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

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

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

22/01/2017

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

Oui

1.4 Déclaration sur la durabilité de la Technologie décrite

Est-ce que la Technologie décrite ici pose problème par rapport à la dégradation des terres, de telle sorte qu'elle ne peut pas être déclarée comme étant une technologie de gestion durable des terres?

Non

Commentaires:

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 Courte description de la Technologie

Définition de la Technologie:

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 Description détaillée de la Technologie

Description:

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 facilitated 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 "bulldozer" 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.
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 Photos de la Technologie

2.5 Pays/ région/ lieux où la Technologie a été appliquée et qui sont couverts par cette évaluation

2.6 Date de mise en œuvre de la Technologie

Indiquez l'année de mise en œuvre:

2007

2.7 Introduction de la Technologie

Spécifiez comment la Technologie a été introduite: :

• dans le cadre d'un système traditionnel (> 50 ans)
• par le biais de projets/ d'interventions extérieures

Commentaires (type de projet, 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 Principal(aux) objectif(s) de la Technologie

• améliorer la production
• réduire, prévenir, restaurer les terres dégradées
• préserver l'écosystème
• conserver/ améliorer la biodiversité

3.2 Type(s) actuel(s) d'utilisation des terres, là où la Technologie est appliquée

3.3 Informations complémentaires sur l'utilisation des terres

Approvisionnement en eau des terres sur lesquelles est appliquée la Technologie:

• pluvial

Nombre de période de croissance par an: :

• 2

Précisez:

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.

Densité d'élevage/ chargement (si pertinent):

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

3.4 Groupe de GDT auquel appartient la Technologie

• pastoralisme et gestion des pâturages
• Amélioration de la couverture végétale/ du sol

3.5 Diffusion de la Technologie

Spécifiez la diffusion de la Technologie:

• répartie uniformément sur une zone

Si la Technologie est uniformément répartie sur une zone, indiquez la superficie couverte approximative:

• 10-100 km2

Commentaires:

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 Mesures de GDT constituant la Technologie

3.7 Principaux types de dégradation des terres traités par la Technologie

Commentaires:

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 Prévention, réduction de la dégradation ou réhabilitation des terres dégradées

Spécifiez l'objectif de la Technologie au regard de la dégradation des terres:

• réduire la dégradation des terres
• restaurer/ réhabiliter des terres sévèrement dégradées

4.1 Dessin technique de la Technologie

4.2 Spécification/ explications techniques du dessin technique

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 Informations générales sur le calcul des intrants et des coûts

Spécifiez la manière dont les coûts et les intrants ont été calculés:

• par entité de la Technologie

Indiquez la monnaie utilisée pour le calcul des coûts:

• dollars US

4.4 Activités de mise en place/ d'établissement

	Activité	Type de mesures	Calendrier
1.	Training of elders and community by project leaders	Modes de gestion
2.	Grazing planning for bunched animals (livestock from all households)	Modes de gestion
3.	Hiring herders, supervisors, watchmen etc	Modes de gestion

4.5 Coûts et intrants nécessaires à la mise en place

	Spécifiez les intrants	Unité	Quantité	Coûts par unité	Coût total par intrant	% du coût supporté par les exploitants des terres
Main d'œuvre	Costs for establishment unknown

Commentaires:

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

4.6 Activités d'entretien/ récurrentes

	Activité	Type de mesures	Calendrier/ fréquence
1.	Herders, supervisors, watchmen etc	Modes de gestion
2.	Animal treatments (vaccination, spraying, injections)	Agronomique
3.	Planning activites	Modes de gestion
4.	Boma Management (mainly movement of Bomas)	Modes de gestion

4.7 Coûts et intrants nécessaires aux activités d'entretien/ récurrentes (par an)

	Spécifiez les intrants	Unité	Quantité	Coûts par unité	Coût total par intrant	% du coût supporté par les exploitants des terres
Main d'œuvre	Herders, watchmen	Person-days	250,0	540,0	135000,0	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Supervisors	Person-days	3,0	720,0	2160,0	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Planning activities, management	Person-days	20,0	1500,0	30000,0	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Livestock-owning families (for wet season, no wages paid, livelihood)	Person-days	8000,0	300,0	2400000,0
Matériaux de construction	Boma Movement
Autre	Animals treatments (spraying against ticks)	Per livestock unit	5000,0	5,0	25000,0	100,0
Autre	Injections, vaccine	Per livestock unit	5000,0	3,0	15000,0	100,0
Coût total d'entretien de la Technologie					2607160,0

Si le coût n'est pas pris en charge à 100% par l'exploitant des terres, indiquez qui a financé le coût restant:

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)

Commentaires:

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 Facteurs les plus importants affectant les coûts

Décrivez les facteurs les plus importants affectant les coûts :

- 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 Climat

5.2 Topographie

Indiquez si la Technologie est spécifiquement appliquée dans des:

• non pertinent

Commentaires et précisions supplémentaires sur la topographie:

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

5.3 Sols

Si disponible, joignez une description complète du sol ou précisez les informations disponibles, par ex., type de sol, pH/ acidité du sol, capacité d'échange cationique, azote, salinité, 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 Disponibilité et qualité de l'eau

La salinité de l'eau est-elle un problème? :

Non

La zone est-elle inondée?

Non

Commentaires et précisions supplémentaires sur la qualité et la quantité d'eau:

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

5.5 Biodiversité

Commentaires et précisions supplémentaires sur la biodiversité:

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 Caractéristiques des exploitants des terres appliquant la Technologie

Indiquez toute autre caractéristique pertinente des exploitants des terres:

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 Superficie moyenne des terres détenues ou louées par les exploitants appliquant la Technologie

5.8 Propriété foncière, droits d’utilisation des terres et de l'eau

Propriété foncière:

• communauté/ village

Droits d’utilisation des terres:

• communautaire (organisé)

Droits d’utilisation de l’eau:

• accès libre (non organisé)

5.9 Accès aux services et aux infrastructures

6.1 Impacts sur site que la Technologie a montrés

Impacts socio-économiques

Production

Disponibilité et qualité de l'eau

Revenus et coûts

Impacts socioculturels

Impacts écologiques

Cycle de l'eau/ ruissellement

Sols

Biodiversité: végétale, animale

Réduction des risques de catastrophe et des risques climatiques

6.2 Impacts hors site que la Technologie a montrés

Commentaires concernant l'évaluation des impacts:

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 Exposition et sensibilité de la Technologie aux changements progressifs et aux évènements extrêmes/catastrophes liés au climat (telles que perçues par les exploitants des terres)

Changements climatiques progressifs

Changements climatiques progressifs

	Saison	Type de changements/ extrêmes climatiques	Comment la Technologie fait-elle face à cela?
autre changement climatique progressif	Greater variation of seasonal rainfall, higher intensity of rainfall events, change in rainfall regimes in general (see Schmocker 2013 and Imfeld 2016).	augmente	bien

Extrêmes climatiques (catastrophes)

Catastrophes climatiques

	Comment la Technologie fait-elle face à cela?
canicule	bien

Commentaires:

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

6.4 Analyse coûts-bénéfices

Quels sont les bénéfices comparativement aux coûts de mise en place (du point de vue des exploitants des terres)?

Quels sont les bénéfices comparativement aux coûts d'entretien récurrents (du point de vue des exploitants des terres)?

6.5 Adoption de la Technologie

• 10-50%

Si disponible, quantifiez (nombre de ménages et/ou superficie couverte):

50%

Parmi tous ceux qui ont adopté la Technologie, combien d'entre eux l'ont fait spontanément, à savoir sans recevoir aucune incitation matérielle ou aucun paiement?

• 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

La Technologie a-t-elle été récemment modifiée pour s'adapter à l'évolution des conditions?

Oui

Si oui, indiquez à quel changement la Technologie s'est adaptée:

• changements/ extrêmes climatiques

Spécifiez l'adaptation de la Technologie (conception, matériaux/ espèces, 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 Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités de la Technologie

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

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

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 Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques de la Technologie et moyens de les surmonter

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue de l’exploitant des terres	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
Higher costs. Above 20% more than normal costs. 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 Méthodes/ sources d'information

7.2 Références des publications disponibles

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

University of Bern

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

University of Bern

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

Online