aistand south~ern afrkca - (PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

the land, reducing the capacity of the ASAL to
support both human and animal life.
Important historical de'iopments
Grazing schemes
Before 1900, most of the uncultivated and
unforested land under natural pastures was
used freely for livestock grazing by nomadic
pastoralists. Most pastoral groups including the
Maasai had developed extensive pastoral
systems regulated by:
" the availability of water and good pastures
determined by climate
" presence or absence of killer diseases along
traditional nomadic routes
prevailing peace status in the adjacent
neighbourhood
planned socio-cultural activities and
ceremonies (Ministry ofAgi iculture, 1970).
Singida (1984) agreed with most observers
that before the advent ofthe colonial government
thc life-style of most pastoral groups was
spatially designed to provide a stable ecological
foundation for their economy. This economy was
neither stagnant or isolated. The opening of the
Kenya-Uganda railway line in 1901 provided
adequate ommunicatioi. ior the development of
inlnd fryeholi and long-term leasehold land
grants for ranch development by white farmers
(Langat, 1986).
However, the organisation and development
of livestock production in the African sectoi, was
inst'tutionalised
oisttonaliduto by thethe cohoia Aoniangovernmen,
t governm ent a
through the establishment in 1945 ofthe African
Land Development Board (A.LDEV). ALDEV
organised several grazing schemes during the
first 10-year Devclopment Plan (1946-55).
Pastoralists were initially organised to occupy
large grazing schemes with dips and water
facilities. Gr Lzinir,'anagement plans were not
enforced in "se ii'tially widespread grazing
schemes established in various districts such as
Machakos, Kiambu. Kajiado and Narok.
Pastoralists continued migrating in search of
forage and water according to their traditional
way of life and as dictated by climatic patterns.
In 1954-59 the "Swynnerton Plan", a major
land-use policy involving land adjudication in
high potential areas and extensive communal
grazing in pastoral districts, was drawn up.
Many grazing schemes, each with a livestock
officer-in-charge, were started in various
districts throughout the country.
The livestock officers attachc i to the grazing
schemes were charged with the responsibility of
running the schemes as "models" of proper land
use particularly in livestock management and
range resources utilisation. The aira was to
convince the pastoralists of t need to reduce
their livestock numbers to a, )id, overuse of
vegetation, to reduce erosion to manageable
levels and to realise reasonable annual off-takes.
189
A typical example of a grazing scheme was the
Konza scheme in Kajiado District. The scheme
was established on a 10,400 ha piece of Ian.! fbr
16 families. Before it was launched, an official
livestock census was undertaken and each
famity was allotted a live',c.)ck quoa and
thereatier signed an agreement to sell surplus
stock. Failure to honour the agreement meant
immediate viction from the grazing scheme.
The government provided all the required
fencing, water and dipping facilities to allow P
three-month grazing rotation. No animals we; e
allowed to move in or out of thc scheme except
animals going for sale. Annual inoculation of
animals against contagious bovine pleuropneumonia
by the Veterinary (CBPP) Department, and rinderpest,
was
carried
free
out
and
compulsory. Pastoralists were advised to
inoculate their animals against other killer
disease such as anthrax and blackquarter. Each
livestock owner was expected to pay a small
percentage of money accruing from animal sales
to offset costs for acaricides and various fees for
essential services rendered. Livestock numbers
increased dramatically to levels beyond the
carrying capacity of the grazing scheme.
Pastoralists with large livestock numbers
refused to sell and opted to leave the grazing
scheme. Movement out of the scheme gained
momentum and at the height of the 1960-61
drought, the six remaining families in the
scheme moved out. Finally, in 1964 the 3,-heme
was divided into eight individual ranches ol
varying sizes. Nearly all grazing schemes
established L n a ,1 8 in ) the fifties suffered a similar fate
(Langat, 1986).
Most pastoral groups viewed tne colonial
administration with suspicion and oelioved that
the colonial go'-ernmern a:d not undnrstaad the
real nature of pastoral cultures with tiair many
attendant problems. Pastoralists were not
committed to the success of grazing schemes;
they were ready to accept short-term benefits
and moved out of the schemps during periods of
any hardships. ALOEV (1962) played an
essential role during its ''3-year life span leading
to independence (Cone and Lipscomb, 1972).
With a skeleton of qualified personnel ALDEV
attempted to solve technical problems related to:
* excess livestock in rango areas usually oflow
quality
• widespread soil erosion
* poorly distributed and inadequate water
supply
* lack of roads
* diseases, e.g. tick-borne, water-borne and
insect-borne diseases
* inadequate animal feeds.
ALDEV aimed at managing range''inds to
maintain herds and flocks in better conditions
through schemes aimed at controlling grazing.
The schemes ranged from technically simple
ones where a minimum of services were