1.2 ລາຍລະອຽດ ການຕິດຕໍ່ ຂອງບຸກຄົນທີ່ຊັບພະຍາກອນ ແລະ ສະຖາບັນ ການມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນການປະເມີນຜົນ ແລະ ເອກະສານ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ຊື່ຂອງໂຄງການ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ ຫຼື ປະເມີນດ້ານແນວທາງ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

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

1.3 ເງື່ອນໄຂ ຂອງການນໍາໃຊ້ເອກກະສານຂໍ້ມູນ ຂອງ WOCAT

ເມື່ອໃດທີ່ໄດ້ສັງລວມຂໍ້ມູນ (ຢູ່ພາກສະໜາມ)?

11/02/2018

ຜູ້ສັງລວມ ແລະ ບັນດາຜູ້ຕອບແບບສອບຖາມ ຍອມຮັບໃນເງື່ອນໄຂ ການນໍາໃຊ້ຂໍ້ມູນເອກະສານ ທີ່ສ້າງຂື້ນ ໂດຍຜ່ານ ອົງການ WOCAT:

ແມ່ນ

2.1 ການອະທິບາຍ ໂດຍຫຍໍ້ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

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 ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງວິທີທາງ:

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 ຮູບພາບຂອງແນວທາງ

2.5 ປະເທດ / ເຂດ / ສະຖານທີ່ບ່ອນທີ່ແນວທາງໄດ້ຖືກນໍາໃຊ້

2.6 ວັນທີເລີ່ມຕົ້ນ ແລະ ສິ້ນສຸດ ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕີບັດ ວິທີທາງ

2.7 ປະເພດຂອງແນວທາງ

• ພາຍໃຕ້ໂຄງການ / ແຜນງານ

2.8 ເປົ້າໝາຍ / ຈຸດປະສົງຫຼັກ ຂອງການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ

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

2.9 ເງື່ອນໄຂອໍານວຍ ຫຼື ຂັດຂວາງການປະຕິບັດຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີການນໍາໃຊ້ຕາມແນວທາງ

3.1 ຜູ້ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນວິທີທາງ ແລະ ພາລະບົດບາດ ຂອງເຂົາເຈົ້າ

3.2 ການມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນໃນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ / ຊຸມຊົນທ້ອງຖິ່ນໃນໄລຍະທີ່ແຕກຕ່າງກັນຂອງແນວທາງ

	ການລວບລວມ ເອົາຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໃນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ / ຊຸມຊົນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ	ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ຜູ້ໃດທີ່ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນແຕ່ລະກິດຈະກໍາ?
ການເລີ່ມຕົ້ນ / ແຮງຈູງໃຈ	ການຮ່ວມມື	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.
ການວາງແຜນ	ການຮ່ວມມື	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.
ການປະຕິບັດ	ການຮ່ວມມື	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.
ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ / ການປະເມີນຜົນ	ການຮ່ວມມື	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 ການຕັດສິນໃຈກ່ຽວກັບການຄັດເລືອກເຕັກໂນໂລຢີຂອງການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ລະບຸ ຄົນທີ່ຕັດສິນໃຈ ກ່ຽວກັບການຄັດເລືອກຂອງ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ຈະໄດ້ຮັບການປະຕິບັດ:

• ຜູ້ຊ່ຽວຊານ ຫຼັກດ້ານການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ, ມີການຕິດຕາມປຶກສາຫາລືກັບຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ

ອະທິບາຍ:

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.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• ປະສົບການສ່ວນບຸກຄົນ ແລະ ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ (ທີ່ບໍ່ເປັນເອກກະສານ)

4.1 ການສ້າງຄວາມສາມາດ / ການຝຶກອົບຮົມ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ຫຼື ພາກສ່ວນກ່ຽວຂ້ອງອື່ນໆ ໄດ້ຮັບການຝຶກອົບຮົມບໍ່?

ແມ່ນ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ຜູ້ໃດທີ່ໄດ້ຮັບການຝຶກອົບຮົມ:

• ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ

ຮູບແບບຂອງການຝຶກອົບຮົມ:

• ກອງປະຊຸມ

4.2 ການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ

ເຮັດຜູ້ໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນມີການເຂົ້າເຖິງການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ?

ແມ່ນ

• personal communication

ອະທິບາຍ / ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

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

4.3 ສະຖາບັນການສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ (ການພັດທະນາອົງການຈັດຕັ້ງ)

ສະຖາບັນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສ້າງຕັ້ງຂື້ນ ຫຼື ໄດ້ຮັບການສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ ໂດຍການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງບໍ່?

• ມີ, ພໍສົມຄວນ

ລະບຸ ທາງສະຖາບັນ ໄດ້ສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ ໃນລະດັບໃດ (ຫຼາຍ):

• ທ້ອງຖິ່ນ

ອະທິບາຍ ສະຖາບັນການຈັດຕັ້ງ, ພາລະບົດບາດ ແລະ ໜ້າທີ່ຮັບຜິດຊອບ, ສະມາຊິກ ແລະ ອື່ນໆ.

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

ລະບຸ ປະເພດ ຂອງສະໜັບສະໜູນ:

• ທາງດ້ານການເງິນ
• ການສ້າງຄວາມອາດສາມາດ / ການຝຶກອົບຮົມ

ໃຫ້ລາຍລະອຽດເພີ່ມເຕີມ:

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

4.4 ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ ແລະ ປະເມີນຜົນ

ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ ໄດ້ມີການປະເມີນຜົນ ແລະ ຕິດຕາມບໍ?

ແມ່ນ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

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

ຖ້າແມ່ນ, ເອກກະສານສະບັບນີ້ ແມ່ນໄດ້ນໍາໃຊ້ເຂົ້າໃນການຕິດຕາມ ແລະ ປະເມີນຜົນບໍ່?

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

4.5 ການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ

ນີ້້ແມ່ນສ່ວນໜຶ່ງ ການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ ຂອງວິທີທາງບໍ່?

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

5.1 ງົບປະມານປະຈໍາປີ ສໍາລັບວິທີທາງ ຂອງການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

ສະແດງງົບປະມານ ປະຈໍາປີ ສໍາລັບອົງປະກອບ ຂອງວິທີທາງ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ ເປັນໂດລາສະຫະລັດ :

24447.00

ຖ້າຫາກບໍ່ຮູ້ຈັດງົບປະມານທີ່ແນ່ນອນ ແມ່ນໃຫ້ປະມານເອົາ:

• 10,000-100,000

ຄໍາເຫັນ (ຕົວຢ່າງ: ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນຫຼັກ ຂອງການສະໜອງທຶນ / ຜູ້ໃຫ້ທຶນທີ່ສໍາຄັນ):

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 ການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ສະໜອງໃຫ້ແກ່ຜູ້ນໍາທີ່ດິນ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານ ການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີບໍ?

ແມ່ນ

ຖ້າແມ່ນ, ໃຫ້ລະບຸປະເພດ (ຫຼາຍ) ຂອງການສະໜັບສະໜູນ, ເງື່ອນໄຂ ແລະ ຜູູ້ສະໜອງ (ຫຼາຍ):

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

5.3 ເງິນສົມທົບສໍາລັບການນໍາໃຊ້ສະເພາະປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າໃນການຜະລີດກະສິກໍາ (ລວມທັງແຮງງານ)

• ແຮງງານ

• ອື່ນໆ

ຖ້າແຮງງານ ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າ, ແມ່ນບໍ່:

• ຈ່າຍເປັນເງິນສົດ

5.4 ສິນເຊື່ອ

ໄດ້ປ່ອຍສິນເຊື່ອ ສະໜອງໃຫ້ພາຍໃຕ້ ວິທີການສໍາລັບກິດຈະກໍາ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນນຍົງບໍ່?

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

5.5 ສິ່ງຈູງໃຈ ຫຼື ເຄື່ອງມືອື່ນໆ

ການສົ່ງເສີມ ຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ໃນການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ ໄດ້ສະໜອງສິ່ງກະຕຸກຊຸກຍູ້ບໍ່?

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

6.1 ຜົນກະທົບຂອງແນວທາງ

6.2 ແຮງຈູງໃຈຫຼັກຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນໃນການປະຕິບັດການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

6.3 ຄວາມຍືນຍົງຂອງກິດຈະກໍາວິທີທາງ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ ທີ່ດິນ ສາມາດສືບຕໍ່ ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ຜ່ານວິທີທາງໄດ້ບໍ່ (ໂດຍປາດສະຈາກ ການຊ່ວຍເຫຼືອ ຈາກພາກສ່ວນພາຍນອກ)?

• ບໍ່ແນ່ນອນ

ຖ້າ ບໍ່ ຫຼື ບໍ່ແນ່ໃຈ, ໃຫ້ອະທິບາຍ ແລະ ຄໍາເຫັນ:

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 ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ / ໂອກາດໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ
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.

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຈຸດດີ / ໂອກາດ ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ
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 ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍຂອງແນວທາງ ແລະ ວິທີການແກ້ໄຂໃຫ້ເຂົາເຈົ້າ

ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍ / ຄວາມສ່ຽງໃນມູມມອງຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
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.

ຈຸດອ່ອນ ຫຼື ຂໍ້ເສຍ ຫຼື ຄວາມສ່ຽງ ໃນມຸມມອງຂອງ ຜູ້ສັງລວມຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບັນດາຜູ້ຕອບແບບສອບຖາມ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
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.

7.1 ວິທີການ / ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນ

7.2 ເອກະສານທົ່ວໄປທີ່ສາມາດໃຊ້ໄດ້

ຫົວຂໍ້, ຜູ້ຂຽນ, ປີ, ISBN:

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

ມີຢູ່ໃສ?ມູນຄ່າເທົ່າໃດ?

Available online at no cost.

7.3 ການເຊື່ອມຕໍ່ກັບຂໍ້ມູນທີ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງທີ່ສາມາດໃຊ້ອອນໄລນ໌

ຫົວຂໍ້ / ພັນລະນາ:

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