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

1.3 Condiciones referidas al uso de datos documentados mediante WOCAT

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

22/01/2017

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 Declaración de la sostenibilidad de la Tecnología descrita

¿La Tecnología aquí descrita resulta problemática en relación a la degradación de la tierra, de tal forma que no puede considerársela una tecnología sostenible para el manejo de la tierra?

No

Comentarios:

Yes and no, only time will tell here. Grazing principles and management (with partly applied Holistic Managment) of Il Ngwesi Group Ranch are said to be exemplary for group ranches in the area. In evaluation processes since the introduction of the new principles and also in reports, they were rated as "best practice". Land recovery is according to these reports in full swing. However, in the field the picture looks partially different. The land is in large areas (still) heavily degraded. Data suggests that vegetation and soil is in a rather bad condition - many erosion features characterize the land. Nevertheless, according to land users, land coverage has significantly improved since the introduction of the new technologies.

2.1 Breve descripción de la Tecnología

Definición de la Tecnología:

A group ranch belonging to the Masai (traditionally, nomad pastoralists) has applied "Holistic Management" grazing principles. The principles consist of separate, planned grazing in villages during the rains, then “bunching” and moving of all animals in herds during the dry season. Denuded land is recovered by a "Boma” technology: i.e. strategic corralling of animals overnight, and reseeding.

2.2 Descripción detallada de la Tecnología

Descripción:

On Il Ngwesi Masai Group Ranch, livestock production management is a combination of traditional livestock keeping and holistic grazing management principles which were introduced in 2007. Livestock production at Il Ngwesi is for subsistence and sales - and has very high cultural significance. 80% of the land is used for conservation, where wildlife and their habitat are protected. The vision is to integrate community development and sustainable environmental management. Holistic Management (HM) was originally conceived by Allan Savory (1988), and is promoted by the Laikipia Wildlife Forum. It integrates decision-making, planning, and livestock keeping. On the land, this means bunching of all livestock close together (in order to act as a "plough" and break the soil to allow seeds, nutrients, and water to infiltrate) resulting in better plant growth. By moving the animals together from block to block, HM aims at managing high numbers of livestock while restoring degraded land. Instead of individual livestock-owning families herding and trekking their own animals, consolidated herds are now managed and moved together, and overseen by herders and supervisors. This allows intensive grazing in restricted areas while resting the remaining land - instead of continuous open grazing. However, Holistic Management principles are still a matter of controversy. While advocates of these management principles do not limit herd sizes, opponents see the root cause of degradation exactly in too high stocking rates. Criticism is plentiful and reviews of the method state that there are no peer-reviewed studies that prove that Holistic Management is superior to conventional grazing systems in outcomes (Carter et al. 2014, Briske et al. 2014).The group ranch land consists of a settlement and a conservation area. The conservation area is further subdivided into a small core zone, measuring 500 hectares and a larger buffer zone of 6,000 hectares. Within this buffer zone, pastoralists are permitted to graze livestock during the dry season.Besides these two main grazing areas in their group ranch, they use additional grazing areas outside their territory such as pasture in forests. In one forest - Mukogodo - they have settled officially; in Ngare Ngare and on Mount Kenya, on the other hand, it is more of an informal agreement. In Il Ngwesi, HM principles are very strictly applied in the conservation area; elsewhere only partly or not at all. During the movements to the forest glades and Mount Kenya, HM principles are maintained as far as possible. This documentation describes the combined grazing management system. During the rains, the grazing system is largely by traditional management: animals remain in and around villages managed individually by households. During the dry season, all livestock are bunched together and managed as one herd.During the wet season, grazing at Il Ngwesi Group Ranch is organized by elders within their seven villages. HM principles are only partly applied. During the dry season, once all the grazing land is eaten, livestock are bunched together and managed by a few herders and overseers. The block system rotation starts. To seek new pasture and water, cattle and smallstock are led to forest glades, and then to the Il Ngwesi conservation area. As soon as the forest pasture is gone, they move on to the conservation area. Usually, this movement of livestock to forests and conservation area starts in February; then they return to the villages in April; and then back to the forests and conservation area until the next rains in November. Whilst the livestock are bunched together, large bomas (corrals in Kiswahili) are constructed for overnight enclosure. Bomas are sited on bare land where dung accumulation and crust breaking by hooves helps rehabilitate land. Every year the boma sites are shifted slightly according to a plan. The total area that can be restored per year is almost 1% of the area of Il Ngwesi.

2.3 Fotografías de la Tecnología

2.5 País/ región/ lugares donde la Tecnología fue aplicada y que se hallan comprendidos por esta evaluación

2.6 Fecha de la implementación

Indique año de implementación:

2007

2.7 Introducción de la Tecnología

Especifique cómo se introdujo la Tecnología:

• como parte de un sistema tradicional (> 50 años)
• mediante proyectos/ intervenciones externas

Comentarios (tipo de proyecto, etc.):

Holistic Management approach by Allan Savory.
In Laikipia, it was introduced by Richard Hartfield, Laikipia Wildlife Forum and funded by Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF), Lewa Conservancy and Northern Rangeland Trust (NRT) (approximately 50% of all additional costs of Il Ngwesi since the implementation were covered by funding). Agreement with elders was reached first, then the community was trained.

3.1 Propósito(s) principal(es) de la Tecnología MST

• mejorar la producción
• reducir, prevenir, restaurar la degradación del suelo
• conservar el ecosistema
• preservar/ mejorar biodiversidad

3.2 Tipo(s) actuales de uso de la tierra donde se aplica la Tecnología

3.3 Información adicional sobre el uso de tierras

Provisión de agua para la tierra donde se aplica la Tecnología:

• de secano

Número de temporadas de cultivo por año:

• 2

Especifique:

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.

Densidad del ganado (si fuese relevante):

4’800 TLU; Stocking rate: 3.3 ha/TLU. Pressure on land: 3.3 ha/TLU

3.4 Grupo MST al que pertenece la Tecnología

• pastoralismo y manejo de tierras de pastoreo
• cobertura de suelo/ vegetal mejorada

3.5 Difusión de la Tecnología

Especifique la difusión de la Tecnología:

• distribuida parejamente sobre un área

Si la tecnología se halla difundida homogéneamente en un área, indique el área aproximada que cubre:

• 10-100 km2

Comentarios:

Il Ngwesi has an area size of 87 km2. However, the total affected land by livestock is 157km2. The technology is also applied on other ranches (mainly private ranches, see the documentation for neighboring "Borana") in Mukogodo division.

3.6 Medidas MST que componen la Tecnología

3.7 Principales tipos de degradación del suelo encarados con la Tecnología

Comentarios:

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 (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. However, Il Ngwesi is not affected by the invasive species Opuntia stricta. For more information on rangeland health see Herger (2018). The technology aims at improving vegetation cover of the land and thereby reducing further degradation and restoring degraded land.

3.8 Prevención, reducción o restauración de la degradación del suelo

Especifique la meta de la Tecnología con relación a la degradación de la tierra:

• reducir la degradación del suelo
• restaurar/ rehabilitar tierra severamente degradada

4.1 Dibujo técnico de la Tecnología

4.2 Especificaciones técnicas/ explicaciones del dibujo técnico

Grazing map of Il Ngwesi in Mukogodo Division
Grazing Principles:
- Rotational, planned grazing
- Bunching
- Resting periods for pasture
- Bomas for bare patches (night corrals)
Value Chain:
• Natural Breeding/buying (Ranches & individually)
• Grazing
o Settlement area (in red, during the wet season, until pasture is gone, organised by elders, bunching of all animals as soon as it gets dry)
o Mukogodo Forest / Ngare Ndare Forest (30% of total livestock, remainder to conservation area for grazing directly)
o Conservation area (6 blocks)
o Mukogodo Forest/Ngare Ndare Forest/Mount Kenya (Ngare Ndare Forest as corridor to Mount Kenya, about 40% of total livestock goes to Mount Kenya)
• Need-driven sales to local butcheries/NRT/Ranches
Il Ngwesi Masai also started to buy land outside their Group Ranch.

4.3 Información general sobre el cálculo de insumos y costos

Especifique cómo se calcularon los costos e insumos:

• por unidad de Tecnología

Especifique la moneda usada para calcular costos:

• dólares americanos

4.4 Actividades de establecimiento

	Actividad	Tipo de medida	Momento
1.	Training of elders and community by project leaders	Manejo
2.	Grazing planning for bunched animals (livestock from all households)	Manejo
3.	Hiring herders, supervisors, watchmen etc	Manejo

4.5 Costos e insumos necesarios para el establecimiento

	Especifique insumo	Unidad	Cantidad	Costos por unidad	Costos totales por insumo	% de los costos cubiertos por los usuarios de las tierras
Mano de obra	Costs for establishment unknown

Comentarios:

Trainings were funded by NRT, LWF and Lewa Conservancy. No figures on this.

4.6 Actividades de establecimiento/ recurrentes

	Actividad	Tipo de medida	Momento/ frequencia
1.	Herders, supervisors, watchmen etc	Manejo
2.	Animal treatments (vaccination, spraying, injections)	Agronómicas
3.	Planning activites	Manejo
4.	Boma Management (mainly movement of Bomas)	Manejo

4.7 Costos e insumos necesarios para actividades de mantenimiento/ recurrentes (por año)

	Especifique insumo	Unidad	Cantidad	Costos por unidad	Costos totales por insumo	% de los costos cubiertos por los usuarios de las tierras
Mano de obra	Herders, watchmen	Person-days	250,0	540,0	135000,0	100,0
Mano de obra	Supervisors	Person-days	3,0	720,0	2160,0	100,0
Mano de obra	Planning activities, management	Person-days	20,0	1500,0	30000,0	100,0
Mano de obra	Livestock-owning families (for wet season, no wages paid, livelihood)	Person-days	8000,0	300,0	2400000,0
Material de construcción	Boma Movement
Otros	Animals treatments (spraying against ticks)	Per livestock unit	5000,0	5,0	25000,0	100,0
Otros	Injections, vaccine	Per livestock unit	5000,0	3,0	15000,0	100,0
Indique los costos totales para mantenecer la Tecnología					2607160,0

Si el usuario de la tierra no cubrió el 100% de los costos, indique quién financió el resto del costo:

Overall additional costs since introduction of new technology are estimated at 20% higher than before. 50% are covered by project funding (LWF, NRT, Lewa Conservancy).

Comentarios:

Costs per unit are multiplied by days.
According to the interviewed manager, total costs are only USD 18'000 (without herders). However, the listing of all costs results in much higher total costs. Total animal treatment costs for Makurian Group Ranch in comparison are USD 428'000 (labor USD 380'000, animal treatment USD 48'000, without livestock-owning families).
Also, people living in the area (population of 8'000 inhabitants) are involved in livestock keeping and are included here in calcuations as labor (for 3 months, wet season, 10% of total population).
Cost/benefit is currently negative for livestock keeping. Income due to livestock sales is roughly estimated USD 340'000 (price for cattle on average USD 400 per unit, sales around 500 p.a., price for goats and sheep each USD 40 per unit, sales around 2'000 p.a., slaughtered units (for subsistence use) cattle: 50, shoats: 1'000 - detailed figures available Herger 2018).

4.8 Factores más determinantes que afectan los costos:

Describa los factores más determinantes que afectan los costos:

- Managing of one big herd, many supervisors needed.
- Movement of bomas.
- Livestock-owning families (although they obviously don't receive any salary): this is simultaneously their livelihood and used for subsistence. But once all their livestock is bunched in a big herd, they lose their nutritional source (milk, blood) and livelihood (sometimes they keep back a few units for this reason).

5.1 Clima

5.2 Topografía

Indique si la Tecnología se aplica específicamente en:

• no relevante

Comentarios y especificaciones adicionales sobre topografía :

Hilly areas (e.g. Sanga village) and flat areas in lower altitude (conservation area).

5.3 Suelos

Si se halla disponible, adjunte una descripción completa de los suelos o especifique la información disponible, por ej., tipo de suelo, pH/ acidez de suelo, capacidad de intercambio catiónico, nitrógeno, salinidad, etc. :

Red and brown sandy soils. Black cotton soil. Luvisol, Regosol, Vertisol.
SOC 1.1-1.4 %
pH: 6.3
Clay: 12%
Silt: 53%
Sand: 35%
More information in Herger (2018).

5.4 Disponibilidad y calidad de agua

¿La salinidad del agua es un problema?

No

¿Se está llevando a cabo la inundación del área? :

No

Comentarios y especificaciones adicionales sobre calidad y cantidad de agua:

Few springs, Ngare Ndare river, no boreholes. Source is Mount Kenya.

5.5 Biodiversidad

Comentarios y especificaciones adicionales sobre biodiversidad:

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

5.6 Las características de los usuarios de la tierra que aplican la Tecnología

Indique otras características relevantes de los usuarios de las tierras:

Masai people. 8'000 Masai living in Il Ngwesi. Traditional lifestyle. Livestock with very high cultural value. About 10% subsistence use, 90% is sold for local and national markets (mainly local).
Very little agriculture; tourism (award-winning eco-lodge in conservation area); people start to diversify. Schooling of children has a high importance today (e.g. smallstock is sold for school fees). Children and young warriors are traditionally herders, however, it is shifting towards hiring herders and sending children to school.
Have been historically "squeezed" from all sides into smaller areas for livestock keeping. Future of pastoralism is in question.

5.7 Área promedio de la tierra que pertenece a o es arrendada por usuarios de tierra que aplican la Tecnología

5.8 Tenencia de tierra, uso de tierra y derechos de uso de agua

Tenencia de tierra:

• comunitaria/ aldea

Derechos de uso de tierra:

• comunitarios (organizado)

Derechos de uso de agua:

• acceso abierto (no organizado)

5.9 Acceso a servicios e infraestructura

6.1 Impactos in situ demostrados por la Tecnología

Impactos socioeconómicos

Producción

Disponibilidad y calidad de agua

Ingreso y costos

Impactos socioculturales

Impactos ecológicos

Ciclo de agua/ escurrimiento de sedimento

Suelo

Biodiversidad: vegetación, animales

Reducción de riesgos de desastres y riesgos climáticos

6.2 Impactos fuera del sitio demostrados por la Tecnología

Comentarios acerca de la evaluación del impacto:

All listed impacts are as perceived by land users according to Patrick Leseri, Conservation Manager. In his opinion, vegetation cover has thanks to the new technologies improved. Planning activities significantly increased and therefore also socio-economic and ecological conditions improved. Results from a rangeland health assessment (only ecological conditions) show on the other hand partly heavily degraded ecological conditions (poor soil and vegetation, erosions features, inability of producing annual grasses after rains etc) (Herger 2018). Land users and experts are aware that the ecological conditions of this Group Ranch are still far from optimal, but do see good progress and exemplary management as well as slightly better conditions than on other Group Ranches.

6.3 Exposición y sensibilidad de la Tecnología al cambio climático gradual y a extremos relacionados al clima/ desastres (desde la percepción de los usuarios de tierras)

Cambio climático gradual

Cambio climático gradual

	Estación	tipo de cambios climáticos/ climas extremos	¿Cómo es que la tecnología soporta esto?
Otro cambio climático gradual	Greater variation of seasonal rainfall, higher intensity of rainfall events, change in rainfall regimes in general (see Schmocker 2013 and Imfeld 2016).	incrementó	bien

Extremos (desastres) relacionados al clima

Desastres climatológicos

	¿Cómo es que la tecnología soporta esto?
ola de calor	bien

Comentarios:

Improved rangeland health, better internal organization, and cooperations make them less vulnerable to climate change impacts.

6.4 Análisis costo-beneficio

¿Cómo se comparan los beneficios con los costos de establecimiento (desde la perspectiva de los usuarios de tierra)?

¿Cómo se comparan los beneficios con los costos de mantenimiento/ recurrentes (desde la perspectiva de los usuarios de tierra)?

6.5 Adopción de la Tecnología

• 10-50%

Si tiene la información disponible, cuantifique (número de hogares y/o área cubierta):

50%

De todos quienes adoptaron la Tecnología, ¿cuántos lo hicieron espontáneamente, es decir, sin recibir incentivos/ pagos materiales?

• 0-10%

6.6 Adaptación

¿La tecnología fue modificada recientemente para adaptarse a las condiciones cambiantes?

Sí

Si fuera así, indique a qué condiciones cambiantes se adaptó:

• cambios climáticos / extremos

Especifique la adaptación de la Tecnología (diseño, material/ especies, etc.):

Masai people have changed their livestock composition towards owning more smallstock (goats and sheep) than cattle. Goats are tolerant of drought, and as browsers, they don't need any grass. Also, they can be turned into money much quicker than a cow in times of need and because of their more rapid reproductive cycle. They can also recover number more quickly after livestock losses through drought.

6.7 Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades de la Tecnología

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra
Proper utilisation of pasture – controlled usage/grazing.
Land recovery (more cover, more water, more fodder, less erosion).
Carrying capacity increased.
Traditional knowledge is still used.
More dialogue in community: brings everyone in the community together – they have a common point – everyone has the same interest.
Improving breeds is easier (because all are bunched together).
Easy vaccination of all livestock at once.
Approving cultural lifestyle of Masai: the higher the livestock numbers – the better for the land.
Better for disadvantaged community members: for instance for those who could not afford to move their livestock to Mt Kenya on their own before.

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave

The listed advantages from Patrick Leseri, the land user, are for the most part shared share with the compiler's view. Improved planning of livestock production with planned grazing and long resting periods, improved dialogue in the community, and the named advantages of a big herd (like easy vaccination etc) are important advantages. Regarding Holistic Management (HM) principles, there remains uncertainty about land recovery. On the one hand, it is generally questionable to state as in HM: “the more animals the better” (as long as they are managed properly they can even recover degraded land), which seems dangerous in areas with such high livestock numbers and cultural value of livestock keeping - without scientific proof of the principles in similar ecological conditions. We have witnessed rather poor condition of the land, and the much-vaunted good land was difficult to find. Favourable descriptions might also be related to funding of the project. Results from a rangeland health assessment show (partly) heavily degraded ecological conditions (bare ground, poor soil and vegetation, erosion features, partly an inability of producing perennial and annual grasses after rains etc) (see Herger 2018). However, an evaluation of change over time is impossible to assess. Further monitoring is necessary. Land users and experts are aware that the ecological conditions of this Group Ranch are still far from optimal, but do see good progress and exemplary management as well as slightly better conditions than on other Group Ranches. However, the efforts towards good management and a sense of community was not difficult to notice.

6.8 Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos de la Tecnología y formas de sobreponerse a ellos

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra	¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
Higher costs. Above 20% more than normal costs. Northern Rangeland Trust (NRT), Laikipia Wildlife Forum and Lewa conservancy as main funders for applying holisitc management principles. Since 2007, they covered about 50% of all costs..
More labour intensive. 20-30% above normal (supervision, watchmen, moving big bomas).
Challenge to bring people together (and their livestock) and agree on a joint management.
Some families still prefer to manage their livestock on their own and make their own decisions. There are no individual decisions anymore: principles apply to everyone.
Breeding can also be a problem – those with good genetic material (better livestock) may lose and those with poor may win by mixing.
Conflicts among animals; bulls fight a lot. No separation of heifers, cows, steers and bulls.
Management of high numbers of big herds is a challenge.
Diseases are easily transmitted.
Once livestock is collected to big herds, individual families lose their nutritional basis (milk, blood). However, some also keep a few livestock units back.
Sometimes trees are cut for bomas.

7.1 Métodos/ fuentes de información

7.2 Vínculos a las publicaciones disponibles

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

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

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

University of Bern

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

Modeling Seasonal and Annual Precipitation using long-term Climate Records and Topography. Master’s Thesis. Noemi Imfeld (2016).

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

University of Bern

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

Savory, A (1988). Holistic Resource Management. Gilmour Publishing, Harare, Zimbabwe

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

Online

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

•Carter, J., Jones, A., O’Brien, M., Ratner, J., Wuerthner, G. (2014). Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems.

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

International Journal of Biodiversity.

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

•Briske, D.D., Ash, A.J., Derner, J.D., Huntsinger, L. (2014). Commentary: A critical assessment of the policy endorsement for holistic management. Agricultural Systems 125:50-53.