1.2 参与方法评估和文件编制的资源人员和机构的联系方式

有助于对方法进行记录/评估的项目名称（如相关）

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

1.3 关于使用通过WOCAT记录的数据的条件

（现场）数据是什么时候汇编的？:

11/02/2018

编制者和关键资源人员接受有关使用通过WOCAT记录数据的条件。:

是

2.1 该方法的简要说明

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 该方法的详细说明

该方法的详细说明:

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 该方法的照片

2.5 采用该方法的国家/地区/地点

2.6 该方法的开始和终止日期

2.7 方法的类型

• 基于项目/方案

2.8 该方法的主要目的/目标

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

2.9 推动或妨碍实施本办法所适用的技术的条件

3.1 该方法涉及的利益相关者及其职责

3.2 当地土地使用者/当地社区参与该方法的不同阶段

	当地土地使用者/当地社区的参与	指定参与人员并描述活动
启动/动机	互动	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.
计划	互动	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.
实施	互动	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.
监测/评估	互动	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 有关SLM技术选择的决策

具体说明谁有权决定选择要实施的技术:

• 主要是SLM专家，咨询土地使用者之后

解释:

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.

明确做出决策的依据:

• 个人经验和意见（无记录）

4.1 能力建设/培训

是否为土地使用者/其他利益相关者提供培训？:

是

明确受训人员:

• 土地使用者

培训形式:

• 公开会议

4.2 咨询服务

土地使用者有权使用咨询服务吗？:

是

• personal communication

说明/注释:

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

4.3 机构强化（组织发展）

是否通过这种方法建立或加强了机构？:

• 是，适度

具体说明机构的强化或建立程度:

• 本地

说明机构、角色和职责、成员等。:

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

具体说明支持类型:

• 财务
• 能力建设/培训

提供进一步细节:

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

4.4 监测和评估

监测和评估是该方法的一部分吗？:

是

注释:

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

若是，该文件是否用于监测和评估？:

否

4.5 研究

研究是该方法的一部分吗?

否

5.1 该方法中SLM组成部分的年度预算

说明该方法中SLM部分的年度预算，单位为美元:

24447.00

如果不知道准确的年度预算，请给出一个范围:

• 10,000-100,000

注释（例如主要的资助来源/主要捐助者）:

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 为土地使用者提供财政/物质支援

土地使用者是否获得实施该技术的财政/物质支持？:

是

如果是，请具体说明支持的类型、条件和提供者:

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

5.3 对特定投入的补贴（包括劳动力）

• 劳动力

• 其它

如果土地使用者的劳动力是一项重要的投入，那么是不是:

• 以现金支付

5.4 信用

是否根据SLM活动的方法给予信用值？:

否

5.5 其它激励或手段

是否有其他激励措施或工具用于促进SLM技术的实施？:

否

6.1 方法的影响

6.2 土地使用者实施SLM的主要动机

6.3 方法活动的可持续性

土地使用者能否维持通过该方法实施的措施（无外部支持的情况下）？:

• 不确定

若否或不确定，请具体说明并予以注释:

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 该方法的长处/优点

土地使用者眼中的长处/优势/机会
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.

编制者或其他关键资源人员认为的长处/优势/机会
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 该方法的弱点/缺点以及克服它们的方法

土地使用者认为的弱点/缺点/风险	如何克服它们？
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.

编制者或其他关键资源人员认为的弱点/缺点/风险	如何克服它们？
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 方法/信息来源

7.2 参考可用出版物

标题、作者、年份、ISBN:

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

可以从哪里获得?成本如何?

Available online at no cost.

7.3 链接到网络上可用的相关信息

标题/说明:

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