Vous utilisez probablement une version dépassée et inactive de ce dossier. Passez à la dernière version de ce dossier.
Approches
Inactif

Holistic Rangeland Management combined with high end tourism [Kenya]

"Ramat engop"

approaches_3399 - Kenya

État complet : 94%

1. Informations générales

1.2 Coordonnées des personnes-ressources et des institutions impliquées dans l'évaluation et la documentation de l'Approche

Personne(s) ressource(s) clé(s)

exploitant des terres:

1.3 Conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées

Quand les données ont-elles été compilées (sur le terrain)?

11/02/2018

Le compilateur et la(les) personne(s) ressource(s) acceptent les conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées:

Oui

1.4 Références au(x) questionnaire(s) sur les Technologies de GDT

2. Description de l'Approche de GDT

2.1 Courte description de l'Approche

The establishment of a community wildlife conservancy facilitates (1) 'holistic rangeland management' refering to a to the implementation of a suite of management practices aimed at sustaining and/or improving rangeland productivity such as 'bunched grazing' (livestock concentrated for short duration intensive grazing), short-term 'bomas' (livestock corrals occupied for ~7 days), clearing invasive species and reseeding with grass to assist land rehabilitation/restoration; and (2) High end tourism and monetary donations facilitated by the Northern Rangelands Trust provide funding for the implementation of improved grazing practices and additional income for the community and the reduction of livestock grazing pressure.

2.2 Description détaillée de l'Approche

Description détaillée de l'Approche:

Kalama Community Wildlife Conservancy has been established with a hierarchical structure led by a board of 13 members (5 female, 8 male), one representing each of the 13 'zones' of the Conservancy. There are also three subcommittees for grazing, finances and tourism. The main aims are to improve the involvement of the community members in the overall management of the conservancy, the generation of additional income from high end tourism and wildlife conservation and the investment into improved land management. The main sources of funding are revenue from contracted high end tourism operation and donations (facilitated by Northern Rangelands Trust). The approximate breakdown of the funding sources is: Tourism including selling of handicrafts (60%), Donors (25%), County Government (5%), Livestock Trading (5%), Camping (5%). Improved livelihood and ownership in the management as well as shared responsibility and benefits are key incentives for the community members.
Within the conservancy an attractive site on a hill overlooking the plains has been leased to an investor for the establishment of an exclusive tourist lodge on the principle of “invest, operate and transfer”, where the investor builds the infrastructure operates is for an agreed period and then transfers it to the community. Further several comping grounds are available for lower budget tourists. The conservancy profits from the neighbouring Samburu Game Reserves. This provides regular income from the lease of the land the entrance fees into the conservancy, employment opportunities for conservancy members (for catering, kitchen, house cleaning, rangers providing security for tourists and protection for wildlife as well as guides for safaris and for entertainment) and a market for selling handicrafts and souvenirs. Another cornerstone is their relationships with two trusts (Northern Rangeland Trust and the Grevy’s Zebra Trust). They have been supportive in the implementation of several holistic rangeland management practices, which include 'bunched grazing' (livestock concentrated for short duration intensive grazing), short-term 'bomas' (livestock corrals occupied for ~7 days), clearing invasive species and reseeding with grass to assist land rehabilitation/restoration. The main aims are to maintain and/or improve rangeland productivity. Regarding methods, 'bunched grazing' is implemented by a team of herders ensuring the livestock are in a tight herd. Short-term 'bomas' are established on bare ground in the traditional manor (i.e. laying cut thorny woody vegetation on the ground to encircle livestock and help protect them from depredation during the night). Invasive woody vegetation can be used to erect these 'bomas'. Invasive species (predominantly Acacia reficiens) is cleared by hand using machetes during the dry season; branches cut ~1 m above the ground to prevent regrowth. Cut branches are laid on the bare ground beneath and seeds of Cenchrus ciliaris hand-broadcasted prior to the onset of rains. Members of the Kalama Community Wildlife Conservancy carry out these activities, both paid (clearing invasive species and reseeding) and unpaid ('bunched grazing' and short-term 'bomas'). Land users and tourists enjoy and value the benefits of increased forage availability in areas successfully rehabilitated but are dissatisfied with the limited extent of the rangeland improvement.

2.3 Photos de l'approche

2.5 Pays/ région/ lieux où l'Approche a été appliquée

Pays:

Kenya

Région/ Etat/ Province:

Samburu County

Autres spécifications du lieu :

North of Archers Post Bordering Samburu Game Reserve

2.6 Dates de début et de fin de l'Approche

Indiquez l'année de démarrage:

2006

Si l'année précise est inconnue, indiquez approximativement quand l'Approche a démarré:

il y a entre 10-50 ans

2.7 Type d'Approche

  • fondé sur un projet/ programme

2.8 Principaux objectifs de l'Approche

The main objectives of the approach are to maintain and/or improve rangeland productivity.

2.9 Conditions favorisant ou entravant la mise en œuvre de la(des) Technologie(s) appliquée(s) sous l'Approche

normes et valeurs sociales/ culturelles/ religieuses
  • favorise

Established traditional practice of erecting 'bomas', particularly using less valuable woody vegetation, facilitates implementation of short-term 'bomas' that only require a change in duration of occupancy.

  • entrave

Traditional practices of herding one's own immediate family's livestock in separate herds deters land users from agreeing to combine herds into larger groups for 'bunched grazing' (also due to associated issues of disease transmission). Furthermore, lack of observation and enforcement of local grazing rules prevents necessary resting of grazing land.

disponibilité/ accès aux ressources et services financiers
  • favorise

Supplementary income can lead to investment in activities unrelated to livestock husbandry (e.g. setting up small businesses or educating children) rather than increasing heard size, which may prevent further increases in pressure on the rangeland.

  • entrave

Supplementary income often leads to the purchasing of more livestock, which further increases pressure on the rangeland.

collaboration/ coordination des acteurs
  • favorise

Clearing of invasive species and reseeding with grass undertaken by land users from all villages/zones of the Kalama Community Wildlife Conservancy.

  • entrave

Individual concerns are at odds with that of the wider community, leading to opportunistic breaking of grazing rules and deterioration of communally managed rangeland.

cadre juridique (régime foncier, droits d'utilisation des terres et de l'eau)
  • favorise

To some extent provides sense of ownership over the land, which may motivate involvement in sustainable land management practices.

  • entrave

Tenure of of the land is communal but livestock ownership is individual or at the level of immediate families, which creates tensions and conflicts regarding sustainable land management.

gouvernance foncière (prise de décisions, mise en œuvre et application des décisions)
  • favorise

Community-elected board (representative of the 13 villages/zones) and grazing committee together enable formalisation of grazing rules into by-laws.

  • entrave

Grazing rules and by-laws not well implemented or adhered to.

connaissances sur la GDT, accès aux supports techniques
  • favorise

Access to technical support from NGOs such as the Northern Rangelands Trust and Grevy's Zebra Trust.

  • entrave

Lack of knowledge about SLM has lead to unsuccessful grassland rehabilitation efforts.

marchés (pour acheter les intrants, vendre les produits) et prix
  • favorise

Located close to livestock market in the local town, Archer's Post.

  • entrave

Limited direct access to markets further afield (e.g. Nairobi or international markets), with better prices.

charge de travail, disponibilité de la main-d'œuvre
  • favorise

Casual labour easily found within the community.

  • entrave

Large areas of land awaiting rehabilitation, which would require large amounts of labour.

3. Participation et rôles des parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche

3.1 Parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche et rôles

  • exploitants locaux des terres / communautés locales

Local land users selected from villages/zones within the community of the conservancy.

Providing livestock for joint herding and boma-ing and providing labour for restoration activities (e.g. clearing invasive species and reseeding with grass). Provide services for the running of the wildlife conservancy and tourist activities.

  • Spécialistes de la GDT/ conseillers agricoles

Advisors from the two trusts: Northern Rangeland Trust and Grevy's Zebra Trust for the support in the design and the implementation of the improved rangeland management practices.

Providing technical knowhow and sharing experiences with other rangeland users where the practices have been applied.

  • chercheurs

Master students from the universities in Kenya

Investigating into the state of the rangelands and monitoring changes

  • ONG

Northern Rangelands Trust and Grevy's Zebra Trust

Provided funds for learning visits to a ranch implementing 'Holistic Rangeland Management' in Zimbabwe and costs of implementation in Kalama Community Wildlife Conservancy. Also provided technical support.

  • gouvernement local

County government employees related to tourism and management of Samburu Game Reserve

Making agreements for the use and sharing of income from tourism

  • organisation internationale

Northern Rangeland Trust: Grevy's Zebra Trust

Joint planning of land management across the boundaries of the Community Wildlife Conservancy. Agreement for movement across boundaries and sharing of common resources

Si plusieurs parties prenantes sont impliquées, indiquez l'organisme chef de file ou l'institution responsable:

Kalama Wildlife Community Conservancy

3.2 Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales aux différentes phases de l'Approche
Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales Spécifiez qui était impliqué et décrivez les activités
initiation/ motivation interactive Using their experience setting up other community conservancies in Kenya, the Northern Rangelands Trust was able to assist in defining the organisational structure of Kalama Conservancy. However, conservancies are not set up without the interest of the community in question.
planification interactive Kalama Conservancy's board, which plans the Holistic Rangeland Management activities, is composed of members of Kalama Conservancy and those elected by the members of the conservancy. The Northern Rangelands Trust, in particular, helps to plan activities. For example, the Northern Rangelands Trust raised funds to enable members of Kalama Conservancy to visit a ranch in Zimbabwe where Holistic Rangeland Management activities are practiced.
mise en œuvre interactive Members of Kalama Conservancy carry out the Holistic Rangeland Management activities. However, 25% of the costs are covered by donations and training related to specific activities is provided by Northern Rangelands Trust and Grevy's Zebra Trust.
suivi/ évaluation interactive The Northern Rangelands Trust commissioned a baseline survey of rangeland health in Kalama Conservancy, which was conducted in 2013. However, the Rangeland Coordinator, Benson Lelukai, was also trained by Northern Rangelands Trust to conduct informal rangeland health monitoring. As yet, no reports are available documenting the success or otherwise of the approach.

3.4 Prises de décision pour la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies

Indiquez qui a décidé de la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies à mettre en œuvre:
  • principalement les spécialistes de la GDT, après consultation des exploitants des terres
Expliquez:

The Holistic Rangeland Management activities are closely modeled on those advocated by the Savory Institute. The Northern Rangelands Trust facilitated the introduction of the practices (e.g. bunched grazing and more frequently moved livestock corrals), which were implemented following consultation with Kalama Conservancy's members.

Spécifiez sur quelle base ont été prises les décisions:
  • expériences et opinions personnelles (non documentées)

4. Soutien technique, renforcement des capacités et gestion des connaissances

4.1 Renforcement des capacités/ formation

Une formation a-t-elle été dispensée aux exploitants des terres/ autres parties prenantes?

Oui

Spécifiez qui a été formé:
  • exploitants des terres
Formats de la formation:
  • réunions publiques

4.2 Service de conseils

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils accès à un service de conseils?

Oui

  • personal communication
Décrivez/ commentez:

The community work closely with Northern Rangelands Trust, which can provide advice.

4.3 Renforcement des institutions (développement organisationnel)

Des institutions ont elles été mises en place ou renforcées par le biais de l'Approche?
  • oui, modérément
Spécifiez à quel(s) niveau(x), ces institutions ont été renforcées ou mises en place:
  • local
Décrivez l'institution, ses rôles et responsabilités, ses membres, etc.

Establishment of board and grazing committee facilitate conservancy-level decisions.

Précisez le type de soutien:
  • financier
  • renforcement des capacités/ formation
Donnez plus de détails:

Northern Rangelands Trust provide financial assistance (USAID funding) and training together with Grevy's Zebra Trust (FAO funding).

4.4 Suivi et évaluation

Le suivi et l'évaluation font ils partie de l'Approche? :

Oui

Commentaires:

But, so far, monitoring is informal and available documentation reporting outcomes of the approach is limited.

Si oui, ce document est-il destiné à être utilisé pour le suivi et l'évaluation?

Non

4.5 Recherche

La recherche a-t-elle fait partie intégrante de l’Approche?

Non

5. Financement et soutien matériel externe

5.1 Budget annuel de la composante GDT de l'Approche

Indiquez le budget annuel de la composante GDT de l'Approche en $ US:

24447,00

Si le budget annuel précis n'est pas connu, indiquez une fourchette:
  • 10 000-100 000
Commentez (par ex. principales sources de financement/ principaux bailleurs de fonds):

Main sources of funding are revenue from contracted high end tourism operation and donations (facilitated by Northern Rangelands Trust). Rough breakdown: Tourism including selling of handicrafts (60%), Donors (25%), County Government (5%), Livestock Trading (5%), Camping (5%).

5.2 Soutiens financiers/ matériels fournis aux exploitants des terres

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils reçu un soutien financier/ matériel pour la mise en œuvre de la Technologie/ des Technologies?

Oui

Si oui, spécifiez le(s) type(s) de soutien, les conditions et les fournisseurs:

Financial support provided to cover costs associated with activities (e.g. labour, logistics).

5.3 Subventions pour des intrants spécifiques (incluant la main d'œuvre)

  • main d'œuvre
Dans quelle mesure Spécifiez les subventions
entièrement financé
  • autre
Autre (spécifiez) Dans quelle mesure Spécifiez les subventions
logistics (fuel) entièrement financé
Si la main d'œuvre fournie par les exploitants des terres était un intrant substantiel, elle était:
  • payée en espèces

5.4 Crédits

Des crédits ont-ils été alloués à travers l'Approche pour les activités de GDT?

Non

5.5 Autres incitations ou instruments

D'autres incitations ou instruments ont-ils été utilisés pour promouvoir la mise en œuvre des Technologies de GDT?

Non

6. Analyses d'impact et conclusions

6.1 Impacts de l'Approche

Est-ce que l'Approche a autonomisé les exploitants locaux des terres, amélioré la participation des parties prenantes?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

Restoration efforts hired labour from all zones of the conservancy.

Est-ce que l'Approche a permis la prise de décisions fondées sur des données probantes?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

Some monitoring is conducted but informal and not comprehensive.

Est-ce que l'Approche a aidé les exploitants des terres à mettre en œuvre et entretenir les Technologies de GDT?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

The organizational structure of the conservancy provided a framework for inter-village coordination with respect to SLM.

Est-ce que l'Approche a amélioré la coordination et la mise en œuvre de la GDT selon un bon rapport coût-efficacité?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

The organizational structure of the conservancy provided a framework for inter-village coordination with respect to SLM.

Est-ce que l'Approche a mobilisé/ amélioré l'accès aux ressources financières pour la mise en œuvre de la GDT?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

Substantial income from tourism allowed investment into improved rangeland management.

Est-ce que l'Approche a amélioré les connaissances et les capacités des exploitants des terres pour mettre en œuvre la GDT?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

Training provided by the conservancy's institutional partners (NRT and GZT) contributed to developing SLM capacity.

Est-ce que l'Approche a amélioré les connaissances et les capacités des autres parties prenantes?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

Learning visits to rangeland restoration sites invited members of other communities around the country to be exposed to restoration practices and their impacts.

Est-ce que l'Approche a construit/ renforcé les institutions, la collaboration entre parties prenantes?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

The organizational structure of the conservancy provided a framework for inter-village collaboration.

Est-ce que l'Approche a atténué les conflits?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

Job creation mitigated conflicts, particularly the jobs made available to young warrior class individuals (e.g. motorbike driver), who would otherwise be arming themselves and rustling livestock.

Est-ce que l'Approche a autonomisé les groupes socialement et économiquement défavorisés?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

No particular measures to benefit socially disadvantaged groups was mentioned.

Est-ce que l'Approche a amélioré l'égalité entre hommes et femmes et autonomisé les femmes et les filles?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

Bead-work markets facilitated by NRT created income opportunities for women.

Est-ce que l'Approche a encouragé les jeunes/ la prochaine génération d'exploitants des terres à s'engager dans la GDT?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

Young people were also involved in the rangeland restoration efforts.

Est-ce que l'Approche a amélioré les questions foncières et des droits d'utilisation qui entravent la mise en œuvre des Technologies?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

The conservancy structure provides land tenure security and increases the motivation to practice SLM.

Est-ce que l'Approche a conduit à améliorer la sécurité alimentaire et/ou la nutrition?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

The increased income through tourism and donor funding may have led to improved food security/nutrition, but difficult to judge.

Est-ce que l'Approche a amélioré l'accès aux marchés?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

NRT create a market for their livestock by buying and selling to ranchers for fattening programmes.

Est-ce que l'Approche a conduit à améliorer l'accès à l'eau et l'assainissement?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

Donor funding enabled the establishment of a clinic, which has greatly increased access to health care.

Est-ce que l'Approche a conduit à l'utilisation/ sources d'énergie plus durables?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

No reported change in energy sources.

Est-ce que l'Approche a amélioré la capacité des exploitants des terres à s'adapter aux changements/ extrêmes climatiques et a atténué les catastrophes liées au climat?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

Over such a short period, this is difficult to make any statements about.

Est-ce que l'Approche a conduit à des emplois, des opportunités de revenus?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

The conservancy structure creates jobs such as: managerial, committee membership, accounting, security, temporary labour.

6.2 Principale motivation des exploitants des terres pour mettre en œuvre la GDT

  • augmenter la production
  • réduire la dégradation des terres
  • paiements/ subventions

Initial costs for the establishment of the practices (e.g. cutting of invasive species are fully covered through income and resources from tourism and support from the trusts

  • améliorer l'esthétique

attractive landscape less degraded and monotonous due to one invasive species

  • Improved attractiveness for tourism and fooder for wildlife ???

6.3 Durabilité des activités de l'Approche

Les exploitants des terres peuvent-ils poursuivre ce qui a été mis en œuvre par le biais de l'Approche (sans soutien extérieur)?
  • incertain
Si non ou incertain, spécifiez et commentez:

Lack of funding prevents larger areas from being rehabilitated through clearing of invasive species and reseeding with grass. Moreover, inability to control grazing pressure to give adequate rest to rehabilitating areas has led to unsuccessful restoration efforts. However, restoration efforts may gradually become voluntary in the future and land users may be incentivised to adhere to local grazing rules.

6.4 Points forts/ avantages de l'Approche

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue de l'exploitant des terres
Land previously considered unproductive is now considered grazing land.
Increased infiltration, reduced run-off and soil erosion.
Regeneration of the grassland in the 'core conservation area' (a central area with minimised grazing pressure demarcated for tourism) attracts wildlife, which in turn benefits tourism.
Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
Where implemented, restoration activities and reduced grazing pressure have increased productivity and diversity or grasses and forbs for livestock and wildlife forage.
Takes advantage of inherent capacity of the land to recover.
Improved attractiveness for tourism

6.5 Faiblesses/ inconvénients de l'Approche et moyens de les surmonter

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue de l’exploitant des terres Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
The expectation from the community regarding the tourism-related jobs and income are too high. Raising awareness about the limitations of benefits from tourism.
Increased pressure on 'Core Area' due to higher grass/forage production. Strictly enforce local by-laws that restrict grazing in the 'Core Area'.
Rangers under-equipped and lack sufficient capacity. Source more equipment and provide training/capacity building for rangers.
Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
Very few land users are implementing the practices (e.g. short-term 'bomas' and 'bunched grazing'). Although likely unfeasible, one possible solution might be for the community to manage the livestock communally and share the produce rather than individual ownership, which creates conflicts in motivation between the individual and the wider community.
Paying community members to undertake restoration activities has limited the area rehabilitated to date and led to a reliance on donor funding for land restoration. This may also be eroding the community's social capital by placing a monetary value on land health and thus devaluing it and replacing the inherent sense of value of land health that may have existed previously. Encouraging voluntary participation in restoration activities may not only increase the area rehabilitated but also improve long-term maintenance through cultivating a sense of ownership.
Lack of adherence to and enforcement of grazing rules limits the success of sustainable land management efforts. Strictly enforce local grazing rules and by-laws.

7. Références et liens

7.1 Méthodes/ sources d'information

  • visites de terrain, enquêtes sur le terrain

2 field visits.

  • interviews/entretiens avec les exploitants des terres

3 informants (Manager, Rangeland Coordinator and Chair of Grazing Committee).

  • interviews/ entretiens avec les spécialistes/ experts de GDT

2 informants (Northern Rangelands Trust and Grevy's Zebra Trust employees)

  • compilation à partir de rapports et d'autres documents existants

1 report, 1 technical guideline document, and 1 poster.

7.2 Références des publications disponibles

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

Northern Rangeland Trust: Baseline assessment of rangeland health - Kalama and Namunyak conservancies, Leigh A. Winowiecki & Tor-G. Vågen2014

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

Available online at no cost.

7.3 Liens vers les informations pertinentes disponibles en ligne

Titre/ description:

Northern Rangeland Trust: Baseline assessment of rangeland health - Kalama and Namunyak conservancies

URL:

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/65671/nrtReport_march2014.pdf?sequence=1

Modules