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

instituted to comple), sch;,,es where several from local financial institutions. The resultant
management options Were included, e.g. limiting
stock numbers to the carrying capacity of the
land; controlTed rotational grazing; the
developmcnt of water; and enforcing disease
management strategies.
Group ranching concept (evolution)
Graz.',g schemes under ALDEV helped in the
accumulation of experiences and ideas which
could be moulded or modified to conceive other
types of systems more suitable to the pastoral
society traditions, culture and economy. The
group ranch concept and practice is one system
which has borrowed heavily from exposure to
grazing schemes. Konza grazing scheme was
seen and referred to as a communal ranch
(Swynnerton, 1954; Brown, 1959).
ALDEV (1962) visualised the establishment
of large extended family ranches concentrated in
blocks of land of 8100 ha or more. The grazing
scheme aimed at overcoming the shortcomings
associaciJ with overstocking and overgrazing,
Both of these problems arise from the communal
nature of pastoral lands where resources are free
and the individuals intrest is to accumulate
livestock (ALDEV. 1962; Swynnerton, 1954). The
grazing schemes aimed at coitrolling resident
animal numbers through guided livestock sales
and thereby maintaini. g a stocking rate related
to the carrying capacity ,f the land. This concept
behind the grazing scheme was adopted and
incorporated in the setting and establishment of
group ranching. The concept behind the group
ranch was articulated in the Lawrence (1966)
Mission Report which advised that land
registration in pastoral areas should be on a
group rather than en an individual basis. It
formed the official basis upon which group
ranches were established. The rationale was that
under a viable individual ranch regime, chronic
land shortage would be created affecting many
people who would not be able to acquire
individual grants. The government encouraged
establishment ofgroup ranches on the basis that
small livestock owners would suffer since they
would not be able to afford the necessary ranch
inputs such as dips and the required water
infrastructure to maintain a viable ranching
unit. The soludon was to acquire them asa group
reducing the cost of inputs and thereby
improving their viability. Some of these ideas
wer. originally developed for group farming. It
is therefore safe to say that the group ranch
concept emerged in the course of various
innovations associated with the development of
agriculture in Kenya during the colonial era. The
Lawrence repor, which produced the legal
framework of the group ranch was later enacted
through a parliamentary act adopted as the
Group Representative Act of 1968. This act
legalised ownership and occupation of land by a
group of people and enabled participants to
acquire fhnds for development and operation
190
development created projects in two broad types
of production systems namely commercial
production systems in the form of a company,
co-operative or individual ranches and pastoral
production systems in the form of group ranches
and grazing blocks. The groupings were
dependent on land tenure and social organisations
(Ayuko, 1981).
Group rarch defined
A group ranch is a livestock production system
or enterprise where a group of peoplejointly own
freehold title to land, maintain agreed stocking
levels and herd their livestock collectively which
they own individually (Minictry of Agriculture,
1968). It is noteworhy that selection of members
to a particular group ranch was based on kin ihip
and traditional land rights.
Objectives of group ranches
The group ranches were designed by the
government in consuitation wit various
members ofinterested parties, e.g. Maasai elders
and financiers to meet the following predetermine
1 objectih es:
* increase the productivity of pastoral lands
through increased off-take
• to improve the earning capacity of pastoralists
* to avoid possible landlessness amcng
pastoralists in case large tracts of land were
allocated to individual ranchers
to aoid environmental degradation due to
overstocking on communal lands
• to esta' lish a livestock production system
that would allow modernisation or modification
of livestock husbandry and still
preserve many of the traditional ways of l!e
without causing social frictions or an abrupt
break with traditional ways of life.
Acceptance of the group ranch concept
The group ranch concept implemented through
Kenya Livestock Development Policy (KLDP) I
and II (Kenya Government, 1980) was to be the
main tool through which trustlands in the
Maasai area would be transformed to deed
holdings with rights and responsibilities of land
ownership invested in group ranch members
(IBRD, 1977). It is common knowledge that most
Maasai people did not understand the full irnplications
ofthe group ranch approach. However,
the desire for security of land tenure, i.e. provnting
the allocation of land to elite Maasai or
i ny other individual or group; and the op
jortunities to develop water facilities and dips
funded through supporting projects influenced
the Maasai decision to accept or to be receptive
to the concept of group ranches (Galaty, 1980).
McCanley (1976) claimed that the group ranch
concept was more honestly recognised as simply
the least objectionable means by which to
implement tenurial change in Maasailand.