Community Rangelands
Global Change and Subsistence Rangelands in Southern Africa

Back to Rangelands Home

INCO-DC Project No. ERBIC18CT970162

Global Change and Subsistence Rangelands in Southern Africa: Resource Variability, Access and Use in Relation to Rural Livelihoods and Welfare

Proceedings of 1st Joint Workshop
held in Gaborone, Botswana
13th to 17th October 1997

CONTENTS

Preface

1. Welcome

2. Project Resume

3. Contribution by Partners

3.1 University of Botswana
3.2 National Botanical Institute
3.3 National University of Lesotho
3.4 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
3.5 Pyrenean Institute of Ecology
3.6 Centre for Arid Zone Studies

4. Summary of Main Points for General Discussion

5. Case Study Areas

5.1 Botswana
5.2 Lesotho
5.3 South Africa

6. Discussion of Action to be taken on Work Packages

7. Interdisciplinary Activities

8. Future Work

9. Dissemination and Publicity

10. Task 0

11. Communication

12. Citation

13. Financial Control

14. Deadlines

Annexes

Annex 1. Workshop Attendees
Annex 2. Country Profiles
Annex 3. Workplans
Annex 4. Figure 1
Annex 5. Livestock Recording Sample Sheets
Annex 6. Citation of Literature

PREFACE

This document records the outcome of the First Workshop of the team charged with carrying out the INCO-DC funded project, Global Change and Subsistence Rangelands in Southern Africa.

This meeting, hosted by our Botswana colleagues, sought to set the pattern for the whole project and to define the specific work to be undertaken on the sites and by the partners, either in the field or by data collection and collation, in the next 12 to 18 months.

It was important that, at the outset, some of the fundamentals of the project were established, especially the inter-disciplinary approach and the close cooperation between the participants from six countries.

The strong interaction between disciplines was very heartening, and the excellent personal relationships forged will augur well for the project.

It is hoped that this document together with the country profiles which were added to the project as Task 0, setting down for everyone a summary of the existing research information on Botswana, Lesotho and South Africa, will establish a reliable and comprehensive base on which to build the project.

As the Coordinator, I would like to reiterate my thanks to everyone for their enthusiastic cooperation.

Professor R Gareth Wyn Jones

Project Coordinator

1. Welcome

Our host, Head of the Department of Environmental Science, University of Botswana, Prof Francis Sefe, opened the Workshop by welcoming all participants. He emphasised the importance of Botswana's rangelands as one of the country's major resources, second only to diamonds. He considered the INCO-DC Project timely to achieve sustainable production and management, and welcomed input from the various partners as a joint effort.

He introduced each of the participants to the opening meeting, highlighting Dr Christina Skarpe as being an experienced "Botswana person" following her many research visits to the country.

He closed his address by wishing the participants an enjoyable as well as a productive Workshop, extending an invitation to all participants to make use of the Department's facilities and services.

2. Project Resume

Prof Wyn Jones recapped on the project history so far:

The project was given A1 grading by the EU but nevertheless was only allocated 700,000 ECU towards a total, agreed budget of 899,242 ECU, the difference being found mainly by contributions of staff time by the participants. The budget sought was 1.2 million ECU. After further negotiations with the EU, emphasising that the project encompasses 6 geographically-scattered partners and a wide-ranging title to include the EC interests of the beef support system in Botswana and the wool support system in Lesotho, the funding was increased marginally by only a few thousand ecu. The first tranche of 247,100 ECU would become available 2 months after the completion of the contract process.

He emphasised that getting the project off the ground quickly was of primary importance, the achievement of which would enable us to attempt to attract top-up funds from other sources. There are indications that additional funds may be available through START. The Deputy Director, Dr Hassan Virji, has requested information on the areas in which START could sponsor the project. Our reply to him has included the important element of staff exchange in southern Africa and between Africa and Europe, which has had to be excluded due to the reduced budget from the EU.

Furthermore, Dr Eric Odada, Kenya, is making representations to Canadian CIDA on our behalf, and is emphasising the need for additional fieldwork, especially in Lesotho.

Another source of funding may be the Rockerfeller Foundation in Southern Africa who is interested in sustainability of rangeland management.

A parallel project, worth 300,000 ECU, for management and international exchange, was also submitted to ENRICH but was turned down.

Other potential donors are NORAD, who have already been approached by the University of Botswana, SADC (South African Development Community) and GCTE, with whom we should formally register.

3. Contributions by Partners

3.1 University of Botswana

The Department of Environmental Science will coordinate the contribution to the project by the University of Botswana with inputs from the Dept of Economics and the Dept of Agricultural Research (Ministry of Agriculture).

As the Departments of Economics and Environmental Science must balance research with a heavy teaching load, they will draw on the expertise of many specialists and most of their research will be carried out during the vacation periods, viz, December and between May and August.

Areas of expertise include ecology, remote sensing, and soil science. Socio-economic input will focus on resource uses and local attitudes and perceptions. The aim is to link different disciplines in an interdisciplinary way.

The Department is keen on exchanges within southern Africa and considers links with other projects to be of great importance together with the enhancement of those links.

3.2 National Botanical Institute, South Africa

The special interests of the National Botanical Institute of South Africa comprise the diversity of the country's rich flora (the showpiece of which is the National Botanic Gardens managed by the Institute), climate change and desertification.

The South African team is very small with few resources. Its main interest is the desertification programme in southern Africa. The main objective is to build up links with other institutes involved peripherally and centrally with the desertification programme.

The team at NBI comprises Dr Timm Hoffman and Ms Ashia Petersen with additional input from Dr Ben Cousins, the Director of PLAAS at the University of the Western Cape, who is hoping to involve a further person to research the social science input. They will also be drawing on the environmental history expertise of Dr Colleen Vogel, University of Witwatersrand and involving academics and students at the University of Cape Town, the Agricultural Research Council, who are interested in the impact of continual grazing on soil degradation, and The Surplus People's Project (SPP), an NGO devoted to working with "surplus people".

It is also vital to have good links with the South African Department of Agriculture as this department will be able to make a considerable input due to the abundant resources at their disposal. Conservation agencies involved in cultural ecotourism should also be approached.

The NBI's contribution to the project is the comparison of the effect on rangeland ecology of grazing rangeland for communal/non-communal use. So-called "new thinking" in rangeland ecology (Scoones, 1995) highlights the differences between equilibrium and non-equilibrium environments and challenges the standardised commercial model, e.g., ranches, which he claims do not apply to communal areas. Important work in this field has emerged from East Africa, where people can take up tracking and move freely whereas in South Africa communities do not have this freedom and are therefore very limited in their ability to respond to environmental variability. This project will address most particularly South Africa's conditions.

3.3 National University of Lesotho

Dr Moeketsi Majoro outlined the structure and interests of the Lesotho team:

The team is drawn from the Departments of Economics, Soils and Biology, and the Institute of Southern African Studies which are all part of the National University of Lesotho.

Lesotho's main interests lie in finding a balance between the two existing range management systems within the country. Villages of a certain size were allocated virtual exclusive rights on well-defined boundaries on a rangeland. They then fenced off parts of the open rangeland for active management. This actively-managed area is now known as the Range Management Area (RMA). There are in all 12 RMAs across the country.

The questions to be asked are:

Rangeland degradation appears to be worsening. The Lesotho Research Mountain Group and the SADC Environment and Land Management Sector, in consultation with the Range Management Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, have attempted many policies which have only been partially successful. It would therefore be most useful to understand these failures.

3.4 Norwegian Institute for Nature Reserch, Norway

Dr Christina Skarpe introduced her special interest in the project. In her opinion, the most important consideration in the dry rangelands is the change in use which follows an increase in population and a change in technology.

She is already closely linked with the Botswana team with support from researchers and students.

Her major interest in the project lies in the global change aspect (with emphasis on land use changes and changes in the atmospheric composition) and how this will effect change in the quantity and quality of browse vegetation on rangelands. Concerns are:

(a) Excessive herbivory may result in a decrease in the quality of grazing/browsing which may be more serious than the decrease in quantity

(b) Herbivory may increase or decrease the rate of nutrient cycling and thus nutrient availability for plants

(c) In some areas during some periods, browse is the only fodder available but much less is known about the browse-browser system than about the grass-grazer system

(d) There is a serious threat that bush encroachment, initiated by excessive grazing, may be further aggravated by the predicted elevation in CO2

(e) The spatial variation on landscape scale may be less pronounced in the Kalahari than in, for example, East Africa.

3.5 Pyrenean Institute of Ecology, Spain

Dr Juan Pablo Martinez Rica explained the background to the involvement of the Institute with the project:

The Institute staff is involved in interdisciplinary research, and the project is a good opportunity for them to work with other countries using their methodology and lines of research. Lesotho is the big attraction, in that it is mountainous.

The 2 most interesting issues for them within the project are:

(a) Is it possible to use the same methodology in a situation of unknown territory with a few sparse data?

(b) They are trying to develop a methodology just using images and are the first to develop a dendrochronological method of describing and analysing past climate, which in Spain has been used to discover weather patterns as far back as 1,000 years. This may be useful for some countries who do not have long-term meteorological data.

3.6 Centre for Arid Zone Studies, Wales

Professor Gareth Wyn Jones gave an outline of the involvement of the Centre for Arid Zone Studies:

CAZS is an independent institute within the University of Wales, the funding of which depends on contracts, consultancy, research management and teaching.

The Centre's primary contribution to this project is the management thereof, to which end it is able to draw on the valuable experience of its staff, comprising people with strong, practical, agricultural backgrounds.

As well as being overall Co-ordinator, Professor Wyn Jones has a special interest in the policy aspects of rangeland management. Dr Young's interests lie in participatory approaches to rangeland management and has a background in agriculture, plant science and rural resource management. She will work closely with Professor Wyn Jones on co-ordination of the project, production of reports and dissemination of results.

The co-ordination of the project involves the use of information technology, the identification of stakeholders and the flow of communication between interested parties, including agencies, governments, academia and local communities.

The objective is to draw together the various disciplines and encourage participants to broaden their horizons and freely interact. One of the dilemmas is the production of data, etc, in 'research mode' and the relevance of this to 'development' aspects.

Modelling will be carried out by Dr Andrew Friend of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE), Edinburgh, U.K.

The Centre will also contribute expertise on animal husbandry and recording. At least one member of the co-ordinating team will visit each site once every six months.

4. Summary of Main Points from General Discussion

4.1 It is important to consider the starting point of the project and to produce a statement of that which is already known together with a list of internal reports on rangeland. An historic literature review will also be necessary to include carefully cited grey literature.

4.2 Links between partners are of paramount importance,not only those within Africa but also bilateral links such as those between:

NINA and the University of Botswana
CAZS and NBI
Pyrenean Institute of Ecology and the National University of Lesotho.

4.3 The project had been criticised by the EU for not sufficiently emphasising the role of climate. All we can do is use the existing gradients. Land use, social forces and demographic change are of much more immediate concern.

4.4 It is imperative that the project has delegates at relevant conferences, commencing with the GCTE-LUCC Open Science Conference to be held in Barcelona, Spain, from 14 to 18 March 1998 and the Fifth Scientific Advisory Council of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, to be held in Nairobi from 1st to 8th September 1998.

4.5The stakeholders were identified as:

Policymakers
Farming communities, whose livelihoods are drawn in part from the range
The scientific community.

5.Case Study Areas

5.1Botswana - Matsheng Village Area

The Botswana team had prepared background notes outlining some biophysical and socio-economic features of the study area (Annex 2):

5.1.1Physical Features

The soil is deep, sandy and infertile due to porocils; it does not retain moisture. It could be improved with proper management and the addition of nutrients.

5.1.2Rainfall

Rainfall is low and variable. Although some records from the 1920s are available, complete records commence from the 1950s. It is important to establish the number of animals watering at natural wells and boreholes where the land is particularly dry. There is a water point map for the area.

5.1.3Trees

Some relatively old trees may be found but dendrochronology is uncertain as trees may produce double rings or none at all depending on rainfall patterns. Shallow-rooted species respond to single thunderstorms more than deep-rooted species. There is a need to collect population ecology data for indigenous tree species, including their growth rate under local conditions.

5.1.4Fencing

Fencing is about to take place but is politically explosive and will only be allowed "where possible". The theory is that fencing will make the community more responsible with dual rights inside and outside the fence. Traditionally, the land was managed by the community leaders. Since independence the Land Board has been responsible for land distribution.

5.2 Lesotho

Given the general lack of baseline data and the need for these data in change studies, we intended to conduct nation-wide biophysical and socio-economic studies surveys. Limited financial resources have made this endeavour impossible. Instead, as a practical measure, the Lesotho team is now focusing on a belatedly-chosen research site. The site is a mountain area consisting of a rangeland divided into an area governed under traditional rangeland management methods and another governed under an innovative, participatory system. The latter area is called a Range Management Area (RMA), and they have chosen for this study the Pelaneng-Bokong RMA.

Traditionally, rangelands have been governed by Chiefs, with subjects having limited functions. With this traditional system in place, however, significant incidences of land degradation and plant species loss have been observed. One experimental response has been the RMA concept, which allows for more active management, designation of grazing areas, reservation and grazing restrictions as well as payment of participatory fees. Whether this innovation presents an improvement in range management in terms of arresting soil loss, resilience to external shocks such as climate change, and sustenance of livelihoods is the question to be answered by the Lesotho study.

The Pelaneng-Bokong RMA is located at an altitude of between 2,500 and 3,000 metres above sea level, on volcanic basalt mountains. The area comprises 36,000 ha located between the Bokong and the Maliba-matšo Rivers. Not all households own livestock, so they play little roles in the RMA process. There are households that own livestock but are not members of the RMA. Attempts are being made to persuade these to join the RMA.

The research site also happens to be the development area for the Lesotho Highlands Water Project, which has installed several meteorological stations that now provide valuable data. Some amount of meteorological data is now available and will serve as input in this study.

Data collected by the World Bank on a national level indicates that up to 50% of the households in the rural areas are poor, while a further 25% are ultra-poor, not being able to afford a quarter of their daily caloric requirements. However, livestock owners are generally better off although their numbers are small. Over 100,000 Basotho men, mostly from the rural areas including the mountain areas, work in South Africa as mine migrants. Some of their income finds its way into agriculture, and livestock in particular. However, mine employment is falling at the rate of 3% annually.

Land management institutions include 22 principal chiefs who mostly inhabit the lowlands but have areas of responsibility in the mountains. Through a process of transhumance, livestock move between lowlands and rangelands each year.

New policies must aim to reduce overstocking by creating exclusivity of access in rangelands. This implies future exclusion of intending farmers from a resource which was formerly communal. It must be borne in mind that livestock owners are a minority, and that measures must be taken to protect the rights of the majority.

A more detailed introduction to subsistence rangelands in Lesotho can be found in Mokitimi et al, 1996 (Annex 2).

5.3 South Africa

A more detailed introduction to the background can be found in Annex 2.

Mine closures led to land redistribution. Paulshoek is one of 9 villages on the reserve with an area of 20,000 ha.

Rainfall in the area is 200 - 300 mm per year (C.V. 35%). Winter rainfall is predictable due to the prevailing westerly winds. The soils are complex, mapped at 1:100,000, and the vegetation "succulent karoo". There are 10 boreholes and dug wells providing a total of 25 water points.

The population is around 800, comprising 137 households. The age of the population is mixed, the mean age of farmers being 57. The economically active age group tend to migrate to the towns. 45% of homes are brick-built, 40% corrugated iron, the remaining 15% being of varied materials. 98% of households have running water on the premises, this being a recent installation. They have no electricity at present, the fuel sources being gas, kerosene and wood, although plans are afoot to connect electricity by the end of 1997. Social amenities such as a creche, primary school and mobile clinic are in place.

35% of households derive some income from agriculture, 41% have low-paid employment locally, e.g., taxis, shops and local projects, while 57% are totally or partially dependent on the state via child support, disability grants and pensions. Remittances from villagers working elsewhere are also important.

There are 30 livestock herds, with many owners. These herds equal twice the 'formal' carrying capacity of the land, which has thus been nominally overgrazed in this way for 60 years. Grazing pressure varies widely over the area. Herds are located at stock posts which can be far away from the main settlement. Living in these solitary conditions is not attractive to younger men. Lambing percentages are very low, 23% for goats and 70% for sheep. The management system was tight in the past but is now virtually non-existent, with the Agricultural Management Authority having no real power.

There is no wildlife remaining in Namaqualand; it could of course be reintroduced.

5.3.1 Cropping

Small parcels of land are rented by individuals. The average size of these holdings are c. 14 ha, and output is very low. Wheat, oats and barley are the main crops, and are used to feed animals through the summer drought.

5.3.2 General Discussion

Farmers have, on the whole, been most cooperative in their attitude towards the project but they are fiercely individualistic and the infrastructural control is poor. People generally do not interfere in each other's business. It is proving difficult to organise such structures as attendance at meetings is low due to the necessity of tending the livestock, which are under constant vigilance. However, unless they organise a Grazing Management Committee, the State will not assist them.

One example of the difficulties faced are the ram camps where rams are separated from the ewes at certain times of the year. The community agreed to not graze these areas with the exception of one person. Even his own brother could not persuade him otherwise. Such anti-social behaviour makes a mockery of such agreements.

The information available is very grey. This project will aim to look at the impacts of communal grazing by:

n fence line contrasts

n study of livestock mobility.

The South African team are very concerned that the villagers are not exploited for research purposes with no real benefits for the community. One initiative has been to help them establish a tourist camp which combines the provision of basic facilities with environmental awareness and sensitivity.

6. Discussion of Action to be taken on Work Packages

There will be collaboration and interaction between all participating institutions but for practical reasons, special relationships are envisaged to develop between Botswana/Norway, Lesotho/Spain and South Africa/Wales.

Task 1a. Study site identification

Study sites in each of the three participating southern African countries will be selected with consideration given to location and accessibility, human and livestock population densities, institutional arrangements and tenure, availability of historical data sets, and other variables to facilitate regional comparisons and synthesis.

The sites in all 3 countries have been identified.

Task 1b. Community participation and training

At each of the study sites, full disclosure and discussion of the objectives of the study will occur with participating communities prior to commencement of the study. If refinements need to be incorporated into the revised work plan, the cooperation of participating communities will be elicited. Community enumerators and assistants will be identified and trained where necessary.

People in remote, disadvantaged area have been researched ad infinitum and it is important to establish relationships and rapport at the outset and to explain what they are going to get in return.

In response to this, it was decided that PRA was not a suitable technique to launch the work in the Matsheng Village areas at least. In Paulshoek much of that basic information is available and the Lesotho team do not have funding to conduct a full-scale PRA.

A familiarisation exercise to get to know the community will be planned with key informants. The key informants should include:

Chief (Kgosi) in Botswana
Agricultural Demonstrator
Social Worker/Community Development Officer
Veterinary Assistant
Community Health Workers
School: Principal - Teachers - Pupils - Parents - Attendance
Councillor (politician)

The purpose of this exercise is to:
(a) seek advice on how to work with the partner community
(b) build a working relationship with the community leaders
(c) request their assistance in preparing and organising the rest of the community study.

Following the initial visit, it will be important to give leaders time to prepare the community for the field-work period and to get agreements from various people.

A "flyer" will be prepared in the local language and in English for the purpose of informing the communities of our goals (see Task 3a).

Benefits to the Community

When projects arrive in villages, people expect tangible results. It is questionable whether people understand that information is important, and when they are very poor, it is even more difficult to see the relevance of such information to their daily lives. It is important that this project makes information available to those who represent and work on behalf of the community, e.g.:

Councillor/MP

Village Development Committee Chair.

In reporting, ways will be suggested in which villagers can help themselves, e.g., it is more helpful if communities can present their case to funding bodies in realistic terms rather than as a nebulous wish list. It will be important to inform key people of our ideas and to ask for their input and perception of the topic.

Task 1c. Survey of community attitudes

Rapid rural appraisal and participatory rural appraisal techniques will be employed to survey village and grazier interests and attitudes. These will be carried out by the local teams with guidance from local and European specialists in rural sociology and participatory methodology.

See Task 3a for more detail.

Work Package 2. Biophysical data collection and analysis

Task 2a. Basic survey of water sources and hydrology

The location, availability and quality (pH, EC, SAR, colliform counts, etc) of water resources at each of the study sites will be determined so as to understand the spatial and temporal aspects of this resource. A map will be produced.

Task 2g. Basic climate data

Basic data on rainfall intensity, distribution, seasonality, etc, evapotranspiration potential and other relevant factors will be obtained from existing sources. Small, basic climate stations will be established on sites if local data are not available (e.g., Namaqualand site).

Details of physical data collection at site level (A) and regional level (B):

A. Site Level

Variable

Details

Unit

Comments

1. Precipitation

a) Rainfall

Max I30

(hrs/storm)

daily/monthly/yearly

mm

b) Snow

# days of snowfall

max. depth

weekly depth

mm

2. Weather/Climate

a) Temperature

daily:

max/min/mean

ºC

b) Wind

speed

direction

m/s

c) Evaporation

pan rates

mmh/r

d) Sunshine

hourly

hours

e) Historical Records

3. Stream/Flow

Gauged:

hydrometer

W/sediment trap

L/s

4. Ground Water

phreatic depth, mapping point, distribution

m

Changes in water table levels; w/in study area

5. Water Quality

ph, EC, N/P Bed, TDS, colliform, turbidity, hardness

standard

6. Surface Water

other H2O pans;lakes, microdams; dug wells

7. Other Water Sources

B. Regional Level

Obtain similar information to that obtained at site level but with less detail; complement with information from secondary sources.

Task 2b. Survey of soil fertility and erodibility

Basic geological and soil data will be obtained from existing sources. In addition, a limited number of soil measurements will be made to assess fertility and erodibility gradients at each of the study sites. The relationship of rangeland composition and productivity to soil characteristics will be examined.

Our intention is to use existing data as far as possible.

A. Site Level

Variable

Detail

Unit

Comments

Soil erosion

slope, ke, vegetation cover, erodibility, rainfall, soil type, soil texture, soil depth, soil maps, erosion features

standard s.i.

Explore suitable models

Soil quality

- depth

- texture

- total ex bases

- pH

- N, P

- original material

- organic matter

- drainage: infiltration

permeability

- salinity

- water contentP>

- stoniness

Relate to Range State

Wind Erosion

-Explore:

models

rod fences

dune movements

- texture

- structure

- erosion feature

Indexes

Remote Sensing

Land Changes

- plant cover changes

- cultivation

- settlements

B. Regional Level

Obtain similar information to that obtained at site level but with less detail; complement with information from secondary sources.

Task 2c. Ecological analysis

A basic vegetation map for each site will be generated. Depending on the area, this will be supplemented by more detailed analyses of random quadrats or by quadrats representing specific grazing zones in the area. Often these zones will represent gradients from the village or from a specific water source. The map will also record areas of arable/horticultural production. The distribution of any major habitats for wild fauna or specific flora will be recorded.

Ecological Analysis

Variable/Product

Details/Method

Vegetation map

- plot-based survey

- multivariate analysis

- Br - B1 method

- GIS remote sensing (aerial photos, Sat. I)

- gradient analysis

Checklist of biodiversity

- data from plots in vegetation maps

- other data as possible

- list endemic species (real data + books)

Life form and growth form analysis

- data from plots in vegetation map, e.g., Raunkier and/or Mueller-Dombois

Land use map

- village, stock post, water points, grazing areas, arable areas, firewood collection, thatch harvesting areas, hunting areas, dipping, reserve sites, woodlots, roads, trek roads, fences, salt production, miscellaneous

Task 2d. Estimates of biomass productivity

Standard methods will be employed to estimate biomass production at sites representative of the rangeland sub-zones. Data on production from any arable area will also be gathered. Techniques will be sought to estimate the availability of browse.

Rangeland productivity - stratified according to vegetation and land use units.

Production

"Production"

Woody spp, graminoids and other herbs

- availability of current season's forage per species

Diet selection

- PRA methods

- grazing pressure

- preference ratio

Consumption

- biomass consumed per species per area

- biomass consumed estimated from animal densities

Spatial pattern of production and consumption

- site specific sampling of production selection and consumption

Crop production

- location of fields

- crops sown

- methods

- yields and losses (pests)

- livelihoods

- external inputs

Task 2e. Develop a mechanistic understanding of rangeland composition and productivity

Available fence-line contrast sites and degradation gradients will be utilised to develop a mechanistic and process-based understanding of rangeland composition and productivity. The impact of rangeland use on a range of variables including diversity and composition will be measured. The influence of climate variability (including drought) on rangeland composition and productivity will also be estimated within the limits imposed by the project.

A mechanistic understanding of rangeland composition and productivity as well as utilisation impact will underlie all ecological and production work.

Task 2f. Assess the availability of other rangeland products

A large number of rangeland plant and animal products are used in subsistence economies. These include the use of trees and shrubs for firewood and construction material, edible plants, fruits and animals, medicinal plants and animal parts and so on. In addition, southern Africa's rich floral and faunal heritage is the basis for an important tourist attraction. The availability of these additional products at different spatial and temporal scales at each of the study sites will be determined.

Other Rangeland Products

Variable/Product

Details/Method

Veld Rood (plants and animals)

availability of different spatal and temporal scales; consumption

Medicinal Plants

personal use, traded, economic valuation

Firewood

personal use, traded, economic valuation

Construction materials (fibre, thatch, reeds, baskets, wooden fencing

personal use, traded, economic valuation

Ecotourism products, crafts

contribution to livelihoods and the cost

Work Package 3. Socio-economic data collection and analysis

Task 3a. Characterise the social structures of the communities

Standard social science methodology will be used to characterise social and institutional structures, demographic structure, work distribution and related gender issues, migratory working patterns, etc.

This task is a progression from Task 1c. It will produce descriptive data on social relations, arrangements and institutions in study areas, relevant to other work packages, e.g., 3b below and 4b. for each study site, a distinction should be made between endogenous (i.e., traditional) and exogenous (i.e., external) structures:

Endogenous structures:
- Tribesmen vs Outsiders
- Men vs Women (gender relations)
- Young vs Old
- Kgotla
- Ward
- Overseers
- Poor vs Rich
- Royalty vs Commoner
- Livestock Owners vs Non-livestock Owners
- Migrant vs Non-migrant Households
- Livestock Management, e.g., rotational grazing, mafisa system (Botswana).

Exogenous structures:

- Those accountable to central government, e.g.:

n Agricultural and Veterinary Extension Offices
n Police

- Those accountable to local government, e.g.:

n local schools
n local health centres, clinics, mobile clinics
n Land Boards (Botswana) or equivalent

- Local institutions, e.g.:

n Village Development Committees (VDCs) (Botswana) or equivalent
n voluntary community institutions (e.g., dam groups, fence groups)
n NGOs
n Community Development Offices.

Basic demographic indicators: household population and size, demographic structure; sex ratio; dependency ratio; socio-economic stratification.

Methodology: adaptations of PRA; survey; key informant interviews; document analysis. Time dimension to be considered where necessary.

The discussion revolved around the concerns:

(a) In Botswana communities have been over-researched especially in remote disadvantaged communities. It is therefore important not to have over-kill at the outset.

(b) The need to define objectives to which people can relate.

Objectives to which people can relate

It was thought that the objectives of the project could be presented to the people as follows:

n Community depends on rangeland for livelihood
n Our project concern is for the future of the community and continued reliance upon a sustainable rangeland
n There are several of us looking at different aspects of the rangeland. We know that you have lived here all your lives and have valuable information. We would like to work with you towards sustainable management of the rangeland resources.

These objectives will form the basis for the information contained in the "flyer".

Task 3b. Characterise the land tenure and water access regimes

Establish the land tenure system in relation to individual, communal and traditional rights (legal status?). Establish the practices relating to grazing rights and water access in the area. Characterise any system of transhumance or pattern of seasonal change in grazing/watering.

Use equity, ownership mode, security as the organising concepts in relating various social indicators and categories to land tenure and access to water, e.g.:

(a) Equity: who owns what, how much of the land and water resources regarding (unit of study = household), e.g.:
n Female vs Male
n Migrant vs Non-migrant Households
n Wealth status (poor, middle, high income)
n Age status (youth, middle-aged, elderly)
n Resident vs Absentee
n Migrant vs Non-migrant
n Tribesmen vs Non-tribesmen
n Literate vs Illiterate
n Royalty vs Commoner
n Livestock wealth

(b) Ownership mode for land and water: is it private or communal? The regimes will be related to the same social indicators as above. Consider issue of ownership transferability in the two regimes.

(c) Security of ownership and access to land and water resources at communal and private level. Under what conditions are ownership of and access to land and water lost? Relate security of ownership and access to the same social indicators and categories as above. Determine user rights, e.g., political allegiance, transferable rights, dual rights.

Include temporal dimension where possible to show trends.

Methodology: literature review; interviews; Land Board record analysis.

A selection of useful RRA and PRA techniques to be used:
- Direct observation and 'do it yourself' (what?/when?/who?, etc)
- Key informant discussions
- Group discussions/workshops
- Case studies and stories
- Participatory mapping and modelling
- Transect walks
- Time lines and trend and change analysis
- Seasonal calendars
- Daily and time use analysis
- Wealth ranking
- Matrix scoring and ranking.

Task 3c. Characterise the structure of the agropastoral system

Determine the size, composition and ownership of flocks and herds. Determine the components of herd/flock productivity including off takes, basic animal health, husbandry, etc.

We will be modifying the check-list (Annex 5) according to the individual needs of each site. Dr Ian Robinson, a livestock specialist and consultant from CAZS, will assist with this task.

Issues to be studied:

1. Sources of income:

- crop and livestock production
- veld products, consumptive and non-consumptive, semi precious stones, etc.

Remittances:
- migrant
- others

Transfers:
- pension
- gifts

Employment:
- formal
- informal.

2. Stability of Income

Frequency and regularity
Income control

Assets: collective and individual
- equipment
- fencing
- water points
- financial

3. Relationship between off-rangeland income and management of rangeland livestock

4. Elasticity of response to external shocks.

Task 3e. Assess the impact of rangeland state and variability on rural livelihoods

Declining animal and crop productivity will probably lead to a decline in the contribution of rangeland products to individual households. The impact of any decline in the animal and crop production cycles as well as on useful plant availability will be assessed.

1. Transects with varying qualities:

- within "improved" area
- off "improved" area
- across different land use types

2. Observation of relationships over project lifespan

3. Historical/archival studies including proven analysis .

Impacts of Land Use Practices

Comparative Framework
- biomass
- bush encroachment - species composition
- stocking densities
- soil parameters (susceptibility to erosion)

Additional Sources of Information
- key informants - local people, extension agents, etc.

Land Use Changes
- conversions:
- range to agricultural
- range to residential.

Work Package 4. Resource management and policy analysis

Task 4a. Determine the influence of different landuse practices on rangeland resources.

Some landuse practices appear to be more destructive than others of rangeland resources. The impact of different landuse practices on rangeland state at different spatial and temporal scales at each of the study sites will be determined.

Resource management and policy analysis

Identify land use
Find control
Rangeland resources - impact on other outputs, not just stocking density.

Change in land use - increase in arable encroachment of villages.

The following will be considered:

Biomass on either side of quadrats
Vegetation analysis in quadrats
Bush encroachment
Stocking density
Soil parameters: organic matter, content, etc.
Objectives of stocking
(Key informants will be older people who can provide historic information)

Land use changes between different activities and by changing practices
Land use within a category, e.g., difference in stocking density
Demographic pressures, fencing, etc.

Task 4b. Determine the influence of policy and institutions on rangeland resources

The focus here will be on policies which relate to the flexibility, access, equity, spatial scale and security of tenure as well as those affecting the role of women and the relative power of households and villages compared to district, provincial and national government. In this task it is important also to determine the influence of policy developed at one level of scale (e.g., national or regional) on resource state and use at another (e.g., local).

Influence of Policy on 4b will be considered by:

Analysis of bottom-up policy process (local)
Analysis of top-down policy process (macro)
Integration/sectorism
Institutional analysis
Budget analysis.

Levels of analysis will be at:

- national
- district and provincial
- local/traditional/indigenous.

Task 4c. Determine the impact of government intervention

Analyse the impact of government-derived interventions such as tax incentives, subsidies, land redistribution and other interventions in the rangeland sites and if possible more generally (e.g., impact of EU beef support scheme in Botswana, EU wool scheme in Lesotho, land redistribution in South Africa).

Questions to be addressed include:

Do government policies reflect local issues?
What is the quality of intervention?
Distortionary effects of intervention
Effect of international treaties (Lome).

Advice
Practice policy intervention and concentrate on one, e.g., wool and mohair in Lesotho.

The influence of long-term policy will depend on:
- historical desk study
- interviews with historians.

Coleen Vogel is to liaise with Maseru and Gaborone on this aspect.

 

7. Interdisciplinary Activities

Interdisciplinarity is a key feature of this project. All the activities thus far from project planning and securing funding to this Workshop have emphasised not only the cooperation between specialists but also the active interaction.

At the Workshop the work plans were devised by all the participants, and if the disciplines were grouped for some activities, e.g., physical/natural scientists decided on parameters for biophysical measurements, the plans were presented to the whole group and modified following input from other disciplines.

However, interdisciplinarity in the field is more difficult to achieve as time is a limiting factor. The following suggestions were made to focus specifically on interdisciplinary field work:

7.1 Transect walk: Geographer/Social Scientist to do this with key informants to cross-check/supplement biophysical information.

7.2 Natural Scientist/Social Scientist to work together on seasonal calendars and daily/gender time analysis.

7.3 Natural Scientist/Social Scientist to work together on community mapping, e.g., soil, vegetation and grazing patterns.

 

8.Future work will include:

Modelling - semi-quantitative
Pattern analysis - GIS eventually
Intellectual analysis on policy, etc

Priority for variables in each country will be established.
Which variables are critical for linkages in workpackages

A modelling sub-group will be established within each southern African country.

 

9. Dissemination & Publicity

A 6-page flyer will be prepared following these guidelines:

Page 1
Title, Institute, Funders

Page 2
Summary of project objectives and duration, mentioning the possibility of expansion into Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Swaziland, Namibia, etc.

Page 3
Botswana, South Africa & Lesotho

Page 4

Page 5
Activity Section: field sites; types of activity.

Page 6
A brief summary on the institutions involved (partnership).

 

Attendance at Conferences

The following candidates are to be nominated for the GCTE-LUCC Conference, to be held in Barcelona in March 1998:

Dr Makoala Marake, Head of Department of Soils and Resource Conservation, National University of Lesotho
Dr Jaap Arntzen, Dept of Environmental Science, University of Botswana
Dr Ashia Petersen, National Botanical Institute, South Africa.

The following candidates are to be nominated for the Fifth Scientific Advisory Council (SAC V) of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) to be held in Nairobi from 1st to 8th September, 1998:

Dr Moeketsi Majoro, Environmental Economist, Dept of Economics, National University of Lesotho
Dr Ashia Petersen, Research Assistant, National Botanical Institute, South Africa
Dr Raban Chanda, Human Geographer, Dept of Environmental Science, University of Botswana.

Candidates are also to be nominated for the Kalahari Transect meeting, 10 - 13 June 1998. There is also to be a conference at Fort Hare on 19th July, 1998, organised by Peter Scoones. It may be possible to meet there as a follow-up to Gaborone 1997.

 

10. Task 0

A preliminary literature review is to be prepared by each country by the end of January 1998. For example, a number of studies have been carried out in the Kalahari environment but these have not been well publicised. We need to know what has been achieved and what the gaps are for each country in order to be able to plan the way forward.

The Task 0 Report should include the following elements:

(a) Introduction

Background and emphasis of project
Figure 2 (See Annex 2)

(b) Three country studies: Literature Review (official and grey) covering:

(i) State of rangelands
(ii) Rangeland products
(iii) Rural livelihoods
(iv) Resource access
(v) Resource use
(vi) Macro-economic conditions
(vii) Policies influencing resource access and livelihood
(viii) Population trends
(ix) Trends in climate
(x) Influence of resource access/use on state of rangelands
(xi) Influence of rangeland products on rural livelihoods.

Work plans were prepared by each country detailing tasks and priorities and can be found in Annex 3.

 

11. Communication

Good communication is essential. The following methods will be used:

e-mail
e-mail conferencing
conventional means, viz, fax, telephone, normal mail.

A web-site will be created and all published documents made available. Dr Einir Young will investigate the flexibility of using the conferencing facilities of First Class Client.

 

12. Citation

It was decided to follow the template provided by the Journal of Experimental Botany (see Annex 6). CAZS will decide how to cite "grey" literature and inform others.

 

13.Financial Control

Contract forms were distributed and the names of Officers-in-Charge obtained. A 120 ecu/day per diem was agreed for cities, and 25 ecu/day per diem in the field.

 

14. Deadlines

Task 0 by end of January 1998
Workshop report by end of January 1998
Posters for Barcelona - March 1998
Some field work

Format for progress report will be sent to each partner.

A logo for project will be prepared by the Botswana team.

E M Young/mlp

March 1998

mlp:rgwj-97:s.a:worksho1.doc

Annex 1

Workshop Attendees

Botswana

Name

Specialisation

Contribution

Dr Jaap Arntzen, UB

Team Leader

Dr Raban Chanda, UB

Human Geographer

Socio-economic dimension

Dr Happy Fidzani

Economist

Dr Lapologang Magole

Planning Unit

Regional development planning. Impact of institutions on rangelands

Dr Otlogetswe Totolo, UB

Soil Scientist

Soil analysis and erosion

Dr Moffat P Setshogo

Botanist

Plant taxonomy. Environmental economic development

Dr Gubungano Tacheba, Dept of Agricultural Research, MoA

Agriculturalist

Agricultural system and livestock

 

Lesotho

Dr Moeketsi Majoro, NUL

Environmental Economist

Team Leader

Dr Makoala Marake,

NUL

Soil Scientist

Soil and water conservation aspects.

 

Norway

Dr Christina Skarpe,

NINA, Norway

Vegetation Ecologist

Interactions between plants. Large herbivores. Drylands. Browse and browsers.

 

South Africa

Dr Timm Hoffman,

NBI, South Africa

Botanist/Plant Ecologist

Team Leader. Rural development. National review of land degradation.

Ms Ashia Petersen, NBI

Impact of people on land

 

Spain

Dr J P Martinez Rica,

Director, Pyrenean Institute of Ecology, Spain

General Ecologist

Mountain ecology. Detection of environmental stresses by looking at satellite and aerial photographs.

 

Wales

Dr Einir Young, CAZS

Plant Science/ Resource management

Participatory/interdisciplinary methodology. Rural resource management. Project co-ordination.

Prof Gareth Wyn Jones, CAZS

Plant Science/ Rural development

Overall Project Co-ordinator. Policy and institutional issues.

UB University of Botswana
NUL National University of Lesotho
NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
NBI National Botanical Institute
CAZS Centre for Arid Zone Studies