Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST:

The characteristic feature of the demonstration approach is the interaction of different stakeholders in on-farm showcasing of sustainable land management technologies. The stakeholders include land users, NGOs, SLM specialists, local government officials and university researchers. SLM specialists and university researchers, with the help of local government and NGO field officers demonstrate the entire process of grass reseeding from site selection, seedbed preparation, grass species selection, weeding, monitoring and evaluation of both plant and soil parameters. The method comprises on-farm demonstrations both at individual, and pastoral and agropastoral group sites, and a model demonstration site within the university premises. The role of the main stakeholders involved in the process are sharing the knowledge, skills and technology (the SLM specialists; researchers from the university), linking the SLM specialists with the pastoral communities, sharing their experiences through on-farm demonstrations and explanations of similar technologies local government (county officials), sharing knowledge of past experiences and skills (local NGOs). The end users of the technologies, namely the pastoral communities share their indigenous technical knowledge related to natural resource management. In this case study the end-users comprised approximately 40 livestock keepers. Over five visits and through the demonstrations, they liked the approach because it was more practical being on-farm (“seeing is believing”). It was appreciated as being easily replicated on their own land under the same local conditions of climate, soil type, grass species, methods of land preparation, and land use system. After interacting with the SLM specialists from the universities during the visits and on-farm demonstrations, land-users have adopted the technology to ensure a continuous supply of pasture for their livestock.

2.3 Fotos del Enfoque

2.5 País/ región/ lugares donde el Enfoque fue aplicado

2.6 Fechas de inicio y conclusión del Enfoque

2.7 Tipo de Enfoque

• iniciativa local reciente/ innovadora

2.8 Propósitos/ objetivos principales del Enfoque

To demonstrate indigenous pasture establishment on-farm, and encourage land users to practice reseeding as a means of 1) rehabilitating their degraded lands, 2) providing forage for their livestock and 3) income generation through sale of surplus animal products i.e. milk, hay and seeds.

2.9 Condiciones que facilitan o impiden la implementación de la/s Tecnología/s aplicadas bajo el Enfoque

3.1 Partes interesadas involucradas en el Enfoque y sus roles

3.2 Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales en las distintas fases del Enfoque

	Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales	Especifique quién se involucró y describa las actividades
iniciación/ motivación	interactivo	Local land users involved in the site selection and involved in the plans of the project. Local land users share their indigenous technical knowledge gained through years of experience on aspects such as: which species are preferred by grazing animals (i.e. ranking of different forage species); which grass species perform better under different rainfall regimes, topography and soil types; which grass species are best suited for soil conservation and soil erosion control.
planificación	interactivo	Local land users actively involved in deciding on schedule for land users visits and demonstrations. Local land users participate and contribute to the planning of sowing dates, methods of land preparation, grass species selection in relation to their individual taste and preference and intended use (fodder for livestock, soil conservation and combating degradation, large-scale seed production).
implementación	interactivo	Demonstration conducted on individual 'farms'/ pastures and local land users implement the technologies as 'model land users'.
monitoreo y evaluación	interactivo	Constant communication through short message services (SMS) and telephone calls on progress and challenges as land users monitor changes, e.g. seed germination and seedling establishment. Local land users report this to the SLM specialists e.g. researchers in the university and post-graduate students involved in the projects.
Research	pasivo	Research is mainly conducted by SLM specialists at university and students. The local government is also involved in research since some of the students recruited to be part of the project: for example PhD and MSc students are permanently employed by the local government. Local land users share their indigenous technical knowledge through one-on-one informal discussions/sessions between them and the SLM specialists and students.

3.3 Flujograma (si estuviera disponible)

3.4 La toma de decisiones en la selección de Tecnología(s) MST

Especifique quién decidió la selección de las Tecnología/ Tecnologías a implementarse:

• todos los actores relevantes, como parte de un enfoque participativo

Especifique las bases que sustentaron la toma de decisiones:

• la evaluación de conocimiento MST bien documentado (la toma de decisiones se basa en evidencia)
• hallazgos de investigaciones
• la experiencia personal y opiniones (no documentadas)

4.1 Construcción de capacidades / capacitación

¿Se proporcionó la capacitación a usuarios de tierras/ otras partes interesadas?

Sí

Especifique quién fue capacitado:

• usuarios de tierras
• personal de campo/ consejeros

Si fuese relevante, también especifique género, edad, estatus, etnicidad, etc.

The land users and field staff/advisers were drawn from both genders (male and female). University undergraduate students (both male and female students, between the ages of 20-24 years) were also involved in the training during on-farm practical sessions.

Forma de capacitación:

• áreas de demostración

Temas avanzados:

site selection, seedbed preparation, choice of grass species, monitoring and evaluation (plant and soil attributes), maintenance and further management.

4.2 Servicio de asesoría

¿Los usuarios de tierras tienen acceso a un servicio de asesoría?

Sí

Especifique si servicio proporcionado se realizó:

• en los campos de los usuarios de tierras

Describa/ comentarios:

Advisory services on-farm during visits.

4.3 Fortalecimiento institucional (desarrollo institucional)

¿Se establecieron o fortalecieron instituciones mediante el Enfoque?

• sí, moderadamente

Especifique el nivel o los niveles en los que se fortalecieron o establecieron las instituciones:

• local
• regional
• nacional

Describa la institución, roles y responsabilidades, miembros, etc.

University (South Eastern Kenya University, SEKU) - extension and outreach and research and academic exchange programs with other research institutions e.g. Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation (KALRO), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Kenya Seed Company, and other universities, for example the University of Nairobi (UoN).

Especifique el tipo de apoyo:

• financiero
• construcción de capacidades/ entrenamiento

Proporcione detalles adicionales:

Financial support from within university research funds and the National Research Fund (NRF), Kenya, through the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Capacity building through postgraduate training involving researchers from SEKU, KALRO, ICRISAT and UoN.

4.4 Monitoreo y evaluación

¿El monitoreo y la evaluación forman parte del Enfoque?

Sí

Comentarios:

Adoption and uptake of the technologies among land users.

Si respondió que sí, ¿la documentación se utilizará para monitoreo y evaluación?

Sí

Comentarios:

The approach demonstrates sustainable land management technologies e.g. grass reseeding, on farm. This is aimed at increasing adoption and spread of the technology by other land users.

4.5 Investigación

¿La investigación formó parte del Enfoque?

Sí

Especifique los temas:

• ecología
• tecnología

Proporcione detalles adicionales e indique quién hizo la investigación:

By an SLM specialist: that is researcher at the university under a research project.

5.1 Presupuesto anual para el componente MST del Enfoque

Si no se conoce el presupuesto anual preciso, indique el rango:

• 2,000-10,000

Comentarios (ej. fuentes principales de financiamiento/ donantes principales):

Food and Business Applied Research Fund (ARF) funded by the The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), Netherlands.

5.2 Apoyo financiero/material proporcionado a los usuarios de tierras

¿Los usuarios de tierras recibieron financiamiento/ apoyo material para implementar la Tecnología/ Tecnologías? :

Sí

Si respondió sí, especifique el tipo o los tipos de apoyo, condiciones y proveedor(es) :

Land and seed bed preparation: hiring of casual labour and rent of machinery / equipment (ox-plough / tractor).

5.3 Subsidios para insumos específicos (incluyendo mano de obra)

• mano de obra

• equipo

• agrícola

Si la mano de obra de usuarios de tierras fue un insumo sustancial, ¿fue:

• voluntario?

Comentarios:

This is mainly for maintaining, monitoring and evaluation of the on-farm sites e.g. aspects of maintaining the fence to keep of free-ranging livestock from damaging the established pastures and assisting other hired labourers e.g. in seeding.

5.4 Crédito

¿Se proporcionó crédito bajo el Enfoque para actividades MST?

No

5.5 Otros incentivos o instrumentos

¿Se usaron otros incentivos o instrumentos para promover la implementación de Tecnologías MST?

No

6.1 Impactos del Enfoque

6.2 Motivación principal del usuario de la tierra para implementar MST

6.3 Sostenibilidad de las actividades del Enfoque

¿Pueden los usuarios de tierras sostener lo que se implementó mediante el Enfoque (sin apoyo externo)?

• sí

Si respondió que sí, describa cómo:

Approach is practical and involves the use of already existing knowledge and skills e.g. use of ox-ploughs for site preparation is not foreign; local land users have interacted through their knowledge of the indigenous grasses.

6.4 Fortalezas/ ventajas del Enfoque

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra
Ease of understanding and appreciation because of its practical nature.
Approach allows a close interaction and exchange between the different stakeholders (land users, NGOs, local government officials, SLM specialists, universities) i.e. provides a science-practice link; learning by doing.

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave
On-farm and practical approach for easy adoption by other land users.
Takes advantage of group dynamics where different stakeholders share and provide immediate feedback and seek clarification throughout the process thus enriching the discussions.

6.5 Debilidades/ desventajas del Enfoque y formas de sobreponerse a ellos

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra	¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
Source of conflict between land user where the on-farm demonstration has been conducted and other neighbouring land users e.g. diverting runoff in the upland thus reducing the volume of rainwater reaching farms located down-slope.	Continuous capacity building, knowledge sharing and sensitization.
Choice of on-farm demonstration site at an individual land owner can lead to jealousies among other land users. Choice of on-farm demonstration site at an individual land owner can lead to aggravation among other land users.	Use of communal or group owned land for on-farm demonstrations.
Allocation of time to attend the on-farm demonstrations. The approach is often conducted before the onset of the rains, when the land users are busy preparing their own farms for sowing. This might lead to low turn-out during demonstrations.	In consultation with the land users, set the date(s) when majority of the land users are available.

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave	¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
Language barrier (SLM specialists and land users).	Involving a local land user/personnel to bridge the gap.

7.1 Métodos/ fuentes de información

7.2 Referencias a publicaciones disponibles

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

KZ Mganga, NKR Musimba, DM Nyariki. 2015. Competition indices of three perennial grasses used to rehabilitate degraded semi-arid rangelands in Kenya. The Rangelands Journal 37: 489-495

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

The Rangeland Journal, USD 25

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

KZ Mganga, NKR Musimba, DM Nyariki. 2015. Combining sustainable land management technologies to combat land degradation and improve rural livelihoods in semi-arid lands in Kenya. Environmental Management 56: 1538-1548

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

Environmental Management, USD 38

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

KZ Mganga, NKR Musimba, MM Nyangito, DM Nyariki, AW Mwang’ombe. 2015. The choice of grass species to combat desertification in semi-arid Kenyan rangelands is greatly influenced by their forage value for livestock. Grass and Forage Science 70: 161-167.

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

Grass and Forage Science, USD 38

7.3 Vínculos a la información relevante disponible en línea

Título/ descripción:

Competition indices of three perennial grasses used to rehabilitate degraded semi-arid rangelands in Kenya

URL:

http://www.publish.csiro.au/rj/RJ15023

Título/ descripción:

Combining sustainable land management technologies to combat land degradation and improve rural livelihoods in semi-arid lands in Kenya

URL:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-015-0579-9

Título/ descripción:

The choice of grass species to combat deserti􀀹cation in semi-arid Kenyan rangelands is greatly in􀁇uenced by their forage value for livestock

URL:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gfs.12089/abstract