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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
Furthermore, Goldschmidt (1981) stated that acceptance of the group ranch concept has derived from the "Fear of alternative governmental actions rather than enthusiasms for the proposal". Unkind views regaid acceptance of the group ranch concept as a mens of guaranteeing political integrity of the l4aasai by replacing the spear with a land title deed (Cossins, 1980; Fumagalli, 1978, Galat, 1980). The Maasai people viewed the infrastructure build up as a means of increasing their traditional wcalth base (livestock) without compromising their culture and hence accepted it. Livestock project. related to group ranches Three externally funded projects were set up, namely Food md Agriculture Organization! Government i Kenya (FAQrGoK) set up a special fund in 1964; the National Range and Ranch Development Project; and Kenya Livestock Development Project (KLDP Phase I and I). These projects had a significant impact on livestock development in Kenya's rangelands. The initial project aimed at strengthening and expanding the Range Management Division by promoting pastoral developments in ASAL by ,)roviding detailed land use surveys which would f~rm the basis of range development plans; pro'viding training for technical and extersion staff to give professional services; and conducting applied research in specific areas such as range productivity and utilisation. The range and ranch development project financed by the World Bank/Sweden and the Government of Kenya and implemented in 1970- 8 6 developed "grazing blocks" by providing water facilities and professional advice on demarcated pastures with motorable access tracks. Target areas were the North Eastern Province, Isiolo and Marsabit districts in the Eastern Province and Turkana and Tana River districts. Grazing blocks were developed to manage water and pasture use by livestock and ta stabilise livestock production at the optimum practical level (Moss, 1970). Simple method' such as animal distribution in the block would allow full use of pastures leading to optimum animal performance; resting pastures after use allowing plants to regain vigour; and the woul'd distribi-ion encourage of anim al desirable handling distribution facilities which of would encouri aninals. Grazing blocks were developed on approximatc: 5.97 million ha in the North Eastern Province and 931,000 ha in Isiolo District. The KLDP (Phase 1)implemented in 1968-73 with a total budget of KSh 81.396 million for a five-year period was the first IDA credit for livestock development in Kenya. The objectives of the project were to: 191 • increase beef production by providing operational and development funds to the four types of ranching enterprises, namely the individual, the group, the co-operative and the company ranches in Kenya * provide facilities for disease control and improve facilities for livestock marketing in Kenya a * assist traditional nastoralists for the first time through the transition from a subsistence to a market-oriented economy. The KLDP (Phase II), implemented in 1974-80 with a total budget of KSh 350.5 million, had the following objectives: • the establishment of 60 group ranches, 100 commercial ranches, 21 company/cooperative ranches and three feedlots • improvement of 2.8 million ha of communal grazing land in the Ncrth Eastern Province and 1.2 million ha in hiolo District, mainlyby providing water and access roads * development of three wildlife areas and the establishment of a census and an ecological monitoring unit. The establishment of 159 group ranches in Kenya, 129 in the Rift Valley (Kajiado. Narok, Samburu, Laikipia, Baringo and West Pokot), six in South Nyanza, seven in the Eastern Province (Embu and Kitui) and 17 in Coast Province (Taita, Kwale and Kilifi) which cover approximately 30,261 km 2 (Table 1) owe their origin to KLDP I and II and other livestock-related projects although only 42 ranches benefited from KLDP credit. Fifty-one of the 159 group ranches (Table 1) developed were in Kajiado District. The group ranch concept was initially tested and implemented in Kajiado. For the purpose of thi3 report Kajiado District has been chosen to illustrate the success and failure of group ranches in the country. Of additional interest is that Kajiado was in the ALDEV grazing scheme, the forerunner to the group ranch concept. Livestock production in Kajiado District General information Kajiado Districtin the Rift ValleyProince is one of the mot important rangeland districts in Kenya. K e It mot covers c o r 20,963 20,963 km dist r i - 2 which is approximately 11% of and the 3.4% surface of the area surface of area the ofKenya province (Statistical Abstract, 1990). The district is divided into four administrative divisions; the Central Division (1,011,615 ha), Loitoktok Division (652,483 ha), Ngong Division (357,883 ha) and Magadi Division (188,619 ha). Ecologically, the district has approximately 26,000 ha (1.2%) of land area in ecological zones II and III, 141,000 ha (6.4%) in ecological zone IV and the rest in ecological zones V and VI. Only
Page 1 and 2:
FPTREOF LIVESTOCK INIWSTRIES ', AIS
Page 3 and 4:
ISBN 92-9053-,271--a Correct citati
Page 5 and 6:
Disease control approaches Economic
Page 7 and 8:
Preface John Walsh Director General
Page 9 and 10:
and communal farmers develop the in
Page 11 and 12:
The impact of the introduction of e
Page 13 and 14:
Table 3. Productivity ol Tswanacros
Page 15 and 16:
contribute much more than exotic ca
Page 17 and 18:
Intensive animal feeding practices
Page 19 and 20:
Table 1. Annual dry-mattur producti
Page 21 and 22:
Table 3. Nutritional composition an
Page 23 and 24:
Table 6. Nutritional composition an
Page 25 and 26:
Table 10. Dry matter Intake and por
Page 27 and 28:
Lilongwe, Malawi, 5-9 December 1988
Page 29 and 30:
Figure 2. The analyical framework.
Page 31 and 32:
Figure 3. Group composition and lin
Page 33 and 34:
Dairy/beef production systems resea
Page 35 and 36:
Table 2. Constraints to beef/dalry
Page 37 and 38:
Table 5. The performance of Holstei
Page 39 and 40:
Research on smallholder dairy produ
Page 41 and 42:
are a small number of productive an
Page 43 and 44:
establishing a time frame sufficien
Page 45 and 46:
secondary data analyses. In each ar
Page 47 and 48:
facilitate greater orientation to f
Page 49 and 50:
References Goldson J. 1973. The eff
Page 51 and 52:
Sumnary Smallholder dairy on-farm r
Page 53 and 54:
country relies on the development o
Page 55 and 56:
To estimate the productivity of int
Page 57 and 58:
S n x Ethiopia's population, is est
Page 59 and 60:
Results temperate climate of sub-Sa
Page 61 and 62:
igurel. #O-mcaf 9RHVM pedm im eat B
Page 63 and 64:
References Beyene Kebede. 1987. The
Page 65 and 66:
* train a number of Kenyans for hig
Page 67 and 68:
Figure 1. Comparative milk off-take
Page 69 and 70:
Table 2. On-farnn flock composiion
Page 71 and 72:
Market demand for DPGs and DPG prod
Page 73 and 74:
Contribution of cros;sbred goats to
Page 75 and 76:
The project staff are closely invol
Page 77 and 78:
Dairy goat research and extension a
Page 79 and 80:
Table 2. Main objectives of fte res
Page 81 and 82:
Table 3. Daitygoat management at SU
Page 83 and 84:
Table 6. Performanceof does atSUA f
Page 85 and 86:
Summary Dtal-purpose cattle in cent
Page 87 and 88:
the establishment of good managemen
Page 89 and 90:
Technologies introduced in the farm
Page 91 and 92:
circumvent this problem the "Open N
Page 93 and 94:
Pert-urban small-scale dairy resear
Page 95 and 96:
Research methodology Project implem
Page 97 and 98:
government centre between 1935 and
Page 99 and 100:
emphasis to improvements in the mil
Page 101 and 102:
Table 1. Agro-ecological zones of Z
Page 103 and 104:
Table 2. Productivity of indigenous
Page 105 and 106:
government institutions as research
Page 107 and 108:
Disease control approaches
Page 109 and 110:
ditions occur mostly in calves and
Page 111 and 112:
ments to maintain dipping infrastru
Page 113 and 114:
Lawrence J A and McCo(kcr P J. 1981
Page 115 and 116:
experiences so far gained and futur
Page 117 and 118:
acceptance s very high and the work
Page 119 and 120:
Sustainable control methods for tic
Page 121 and 122:
Table 1. Trkk-resistantzebu cattle
Page 123 and 124:
Summary New vaccine strategies agai
Page 125 and 126:
Uilenberg G, Zivkovic D, Dwinger R
Page 127 and 128:
Table 1. Tsetse infested area in co
Page 129 and 130:
Objectives ofte research programme
Page 131 and 132:
aspect. needs urgent attention. Val
Page 133 and 134: ingoats. Tropical Animal HeathandPr
Page 135 and 136: Summary Smallholder dairy productio
Page 137 and 138: Factors affecting the development a
Page 139 and 140: Most roads in the rural areas where
Page 141 and 142: well-focused dairy development prog
Page 143 and 144: Secure better bargaining position w
Page 145 and 146: purchase fuel and lubricants in the
Page 147 and 148: part of the country. The cattle pop
Page 149 and 150: " to increase farm-family income of
Page 151 and 152: Recent developments in the dairy in
Page 153 and 154: Dairy development programme in Tang
Page 155 and 156: Table 3. Popu/aon andpro&ctke kicak
Page 157 and 158: Table 5. Napier production on-farm
Page 159 and 160: facilities, unreliable trnsport, la
Page 161 and 162: Smallholder dairy development progr
Page 163 and 164: various types of cattle under rural
Page 165 and 166: 38,657 (US$ 7957) have been achieve
Page 167 and 168: labour to meet the requirements of
Page 169 and 170: Development of smallholder dairying
Page 171 and 172: Table 3. Revenue and expenditure fr
Page 173 and 174: Marketing options for livestock pro
Page 175 and 176: argaed that the only way to improve
Page 177 and 178: Debrah and Axrteneh (1991) found ma
Page 179 and 180: Mbogoh S G and Tilahun N. 1992. Dai
Page 181 and 182: Group ranch concept and practice ir
Page 183: the land, reducing the capacity of
Page 187 and 188: upgraded with Sahiwal breed (Kajiad
Page 189 and 190: the project in 1982. Infrastructura
Page 191 and 192: If all the ranches were subdivided
Page 193 and 194: This can be achieved through an ext
Page 195 and 196: Introduction of dairy cattle produc
Page 197 and 198: " a permanent water source should b
Page 199 and 200: Development of feeding strategies a
Page 201 and 202: Supplementation improved milk yield
Page 203 and 204: Sweet potato vines, pigeon pea leav
Page 205 and 206: Summary Wool and mohair production
Page 207 and 208: contributed to low fecundity was th
Page 209 and 210: established with the following obje
Page 211 and 212: qualified staff at LIC& haa been a
Page 213 and 214: Synthesis of constraints to livesto
Page 215 and 216: i'nd appropriateness of the technol
Page 217 and 218: " Realising the magnitude of the pr
Page 219 and 220: DrL. Reynolds International Livesto
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?