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

Nom du projet qui a facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

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

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

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

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

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

10/11/2017

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

2.1 Courte description de l'Approche

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

2.2 Description détaillée de l'Approche

Description détaillée de l'Approche:

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 Photos de l'approche

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

2.6 Dates de début et de fin de l'Approche

2.7 Type d'Approche

• initiative/ innovation récente locale

2.8 Principaux objectifs de l'Approche

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

3.1 Parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche et rôles

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	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.
planification	interactive	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).
mise en œuvre	interactive	Demonstration conducted on individual 'farms'/ pastures and local land users implement the technologies as 'model land users'.
suivi/ évaluation	interactive	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	passive	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 Diagramme/ organigramme (si disponible)

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:

• tous les acteurs concernés dans le cadre d'une approche participative

Spécifiez sur quelle base ont été prises les décisions:

• l'évaluation de connaissances bien documentées en matière de GDT (prises de décision fondées sur des preuves tangibles)?
• les résultats de recherches?
• expériences et opinions personnelles (non documentées)

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
• personnels/ conseillers de terrain

Si pertinent, spécifiez le genre, l'âge, le statut, l'ethnie, 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.

Formats de la formation:

• zones de démonstration

Thèmes abordés:

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

4.2 Service de conseils

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

Oui

Spécifiez si le service de conseils est fourni:

• dans les champs des exploitants?

Décrivez/ commentez:

Advisory services on-farm during visits.

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
• régional
• national

Décrivez l'institution, ses rôles et responsabilités, ses membres, 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).

Précisez le type de soutien:

• financier
• renforcement des capacités/ formation

Donnez plus de détails:

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 Suivi et évaluation

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

Oui

Commentaires:

Adoption and uptake of the technologies among land users.

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

Oui

Commentaires:

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 Recherche

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

Oui

Spécifiez les thèmes:

• écologie
• technologie

Donnez plus de détails et indiquez qui a mené ces recherches:

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

5.1 Budget annuel de la composante GDT de l'Approche

Si le budget annuel précis n'est pas connu, indiquez une fourchette:

• 2 000-10 000

Commentez (par ex. principales sources de financement/ principaux bailleurs de fonds):

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

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:

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

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

• main d'œuvre

• équipement

• intrants agricoles

Si la main d'œuvre fournie par les exploitants des terres était un intrant substantiel, elle était:

• volontaire

Commentaires:

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 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

6.1 Impacts de l'Approche

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

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)?

• oui

Si oui, décrivez de quelle manière:

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 Points forts/ avantages de l'Approche

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue de l'exploitant des terres
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.

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
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 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?
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.

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
Language barrier (SLM specialists and land users).	Involving a local land user/personnel to bridge the gap.

7.1 Méthodes/ sources d'information

7.2 Références des publications disponibles

Titre, auteur, année, 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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

The Rangeland Journal, USD 25

Titre, auteur, année, 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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

Environmental Management, USD 38

Titre, auteur, année, 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.

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

Grass and Forage Science, USD 38

7.3 Liens vers les informations pertinentes disponibles en ligne

Titre/ description:

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

URL:

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

Titre/ description:

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

Titre/ description:

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