The Challenges of Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Pastoral Rangelands

Figures & data

Table 1. The five case studies.

Characteristic	Shompole-Olkiramatian	Il’Ngwesi	Chenini	Naniga Dera	Dirre
Location	Kajiado County, southern Kenya	Laikipia County, north-central Kenya	Tataouine governorate, southern Tunisia	Bale Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia	Borana Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia
Ethnicity	Maasai	Maasai	Amazigh	Bale Oromo	Borana (with some ethnic minorities)
Extent of the rangeland unit	Shompole: 62,700 ha. Olkiramatian: 24,000 ha.	9,296 ha.	46,606 ha.	23,722 ha.	728,762 ha.
External agent	South Rift Association of Land Owners and the African Conservation Center	Northern Rangelands Trust, Laikipia Wildlife Forum and Lewa Wildlife Conservancy	Regional agricultural administration of the governorate of Tataouine	Farm Africa and SOS Sahel	CARE and SOS Sahel

Table 2. Methods.

Method	Shompole-Olkiramatian	Il’Ngwesi^a	Chenini	Naniga Dera	Dirre
Key informant interviews	9	12	10	4	14
Focus group discussions	12	3	2	2	11
Further details on methods	Ontiri and Robinson (2017)	Moiko (2015); Nganga and Robinson (2018)	Sghaier et al. (2020)	Flintan et al. (2019)	Abdu and Robinson (2017); Flintan et al. (2019)

^aThe number of key informant interviews and focus group discussions for Il’Ngwesi refers to the initial study by Moiko (2015). Information in the case study report by Nganga and Robinson (2018) also drew on other primary research (e.g., Ontiri and Robinson 2016; Robinson et al. 2017).

Table 3. Summary of outcomes of the CBNRM activities and community management.

Types of outcomes	Shompole- Olkiramatian	Il’Ngwesi	Chenini	Naniga Dera	Dirre
Ecological outcomes	Bare ground reduced. Forage availability in dry season improved. Large predators and herbivores have returned.	Increased grass cover overall and development of drought grass banks. Increase in megafauna.	Improvement in rangeland condition, return of native species, and increases in plant and animal biodiversity.	Improvement in ground cover and the availability of forage. Decline in woody species.	Positive for site-based interventions. Too early to assess dheeda-wide outcomes.
Socio-economic outcomes	Income and employment from tourism for some people. Organized collective livestock marketing.	Social investments into education. Improved drought coping. Diversified livelihoods.	Increased productivity/ reduced costs for livestock production, increased income from livestock.	Stronger participation of community members in decision making processes over their land. Women’s empowerment as part of this.	Too early to assess socio-economic outcomes.
Acceptance, legitimacy and ownership	Some internal contestation, but sense of ownership among community members is strong.	Some internal contestation, but sense of owner-ship among community members is strong. Some degree of fatigue with the most intensive management methods when benefits are captured by in-migrating herds.	Acceptance of CG and GDA rangeland management activities has grown. Increasing involvement of youth in rangeland planning.	High level of awareness of the RMCoop and participation in rangeland planning and implementation activities among community members.	Unclear how aware the general populace is of the dheeda level rangeland management council.
Conflict and contestation	Disputes over grazing rights, but these are relatively minor. Need for greater coordination among group ranches in the area.	Occasional large scale incursion by herders from elsewhere. Serious conflicts with loss of life. Collective property rights not enforced.	Occasional and limited incursion by herders from neighboring regions, which are usually resolved quickly.	Incursion of herds from elsewhere and inability of RMCoop to enforce grazing rules for these visiting herds.	Unclear allocation of governance powers between rangeland management council and government actors. Challenges mobilizing support at local (sub-dheeda) level.

Ontiri, E. M., and L. W. Robinson. 2017. Community-based rangeland management in Shompole and Olkiramatian group ranches, Kenya. ILRI project report. Nairoib: International Livestock Research Institute.

 Google Scholar

Moiko, S. S. 2015. Landscape management and governance, Il’Ngwesi group ranch—Laikipia, Kenya. ILRI project report. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute.

 Google Scholar

Nganga, I. N., and L. W. Robinson. 2018. Community-based rangeland management in Il’Ngwesi group ranch, Laikipia, Kenya. ILRI project report. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute.

 Google Scholar

Sghaier, M., M. Fetoui, A. Frija, M. Sghaier, F. Ben Salem, N. Ayadi, and L. W. Robinson. 2020. Community-Based Rangeland Management in Tataouine, South-East Tunisia: Institutional settings to revive traditional land restoration “Gdel”. Beirut: International Centre for Research in the Dry Areas. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/110017.

 Google Scholar

Flintan, F., A. Ebro, B. Eba, A. Assefa, Y. Getahun, K. Reytar, B. Irwin, et al. 2019. Review of participatory rangeland management (PRM) process and implementation. Rangelands research report no. 2. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute.

 Google Scholar

Abdu, N. H., and L. W. Robinson. 2017. Community-based rangeland management in Dirre rangeland unit. ILRI project report. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute.

 Google Scholar

Robinson, L. W., N. H. Abdu, I. N. Nganga, and E. M. Ontiri. 2018. Protocol for characterizing community-based rangeland management cases. ILRI manual no. 33. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute.

 Google Scholar

Ontiri, E. M., and L. W. Robinson. 2016. North lowland Ewaso Ngiro rangelands: Governance assessment. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute.

 Google Scholar

Robinson, L. W., E. M. Ontiri, T. Alemu, and S. S. Moiko. 2017. Transcending landscapes: Working across scales and levels in pastoralist rangeland governance. Environmental Management 60 (2):185–99. doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0870-z.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar