1.2 Контактные данные специалистов и организаций, участвующих в описании и оценке Подхода

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

11/02/2018

Составитель и ответственный/-ые специалист(-ы) согласны с условиями, регламентирующими использование собранных ВОКАТ данных:

Да

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

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 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

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 Фотографии, иллюстрирующие Подход

2.5 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход

2.6 Даты начала и окончания реализации Подхода

2.7 Тип Подхода

• в рамках проекта/ программы

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

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

2.9 Условия содействующие применению Технологии/ Технологий в рамках Подхода или затрудняющие его

3.1 Заинтересованные стороны, участвующие в реализации Подхода и их роли

3.2 Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ на разных стадиях реализации Подхода

	Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ	Перечислите участников и опишите их вовлеченность
инициирование/ мотивация	интерактивное	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.
планирование	интерактивное	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.
выполнение	интерактивное	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.
мониторинг/ оценка	интерактивное	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 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

Укажите, кто принимал решение по выбору применяемой Технологии/ Технологий:

• преимущественно специалисты по УЗП после консультаций с землепользователями

Поясните:

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.

Поясните на чём было основано принятие решений:

• личный опыт и мнения (незадокументированные)

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи

Тип обучения:

• общие собрания

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

• personal communication

Описание/ комментарий:

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

4.3 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

В ходе реализации Подхода были ли организованы новые институциональные структуры или поддержаны уже существующие?

• да, умеренно

Укажите уровень, на котором структуры были укреплены или вновь созданы:

• местные

Опишите организацию, функции и ответственность, членство и т.д.

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

Укажите тип поддержки:

• финансовая
• повышение компетенций/ обучение

Подробнее:

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

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

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

Если да, будет ли данный документ использоваться для мониторинга и оценки?

Нет

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Нет

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

Укажите годовой бюджет мероприятий УЗП в рамках Подхода в долларах США :

24447,00

Если точный годовой бюжет неизвестен, укажите примерный диапазон затрат:

• 10000-100000

Комментарий (например, основные источники финансирования/ ключевые доноры):

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 Финансирование и внешняя материальная поддержка, предоставляемая землепользователям

Предоставлялась ли землепользователям финансовая/ материальная поддержка для применения Технологии /Технологий?

Да

Если да, укажите тип(-ы) поддержки, кто ее предоставил и условия предоставления:

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

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

• труд

• другие

Если труд землепользователя был существенным вкладом, укажите, был ли этот вклад:

• за денежное вознаграждение

5.4 Кредитование

Предоставлялись ли в рамках Подхода кредиты на мероприятия УЗП?

Нет

5.5 Другие методы или инструменты стимулирования

Использовались ли другие методы или инструменты стимулирования для продвижения Технологий УЗП?

Нет

6.1 Влияние Подхода

6.2 Основные причины, побуждающие землепользователей внедрять УЗП

6.3 Долгосрочная устойчивость мероприятий в рамках Подхода

Могут ли землепользователи самостоятельно (без внешней поддержки) продолжать применение того, что было реализовано в рамках Подхода?

• нет уверенности

Если нет или нет уверенности, объясните почему:

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 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
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.

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
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 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
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.

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
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 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

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

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

Available online at no cost.

7.3 Ссылки на материалы, доступные онлайн

Название/ описание:

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

Адрес в сети Интернет:

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