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

1982, ,hegovernment constituted a committee to
provide an in-depth examination of the socioeconomic
problems associated with group
ranches as a basis for effecting future changes
and subdivision of group ranches (Kenya
Government, 1982). Finally the government
allowed group ranches in Kajiado to d-cide on the
issue of subdivision through voting by members
in each ranch (Kenya Government, 1983). Each
group ranch had to meet the following conditions
to get approval for subdivision:
" Tb pay up all monies the group ranch owed to
the Agricultural Finance Corporation. Thi.i
condition proved difficult to meet since most
members were reluctant to pay their share of
the loan. Some ranches with marketable land
managed to sell a portion of their ranch to
raise the required funds.
" To resolve the issue of the registration of
grown up young mcn in the ranch. However,
"
politics and corruption complicated this issue.
'b convene a general meeting to dissolve the
group ranch and clear the minutes with
relevant authorities and to obtain official
permission from the registrar of groups to
dissolve the group.
On fulfillment of. ese conditions, the group
ranch committee with the help of government
personnel could embark on the process of
subdivision. The approved practice was
subdivision into equal shares of land for all
registered members. By December 1984 the
status of the issue of the subdivision of the 51
group ranches in Kajiado - ..
was as follows (Sadera,
1986):
" Seven ranches (14%) had been subdivided,
The size of individual holding ranged from 49
ha (8.4 SU) to 298 ha (50 SU);
" Twenty-two ranches had resolved not to
subdivide but to remain as group ranches;
" The government was initially opposed to
subdivision as it was felt that it would
undermine viability and promote environmental
degradation and hence accepted
subdivision reluctantly.
It was felt that subdivision of group ran' hes
would result in ranch sizes too small to be
ecologireily and economically viable. lnch sizes
below 800 ha, the accepted minimum size of an
individually-owned ranch in Kajiado, would not
be ecologically viable and would lead to social,
economic and environmental degradation. Sizes
of individual holdings, once subdivided on equal
basis ranged from 23 ha to 296 ha. However, if
all th- group ranches subdiv-ced their total land
on equal share basi, each membei wculd on
average receive approximately 100 ha; which is
below subsistence requirement for a famil., of
six.
In addition, subdivision would ultimately
lead to incre25Pd cultivation on the fragile
marginal lands. Severe erosion evident in other
196
range districts like Machakos, Kitui, Baringo e1A
would become common place in Kajiado.
The Maasai were against subdivision for
several reasons. Subdivision into smaller land
units would encourage agricultural cropping and
crop protection mechanisms like fences and
trenches would restrict the usual livestock and
wildlife movement. This would ultimately affect
livestock production in terms of numbers and
individual animal weights. Subdivision would
also cause the influx of non-Maasai land buyers
from various parts of Kenya. The new residents
would dilute and undermine Maasai culture
which most Maasai leaders wanted to preserve.
Important issues in subdivided rancbes
Implementation of the group ranch subdivision
process proved to be very slow and most groups
failed to meet all the stipulations imposed by the
government in
1983. Only nine group ranches
have carried out and completed the process of
subdivision and issued registered members with
their own title deeds. Most of these subdivided
group ranches are near urban centres and have
reasonable arable or irrigatable land.
The surface area of nine subdivided group
ranches covers 146,476 ha which is only 9.6% of
the total group ranch area in the district. The
subdivided ranches have a total membership of
1632 (11%)compared w;th the ttal membership
13 compared th h ale eship
of 14,5i3. The subdivided area has a livestock
population stock unit of of450,160.
61,216 SU This compared constitutes with 13.6% a total .1"
the livestock stock units. These figures imply
that group ranch subdivision on the basis of the
land area, the members and livestock involved
or in terms of total land resources involved is
very small and insignificant. It is also doubtful
whethertherestofthegrouprancheswhichhave
agreed to subdivide will ever meet the
requiremente of carrying out subdivision.
Closer examination of the different group
ranch sizes in Kajiado indicate that of the 51
ranches, 12 ranches N. I an area below 10,000 ha
and 29 ranches had w, area of 10,000-50,000 ha.
Eight ranches had an area of 50,000-100,000 ha
while two had an area above 100,000 ha
(Tabie 3).
Table 3. Frequency of distibution of various
ranch sizes (ha) for the 51 group
ras ingada,1988).
Sim _hpl_ No,ranches %
< 10,000 12 24
29 66
8,0,r"0ItO0 16
>163,000 2 4
Tota 51 100