1.2 ព័ត៌មានលម្អិតពីបុគ្គលសំខាន់ៗ និងស្ថាប័នដែលចូលរួមក្នុងការវាយតម្លៃ និងចងក្រងឯកសារនៃបច្ចេកទេស

ឈ្មោះគម្រោងដែលបានចងក្រងឯកសារ/ វាយតម្លៃលើបច្ចេកទេស (បើទាក់ទង)

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

1.3 លក្ខខណ្ឌទាក់ទងទៅនឹងការប្រើប្រាស់ទិន្នន័យដែលបានចងក្រងតាមរយៈ វ៉ូខេត

អ្នកចងក្រង និង(បុគ្គលសំខាន់ៗ)យល់ព្រមទទួលយកនូវលក្ខខណ្ឌនានាទាក់ទងទៅនឹងការប្រើប្រាស់ទិន្នន័យដែលបានចងក្រងតាមរយៈវ៉ូខេត:

បាទ/ចា៎

1.4 សេចក្តីប្រកាសស្តីពីចីរភាពនៃការពណ៌នាពីបច្ចេកទេស

តើបច្ចេកទេសដែលបានពណ៌នានេះមានបញ្ហាដែលផ្តោតលើការធ្លាក់ចុះគុណភាពដី, បើដូច្នេះវាមិនអាចត្រូវបានប្រកាសថាជាបច្ចេកទេសនៃការគ្រប់គ្រងប្រកបដោយចីរភាពទេ?

ទេ

មតិយោបល់:

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 ការពណ៌នាដោយសង្ខេបពីបច្ចេកទេស

និយមន័យបច្ចេកទេស:

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 ការពណ៌នាលម្អិតពីបច្ចេកទេស

ការពណ៌នា:

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 ​រូបភាពនៃបច្ចេកទេស

2.5 ប្រទេស/តំបន់/ទីតាំងកន្លែង ដែលបច្ចេកទេសត្រូវបានអនុវត្ត និងបានគ្រប់ដណ្តប់ដោយការវាយតម្លៃនេះ

2.6 កាលបរិច្ឆេទនៃការអនុវត្ត

បង្ហាញឆ្នាំនៃការចុះអនុវត្ត:

2007

2.7 ការណែនាំពីបច្ចេកទេស

សូមបញ្ជាក់តើបច្ចេកទេសត្រូវបានណែនាំឱ្យអនុវត្តដោយរបៀបណា:

• ជាផ្នែកនៃប្រព័ន្ធប្រពៃណី (> 50 ឆ្នាំ)
• តាមរយៈគម្រោង / អន្តរាគមន៍ពីខាងក្រៅ

មតិយោបល់ (ប្រភេទនៃគម្រោង ។ល។):

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 គោលបំណងចម្បង (១​ ឬច្រើន)​ នៃបច្ចេកទេសនេះ

• ធ្វើឱ្យប្រសើរឡើងនូវផលិតកម្ម
• កាត់បន្ថយ, បង្ការ, ស្តារឡើងវិញនូវការធ្លាក់ចុះគុណភាពដី
• អភិរក្សប្រព័ន្ធអេកូឡូស៊ី
• អភិរក្ស/ធ្វើឱ្យប្រសើរឡើងជីវចម្រុះ

3.2 ប្រភេទដីប្រើប្រាស់មួយប្រភេទ (ច្រើនប្រភេទ) ដែលបានអនុវត្តបច្ចេកទេស

មតិយោបល់:

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.

Main animal species and products: Cattle, goats, sheep, donkeys, camels. Meat and milk production (also blood) and as a bank/ value asset. Mainly subsistence and local production.
Livestock: 4’800 TLU; Stocking rate: 3.3 ha/TLU (calculated with the total affected land by livestock: 157km2)
Pressure on land including wildlife: 3.3 ha/TLU (stays the same, calculated with wildlife biomass density estimated by Georgiadis et al. 2007).
Livestock numbers:
Lower Il Ngwesi: 4000 cattle, 20'000 shoats, 50 donkeys, 100 camels.
Sanga: 700 cattle, 2000 shoats, 20 donkeys.
Mukogodo: 1500 cattle, 5000 shoats, 20 donkeys
Livestock fluctuations (per year): -10% sales, -5% loss due to drought/diseases, -5% slaughtered,
+30% natural breeding, new purchase and deaths are mutually offsetting.
Steers are for fattening on private ranches and during droughts other livestock can be moved to private ranches (up to 3000).
Wildlife: elephant, antelope/ gazelle (like gerenuk, impala, Thomson's gazelle, dik-dik), hares, predators and more.

Number of growing seasons per year: 2
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.
Livestock density: 4’800 TLU; Stocking rate: 3.3 ha/TLU. Pressure on land: 3.3 ha/TLU

3.4 ការផ្គត់ផ្គង់ទឹក

ការផ្គត់ផ្គង់ទឹកនៅកន្លែងអនុវត្តបច្ចេកទេស:

• ទឹកភ្លៀង

3.5 ក្រុម SLM ដែលបច្ចេកទេសស្ថិតនៅក្នុង

• កសិរុក្ខកម្ម (pastoralism) និងការគ្រប់គ្រងដីសម្រាប់ចិញ្ចឹមសត្វ
• ធ្វើឱ្យប្រសើរឡើងគម្របដី/ ដំណាំគម្របដី

3.6 វិធានការ SLM ដែលបញ្ចូលនូវបច្ចេកទេស

3.7 កំណត់ប្រភេទនៃការធ្លាក់ចុះគុណភាពដីសំខាន់ៗដែលបច្ចេកទេសនេះបានដោះស្រាយ

មតិយោបល់:

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 ការពារ កាត់បន្ថយ ឬស្តារឡើងវិញនៃការធ្លាក់ចុះគុណភាពដី

បញ្ជាក់ពីគោលដៅរបស់បច្ចេកទេស ដែលផ្តោតទៅការធ្លាក់ចុះគុណភាពដី:

• ការកាត់បន្ថយការធ្លាក់ចុះគុណភាពដី
• ការជួសជុល/ ស្តារឡើងវិញនៃឱនភាពដីធ្ងន់ធ្ងរ

4.1 គំនូសបច្ចេកទេសនៃបច្ចេកទេសនេះ

4.2 ព័ត៌មានទូទៅដែលពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងការគណនាធាតុចូល និងថ្លៃដើម

កំណត់របៀបនៃការគណនាថ្លៃដើម និងធាតុចូល:

• ក្នុងឯកតាបច្ចេកទេស

កំណត់រូបិយប័ណ្ណសម្រាប់ថ្លៃដើម:

• ដុល្លារ

4.3 សកម្មភាពបង្កើត

	សកម្មភាព	រយៈពេល​ (រដូវកាល)
1.	Training of elders and community by project leaders
2.	Grazing planning for bunched animals (livestock from all households)
3.	Hiring herders, supervisors, watchmen etc

4.4 ថ្លៃដើម និងធាតុចូលដែលត្រូវការសម្រាប់ការបង្កើតបច្ចេកទេស

	បញ្ជាក់ពីធាតុចូល	ឯកតា	បរិមាណ	ថ្លៃដើមក្នុងមួយឯកតា	ថ្លៃធាតុចូលសរុប	% នៃថ្លៃដើមដែលចំណាយដោយអ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដី
កម្លាំងពលកម្ម	Costs for establishment unknown

មតិយោបល់:

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

4.5 សកម្មភាពថែទាំ

	សកម្មភាព	ពេលវេលា/ ភាពញឹកញាប់
1.	Herders, supervisors, watchmen etc
2.	Animal treatments (vaccination, spraying, injections)
3.	Planning activites
4.	Boma Management (mainly movement of Bomas)

4.6 កំណត់ថ្លៃដើមសម្រាប់ការថែទាំ/ សកម្មភាពរបស់បច្ចេកទេស (ក្នុងរយៈពេលមួយឆ្នាំ)

	បញ្ជាក់ពីធាតុចូល	ឯកតា	បរិមាណ	ថ្លៃដើមក្នុងមួយឯកតា	ថ្លៃធាតុចូលសរុប	% នៃថ្លៃដើមដែលចំណាយដោយអ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដី
កម្លាំងពលកម្ម	Herders, watchmen	Person-days	250,0	540,0	135000,0	100,0
កម្លាំងពលកម្ម	Supervisors	Person-days	3,0	720,0	2160,0	100,0
កម្លាំងពលកម្ម	Planning activities, management	Person-days	20,0	1500,0	30000,0	100,0
កម្លាំងពលកម្ម	Livestock-owning families (for wet season, no wages paid, livelihood)	Person-days	8000,0	300,0	2400000,0
សម្ភារៈសាងសង់	Boma Movement
ផ្សេងៗ	Animals treatments (spraying against ticks)	Per livestock unit	5000,0	5,0	25000,0	100,0
ផ្សេងៗ	Injections, vaccine	Per livestock unit	5000,0	3,0	15000,0	100,0
ថ្លៃដើមសរុបសម្រាប់ការថែទាំដំណាំតាមបច្ចេកទេស					2607160,0
ថ្លៃដើមសរុបសម្រាប់ការថែទាំដំណាំតាមបច្ចេកទេសគិតជាដុល្លារ					2607160,0

ប្រសិនបើអ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដីមិនមានថ្លៃដើម 100% សូមបញ្ជាក់ថានរណាដែលចំណាយថ្លៃដើមដែលនៅសល់:

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).

មតិយោបល់:

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).

4.7 កត្តាសំខាន់បំផុតដែលមានឥទ្ធិពលដល់ការចំណាយ

ពណ៌នាពីកត្តាប៉ះពាល់ចម្បងៗទៅលើថ្លៃដើម:

- 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 អាកាសធាតុ

5.2 សណ្ឋានដី

បញ្ជាក់ថាតើបច្ចេកទេសនេះត្រូវបានអនុវត្តន៍នៅក្នុង:

• មិនពាក់ព័ន្ធទាំងអស់

មតិយោបល់ និងបញ្ចាក់បន្ថែមអំពីសណ្ឋានដី :

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

5.3 ដី

បើអាចសូមភ្ជាប់ការពណ៌នាពីដីឱ្យបានច្បាស់ ឬព័ត៌មានដែលអាចទទួលបាន ឧ. ប្រភេទដី, pH ដី/ ជាតិអាស៊ីត, សមត្ថភាពផ្លាស់ប្តូរកាចុង, វត្តមាននីត្រូសែន, ភាពប្រៃ ។ល។:

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 ទឹកដែលអាចទាញមកប្រើប្រាស់បាន និងគុណភាពទឹក

តើមានបញ្ហាភាពទឹកប្រៃហូរចូលមកដែរឬទេ?

ទេ

តើទឹកជំនន់កំពុងកើតមាននៅតំបន់នេះដែររឺទេ?

ទេ

មតិយោបល់ និងលក្ខណៈពិសេសផ្សេងៗទៀតលើគុណភាព និងបរិមាណទឹក​ :

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

5.5 ជីវៈចម្រុះ

មតិយោបល់ និងលក្ខណៈពិសេសផ្សេងទៀតលើជីវចម្រុះ:

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 លក្ខណៈនៃអ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដីដែលអនុវត្តបច្ចេកទេស

សូមបញ្ជាក់ពីលក្ខណៈពាក់ព័ន្ធផ្សេងទៀតអំពីអ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដី:

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 ទំហំផ្ទៃដីជាមធ្យមនៃដីប្រើប្រាស់ដោយអ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដី ក្នុងការអនុវត្ត​បច្ចេកទេស

5.8 ភាពជាម្ចាស់ដី កម្មសិទ្ធប្រើប្រាស់ដី និងកម្មសិទ្ធប្រើប្រាស់ទឹក

ភាពជាម្ចាស់ដី:

• ភូមិ

កម្មសិទ្ធិប្រើប្រាស់ដី:

• ជាក្រុម (មានដែនកំណត់)

កម្មសិទ្ធប្រើប្រាស់ទឹក:

• អាស្រ័យផលសេរី (មិនមានការកំណត់)

5.9 ការប្រើប្រាស់សេវាកម្ម និងហេដ្ឋារចនាសម្ព័ន្ធ

6.1 ផលប៉ះពាល់ក្នុងបរិវេណអនុវត្តបច្ចេកទេសដែលកើតមាន

ផលប៉ះពាល់លើសេដ្ឋកិច្ចសង្គម

ផលិតផល

ទឹកដែលអាចទាញមកប្រើប្រាស់បាន និងគុណភាពទឹក

ចំណូល និងថ្លៃដើម

ផលប៉ះពាល់ទៅលើវប្បធម៌សង្គម

ផលប៉ះពាល់ទៅលើអេកូឡូស៊ី

វដ្តទឹក/លំហូរ

ដី

ជីវចម្រុះ៖ ដំណាំ, សត្វ

ការកាត់បន្ថយហានិភ័យនៃគ្រោះមហន្តរាយ និងគ្រោះអាកាសធាតុ

6.2 ផលប៉ះពាល់ក្រៅបរិវេណអនុវត្តបច្ចេកទេសដែលកើតមាន

វាយតម្លៃផលប៉ះពាល់ក្រៅបរិវេណអនុវត្តបច្ចេកទេស (វាស់វែង):

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 ភាពប្រឈម និងភាពរួសនៃបច្ចេកទេសទៅនឹងការប្រែប្រួលអាកាសធាតុ និងគ្រោះអាកាសធាតុ/ គ្រោះមហន្តរាយ (ដែលដឹងដោយអ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដី)

ការប្រែប្រួលអាកាសធាតុ

ការប្រែប្រួលអាកាសធាតុ

	រដូវកាល	កើនឡើង ឬថយចុះ	លក្ខណៈឆ្លើយតបនៃបច្ចេកទេសទៅនឹងការប្រែប្រួលអាកាសធាតុ
ការប្រែប្រួលអាកាសធាតុផ្សេងៗ	Greater variation of seasonal rainfall, higher intensity of rainfall events, change in rainfall regimes in general (see Schmocker 2013 and Imfeld 2016).	កើនឡើង	ល្អ

គ្រោះអាកាសធាតុ (មហន្តរាយ) ​

គ្រោះមហន្តរាយអាកាសធាតុ

	លក្ខណៈឆ្លើយតបនៃបច្ចេកទេសទៅនឹងការប្រែប្រួលអាកាសធាតុ
រលកកម្តៅ	ល្អ

មតិយោបល់:

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

6.4 ការវិភាគថ្លៃដើម និងអត្ថប្រយោជន៍

តើផលចំណេញ និងថ្លៃដើមត្រូវបានប្រៀបធៀបគ្នាយ៉ាងដូចម្តេច (ទស្សនៈរបស់អ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដី)?

តើផលចំណេញ និងការថែទាំ/ ជួសជុលត្រូវបានប្រៀបធៀបគ្នាយ៉ាងដូចម្តេច (ទស្សនៈរបស់អ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដី)?

6.5 ការទទួលយកបច្ចេកទេស

• 11-50%

បើអាច សូមបញ្ជាក់ពីបរិមាណ (ចំនួនគ្រួសារ និង/ ឬតំបន់គ្របដណ្តប់):

50%

ក្នុងចំណោមគ្រួសារទាំងអស់ដែលបានអនុវត្តបច្ចេកទេស តើមានប៉ុន្មាន​គ្រួសារ​ដែល​ចង់​ធ្វើ​ដោយ​ខ្លួន​ឯង ដោយមិន​ទទួល​បាន​សម្ភារៈ​លើក​​ទឹកចិត្ត/​ប្រាក់ឧបត្ថម្ភ?​:

• 0-10%

6.6 ការបន្សុំា

តើថ្មីៗនេះ បច្ចេកទេសនេះត្រូវបានកែតម្រូវ​ដើម្បី​បន្ស៊ាំ​ទៅនឹង​ស្ថាន​ភាព​ប្រែប្រួល​ដែរ​ឬទេ?

បាទ/ចា៎

បើឆ្លើយបាទ/ ចា៎ សូមកំណត់ថាតើស្ថានភាពប្រែប្រួលមួយណាត្រូវបានបន្ស៊ាំ:

• ការប្រែប្រួលអាកាសធាតុ/គ្រោះមហន្តរាយធម្មជាតិ

បញ្ជាក់ពីការបន្ស៊ាំនៃបច្ចេកទេស (ការរៀបចំ, ឧបករណ៍/ប្រភេទ​ ។ល។):

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 ភាពខ្លាំង/ គុណសម្បត្តិ/ ឱកាសនៃបច្ចេកទេស

ភាពខ្លាំង/ គុណសម្បត្តិ/ ឱកាសនៅកន្លែងរបស់អ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដី
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.

ភាពខ្លាំង/ គុណសម្បត្តិ/ ឱកាស​ ទស្សនៈរបស់បុគ្គលសំខាន់ៗ

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 ភាពខ្សោយ/ គុណវិបត្តិ/ ហានិភ័យនៃបច្ចេកទេស និងវិធីសាស្ត្រដោះស្រាយ

ភាពខ្សោយ/ គុណវិបត្តិ/ ហានិភ័យ ទស្សនៈរបស់អ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ដី	តើបច្ចេកទេសទាំងនោះបានដោះស្រាយបញ្ហាដូចម្តេច?
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 វិធីសាស្ត្រ/ ប្រភពនៃព័ត៌មាន

7.2 ឯកសារយោងដែលបានចេញផ្សាយ

ចំណងជើង អ្នកនិពន្ធ ឆ្នាំ ISBN:

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

មានប្រភពមកពីណា? ថ្លៃដើមប៉ុន្មាន?

University of Bern

ចំណងជើង អ្នកនិពន្ធ ឆ្នាំ ISBN:

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

មានប្រភពមកពីណា? ថ្លៃដើមប៉ុន្មាន?

University of Bern

ចំណងជើង អ្នកនិពន្ធ ឆ្នាំ ISBN:

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

មានប្រភពមកពីណា? ថ្លៃដើមប៉ុន្មាន?

Online

ចំណងជើង អ្នកនិពន្ធ ឆ្នាំ ISBN:

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

មានប្រភពមកពីណា? ថ្លៃដើមប៉ុន្មាន?

International Journal of Biodiversity.

ចំណងជើង អ្នកនិពន្ធ ឆ្នាំ 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.