Approaches

Mugie Resource Sharing and Livestock to Markets Program [Kenya]

Creation: 03/02/2018 8:29 a.m.
Update: 11/02/2021 12:17 p.m.
Compiler: Peter Tyrrell
Editor: Henry Bailey
Reviewers: Hanspeter Liniger, Rima Mekdaschi Studer, Donia Mühlematter, Joana Eichenberger

Mugie Trading Stock (MTS)

approaches_3427 - Kenya

View sections

Expand all

Completeness: 86%

1. General information

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Selected livestock are bought from the communities, then fattened and marketed by the Mugie conservancy management on a ‘resource sharing’ basis – generating income for both the conservancy and the community. This encourages the development of local value chains and market-based incentives for better rangeland management and animal husbandry outside the conservancy area. Breeding, agricultural shows and on-going education in sustainable rangeland management provide support for the longer-term.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Mugie conservancy is a private company covering nearly 20,000 hectares. It is involved in ecotourism, wildlife conservation and livestock production. Simultaneously, Mugie cooperates with community members surrounding the conservancy by fattening and marketing their cattle. Both parties share in the risks and successes of the initiative – and this is key to building trust. Community livestock owners ‘resource share’ in the program by supplying selected animals in line with standards and a quota stipulated by the conservancy. Currently the cattle are weighed and graded at the conservancy headquarters, but a purpose-built facility on the edge of the conservancy is being constructed for this purpose.
While the conservancy manages the livestock from the community, there is a joint stake in the livestock as the eventual profits are divided. The conservancy takes over full management of the livestock from the community members including herding and grazing, dipping, providing veterinary treatment, monitoring weight, marketing and sales. The division and remittance of funds generated is according to the contract agreed with the community committee. Contracts vary in nature and are often no more than just verbal agreements based on trust. The original owners have visiting rights on Saturdays during weighing and the spray-race, where they inspect their animals and interact with conservancy livestock staff.

The program aims to build value chains, encourage livestock businesses and the local economy through provision of a fair price market for local communities’ products. It also strives to build peace across communities and ethnicities - there is no room for fighting when talking business. Developing market-based incentives to produce better quality livestock is another aim, thus stimulating improved rangeland management and a higher standard of animal husbandry. It is also hoped to build a sustainable livestock business for the conservancy to pay for its wildlife and biodiversity conservation efforts - because conservation doesn’t pay for itself and tourism is volatile, and can’t cover conservations costs in most situations.
The total turnover of the program to-date (April 2018) is approx. US $ 825,000. The conservancy takes 10% of the sales, plus US $ 4.00 per animal per month to cover grazing, animal health and management. Cattle are sold live to various brokers and dealers, depending on the market conditions and the quality of the cattle.
This process of community participation and partnership building is nurtured and reinforced in various ways: (i) through continuous outdoor meetings (updates on changes needed to agreements; requirements for livestock; updating on conditions of the market; talking about the need to maintain a supply of high quality livestock through better rangeland management, etc.); (ii) by development of community committees; (iii) establishing community SACCOs (co-operatives registered with the county government); and (iv) drawing up contracts between the committees and the conservancy.

The implementation of this approach is an ongoing, dynamic and ever-evolving process. However the broad sequence is as follows: (i) introduction of the approach to communities, encouraging them to embrace the idea of improving livestock quality and to enter into an agreement with the conservancy, (ii) formation of committees within the community to ensure that livestock owners are heard and can agree the value of livestock, as well as avenues for communication, complaints and negotiations, (iii) negotiation of contracts with these committees, covering revenue sharing and proposed number of livestock involved, (iv) livestock management, fattening and marketing by Mugie conservancy, (v) continuous monitoring and reviews.
As implementation progresses there are also breeding schemes to introduce better genetic material into community livestock. These improved breeds produce cattle of higher quality for the beef market. Ongoing education and an annual agricultural show increase the potential and awareness of sustainable range management approaches and opportunities to all members of surrounding communities, including livestock producers: men, women and the youth.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

Media Gallery

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Kenya

Region/ State/ Province:

Laikipia

Further specification of location:

Louniek region

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2017

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date when the Approach was initiated:

less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Type of Approach

recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

1. Promote peace & stability
2. Incentivise and educate in sustainable rangeland management and use of natural resources
3. Provide local market opportunities
4. Encourage and educate in responsible livestock production in rural areas
5. Encourage local economic growth
6. Ensure sustainable food production
7. Encourage the formation of strong institutions in the area (such as co-operatives, businesses and business-orientated group ranches)

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values

enabling

The use of traditional structures of elders is a great help in bringing members of local communities on board with the program, especially within the Pokot ethnic group.

hindering

Traditional social structures amongst pastoralist communities are commonly collapsing, and therefore the prevailing social norm is for people to try to benefit themselves rather than helping the community at large. Moreover, traditional social structures are dominated by men. Most approaches target elders and warrior age sets to try and distribute knowledge of rangeland management and therefore they do not reach those actually doing the majority of animal husbandry work and having the greatest impact upon the rangelands and biodiversity - namely the women and children.

availability/ access to financial resources and services

enabling

There has been an initial boost in the area from some banking services to help communities open bank accounts, and encourage the formation of cooperatives. Using these institutions greatly reduces the burden of program administration.

hindering

The majority of people in the area do not have local access to financial institutions. This creates a problem, as without the foundation of trust/insurance that financial services bring, facilitating sustainable trade, community members don't have the will or ability to invest in productive activities such as sustainable rangeland management and animal husbandry.

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)

hindering

The sub-division of historical ranches in the area has been done on a scale that creates blocks that are too small (12-20 hectare plots) for sustainable livestock activities to be supported. Most of these do not have their own sources of water and this sub-division of the landscape means the greater area is not being managed to maintain essential ecosystem services such as the preservation of groundwater, soils, native forest or grassland biodiversity.

policies

enabling

The 'Amaya Initiative' that has been set up by the current Governor of Laikipia to boost cooperation between between regional county governments has had initial successes in assisting the project through increased security and encouraging peace and stability. It has yet to provide other enabling functions such as control of cattle movement to prevent disease, encouraging/facilitating markets, etc.

land governance (decision-making, implementation and enforcement)

hindering

The lack of law enforcement controlling the movement of livestock hinders efforts to implement value adding techniques and approaches in sustainable rangeland management and associated livestock management approaches through disease, livestock theft, and unregulated utilisation of natural resources. The lack of enforcement of laws supporting the rights of landowners and businesses discourages investment on any scale. The penalties for transgressing some of these laws are also very weak and not commensurate with the risks that their breaches pose to landowners.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support

hindering

The basic understanding of lifecycles of common wild fodder plants is lacking. This means that the majority of community led initiatives to manage natural resources and mitigate against climate based crises cause more harm to sustainable land management efforts in the medium to long term.

markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices

hindering

Poor market access makes it difficult to sustain the program across all the potential revenue situations. There are good markets for well-finished livestock. However, culled cows, for instance, cannot be sold - and these continue to drain resources, both financial and natural. Institutions with large contracts that could provide offtake for such animals do not offer market prices that are sustainable for local businesses. The development of local infrastructure in marketing inputs (medicines, feeds, supplements, extension services, etc.), and value chain addition (slaughter houses, canning factories, cold chain storage, etc.) would help break apparent monopolies that seem to be retarding local markets.

workload, availability of manpower

hindering

There is a lack of availability of manpower with the correct skills and training in administration and management and with an understanding and willingness to work in the agricultural sector.

other

hindering

Availability of seed funds to encourage entrepreneurship and development of local businesses. Most funds seem to be channelled through NGOs who have an aversion to partnership in commercial ventures. Many training sessions that are run by NGOs in surrounding pastoralist areas, when discussing potential stakeholders, rarely mention local businesses. This serves to develop societies and communities reliant on handouts, unwilling to develop their local value chains. The prevailing NGO, development and aid attitude that avoids large for-profit businesses needs to change. Such businesses can be a lynchpin in regional value chains that encourage sustainable approaches, as they guarantee local supply chains and local customer bases, raising local economies, peace and strong institutions.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

local land users/ local communities

Land and livestock owners from the immediate area surrounding the private conservancy (from the Pokot, Samburu & Turkana tribes).

Local land users/communities make committees to allocate quotas of livestock to come in to the MTS resource sharing and livestock-to-market program. It is also their responsibility to continue to bring suitable animals for the program. The committees are those to communicate changes and updates to the terms of agreement to the wider community and to help mediate in disputes.

community-based organizations

Chemiot SACCO - a Pokot youth cooperative set up in the wake of starting the MTS scheme.

Mugie wishes to encourage the development of strong institutions in the area. Mugie hopes increasingly to deal with SACCOs as opposed to committees.

SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

RPLRP (Regional Pastoralist Livelihoods Resilience Program) and NDMA (National Drought Management Authority).

Currently, these stakeholders have shown an interest in the project and wish to see how it can be scaled up.

researchers

Masters and Doctorate students

There has been a little interest from these stakeholders in using the information and databases developed by Mugie. However there has been no feedback and little uptake from them.

private sector

Mugie Conservancy, various Mugie Trade partners.

To manage the livestock, to finish (fatten) them for the market, market the livestock, remit funds from sales, manage the contracts, provide education on improved rangeland management and animal husbandry. Trade partners provide other inputs and access to markets.

local government

Laikipia County Government, Samburu County Government, Baringo County Government

The respective county governments have shown interest in supporting and further developing the MTS program in order to help develop strong institutions, economy, businesses opportunities and rehabilitate rangelands for better livelihoods in the Amaya Triangle area.

If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

Mugie Conservancy

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	interactive	Both Mugie conservancy and local land users were involved in negotiations over the period of conflict around the 2017 Kenya presidential elections - out of this innovative resource sharing approaches were developed to benefit all stakeholders.
planning	interactive	Community leaders were presented with the options and limitations by Mugie management. Committees were then formed under several different themes, and they then negotiated contracts.
implementation	interactive	Community committees continue to be the main point of contact as the program develops organically, balancing the market, environment and needs of various stakeholders. However, the main implementer continues to be Mugie but with integrated community support. Changes in the market are seeing more individual community members using the scheme to market livestock themselves without Mugie involvement, but using the reputation of the brand.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Communities raise problems that occur and work hand in hand with Mugie management to resolve issues.

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

Mugie handles the administration of the program and therefore decides on what technologies best fit their management requirements. Communities are always consulted on all changes and developments of the program.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
research findings
personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

land users
field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

on-the-job
farmer-to-farmer
demonstration areas
public meetings

Subjects covered:

Grazing management, rangeland management (planning), Lifecycles of plants, water cycling, solar cycling, mineral cycling, importance of suitable breeds, market awareness, forming (SACCO), Basic business planning.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

local
regional

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Cooperatives (SACCOs), Community Conservancies, Local businesses.

Specify type of support:

capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

Yes

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

sociology
economics / marketing
ecology
technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Project developers from Mugie.

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

2,000-10,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

All funding presently from Mugie. The program could be greatly improved with outside funding, donations or support.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

equipment

Specify which inputs were subsidised	To which extent	Specify subsidies

tools	partly financed	Microchipping for Electronic identification of cattle from Kenya Vetinary Association (KVA)

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

Local landowners have a financial market based incentive to protect the main conservation area and increase/explore rehabilitation efforts on their own land.

Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

Detailed records were kept from the beginning and consulted as evidence for changes to the approach as the program developed

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

The program is still relatively new - but there has been strong evidence of changing attitudes towards better rangeland management.

Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

The proper management of cattle is helping to manage grasses and reduce the burden on overgrazed areas within the landscape.

Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

Funding for this has yet to be provided for the area.

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

Considerable training has been carried out and discussions have been held with all of the communities surrounding the main conservation area of Mugie, greatly increasing their knowledge - capacity however relies upon security, access to market incentive to implement SLM and above all security of resources and land tenure.

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

Training of, and discussions with, other stakeholders have taken place too, raising wider awareness of the major issues and driving causes of rangeland degradation in the area.

Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

Yes, and continues to do so. The approach shows and provides a framework for further cooperation in economic development, peace building and education as well as sustainable land management and safeguarding of biodiversity.

Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

It has led to great stability in the area and opened up lines of dialogues between different communities, ethnicities, areas, and local government.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

The approach has allowed socially and economically disadvantaged groups to benefit from the administration and financial services from Mugie Conservancy and has enabled investments that have shown as much as 37% return on investments for socially and economically disadvantaged groups that otherwise would never have happened.

Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

Although this impact has been small, now that trust with communities has been built, further resource sharing products are being developed within the approach to target these groups specifically.

Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

The Mugie Rangeland and Pastoralist Show (an agricultural show for pastoralists) welcomes all the family and makes them aware of the issues and potential for change through SLM technologies and approaches.

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

This lies within the government's power to change. However, there is a lack of understanding of what the problem actually is, even from local and national government.

Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

Did the Approach improve access to markets?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

Not yet, but as the approach goes forward. Those participating from more affluent social groups will be charged a premium. This will be used for extension services that improve these areas. Education is being given around the potential for communities to develop their own local water cooperatives.

Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

By providing basic financial services, land users can start guaranteeing funds and plans available for climate related disasters. The education and knowledge being provided also increases this capacity, and the off take of animals to finish on managed rangeland for market provides resilience all year round regardless of drought.

Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?

No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly

There has been a huge injection of funds into the area through this approach. Employment has also increased through the scheme and can continue to do so as it grows.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

increased production

increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio

reduced land degradation

reduced risk of disasters

prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion

enhanced SLM knowledge and skills

aesthetic improvement

conflict mitigation

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

At the time of writing the approach is still less than a year old and this remains to be seen.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Benefits from the increase in the value of cattle. Few other livestock programs achieve this.
It has created peace in the area.
There are now opportunities for business growth opening up in the area.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
This is a key stepping stone in creating resilience in the area and rehabilitating degraded land through the financial market based incentives provided through the approach.
The approach has provided the necessary financial services and a sustainable road map forward to alleviate poverty through the changing of local attitudes from a wealth based society where the tragedy of the commons is degrading landscapes and societal structures, into a cash based society with strong institutions, a sustainable way of life and future.
Increase in peace and stability can further provide an incentive for local land users to invest in SLM practices and the return of biodiversity.

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Changeability of the market and lack of guaranteed prices.	Further banding together to guarantee good products (livestock) dependent upon sustainable rangeland management and agreed contracts with wholesalers.
Still a lack of good rangeland outside of the main conservation area of Mugie	Further increase stability and peace in the area and develop cooperatives of landowners who can rehabilitate and manage their land sustainably using economies of scale. This requires further guarantees of the markets and their products.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Administrative burden is huge and might prevent replication of the approach to organisations without a body of well-educated staff.	Development of a resource sharing management application (App).
Corruption in the markets and with large-scale contracts for livestock products

7. References and links

Links and modules