namibia community-based rangeland and livestock management

Namibia

Community-based Rangeland and Livestock Management Sub-Activity

commissioned by the Millennium Challenge Account Namibia

with funding from the Millennium Challenge Corporation

Namibia: Community-based Rangeland and Livestock Management Sub-Activity – Inception Report fgdInception Report

GOPA Consultants

Hindenburgring 18

61348 Bad Homburg

Germany

Phone +49 6172 930-508

Fax: +49 6172 930-350

Email: [email protected]

Namibia




Inception Report

July 2010

i

CONTENTS

GOPA CONSULTANTS Namibia: Community-based Rangeland and Livestock Management Sub-Activity – Inception Report

Contents

1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 2

2 Strategy and implementation plan.......................................................................................6

2.1 Communication and information exchange..............................................................................7

2.2 Selection of intervention units......................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Strategy for gaining ownership of the selection process .................................................... 9 2.2.2 Identification of eligible sites ............................................................................................................ 9 2.2.3 Selection of intervention RIAs and control RIAs..................................................................... 11

2.3 Community mobilisation, engagement and commitment...............................................12 2.3.1 Levels of engagement...........................................................................................................................12 2.3.2 Approaches at community level, steps and processes.........................................................14

2.4 Experiential learning versus standard training modules ..................................................15 2.4.1 The approach to capacity development......................................................................................15 2.4.2 Building on existing technical knowledge and delivery experience........................... 16 2.4.3 Developing capacity and motivation of the field facilitators ......................................... 19 2.4.4 Certification of field facilitators .....................................................................................................20

2.5 Land use planning and grazing management .........................................................................21 2.5.1 Land use planning in Namibia.........................................................................................................21 2.5.2 Land use planning in the CBRLM project....................................................................................21 2.5.3 Grazing Area planning........................................................................................................................ 22 2.5.4 Other rangeland interventions....................................................................................................... 25

2.6 Livestock management ...................................................................................................................... 25 2.6.1 General animal husbandry practices ..........................................................................................26 2.6.2 Improved nutrition and health ......................................................................................................26 2.6.3 Breeding and selection........................................................................................................................ 27 2.6.4 Control of internal parasites in small stock..............................................................................28 2.6.5 Improved poultry production..........................................................................................................28

2.7 Livestock marketing.............................................................................................................................29 2.7.1 Background...............................................................................................................................................29

ii

CONTENTS


2.7.2 Opportunities and approach............................................................................................................30

2.8 Data collection plan.............................................................................................................................. 33 2.8.1 Activity plans and achievements.................................................................................................. 33 2.8.2 Monitoring indicators .........................................................................................................................34 2.8.3 Impact/outcome indicators.............................................................................................................. 35

3 Organisation structure ............................................................................................................38

4 Detailed workplan for year 1................................................................................................. 40

4.1 Component A: Rapid contract startup ........................................................................................ 41

4.2 Component B: Community Mobilisation................................................................................. 46

4.3 Component C: Land use plan...........................................................................................................48

5 Notional workplan for the remainder of the contract period....................................50

5.1 Component C1: Land use planning ............................................................................................... 53

5.2 Component D1: Management capacity building................................................................... 55

5.3 Component D2: Infrastructure needs and environmental impact...............................56

5.4 Component E – Mentoring of GAs in the implementation of

management plans ..............................................................................................................................58

5.5 Component F– Programme sustainability ...............................................................................59

Annex 1: Gender integration plan ...................................................................................................... 61

Annex 2: Socio-cultural study of livestock keeping .....................................................................62

iii

ACRONYMS


Acronyms

CAHW Community Animal Health Worker

CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management

CBO Community Based Organisation

CBRLM Community Based Rangeland and Livestock Management

CPP Namibia Country Pilot Partnership

CALLC

Enhancing Institutional and Human Resource Capacity through Local Level Coordination of

Integrated Rangeland Management and Support

CDC Constituency Development Committees

CDSS Conservancy Development Support Services

CLB Communal Land Board

CLS Communal Land Support

DART Division of Agricultural Research& Training, MAWF

DEES Directorate of Extension and Engineering Services, MAWF

DRMS Disaster Risk Management System

DRWSSC Directorate of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Coordination, MAWF

DVS Directorate of Veterinary Services, MAWF

FF Field Facilitators

GA Grazing Area

GEF Global Environment Fund

GRN Government of the Republic of Namibia

ILHM Improved livestock health and marketing, MCA-N component under Livestock theme

INP Indigenous Natural Products

IRDNC Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation

IPA Innovations for Poverty Action

ISLM Integrated Sustainable Land Management

iv

ACRONYMS


LMC Lifestock Marketing Committee

LLM Local Level Monitoring

LTO Lead Training Officer

MAWF Ministry of Agriculture, Water & Forestry

MCA - N Millennium Challenge Account - Namibia

MLR Ministry of Lands and Resettlement

NAMLITS Namibian Livestock Information and Traceability System

NASSP Namibia Agricultural Services Support Project

NAU National Agricultural Union

NED North East Division (of DEES)

NCA Northern Communal Areas

NCD North Central Division (of DEES)

NECFU Namibia Emerging Commercial Farmers Union

NNFU Namibia National Farmers Union

NNRDP Northern Namibia Rural Development Project

NOLIDEP Northern Livestock Development Project

NOREESP Northern Research Extension and Epidemio - surveillance Project

RC Regional Council

RFM Regional Field Manager

RIA Rangeland Intervention Area

RISE Rural People’s Institute for Social Empowerment

RME Rangeland Management Expert

SARDEP Sustainable Animal and Range Development Programme

TA Traditional Authorities

ToT Train of Trainer

UNAM University of Namibia

VCF Veterinary Cordon Fence

W&VG Women and Vulnerable Groups

v


Figures

Figure 1: Simplified graphic explanation of the CBRLM RIA identification

processes ................................................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 2: Rangeland intervention planning units (Grazing Areas) shown

within the broader land use planning unit (CBRLM RIA). .............................................24

Figure 3: Ownership of livestock across regions. ...................................................................................29

1


Project Details

Project name: Community – based Rangeland and Livestock Management

Sub-Activity

Project ID: Contract No. MCAN/CIF/RFP/3A02001-A (P3.2.2)

Project sponsor:

Commissioned by the Millennium Challenge Account

Namibia with funding from the Millennium Challenge

Corporation

Project Manager: Mr Heinrich Pielok

Report preparation

date: 30

th June 2010

2


1 Executive Summary

The CBRLM project has been designed to contribute to two major development goals.

First to address environmental degradation on common grazing land in the North of

Namibia. Second to increase incomes of poor rural households in the Northern Commu-

nal Areas. These goals are to be achieved by working with selected communities to

change cattle management practices in relation to grazing, husbandry and marketing.

This inception report describes how the GOPA/NNFU/GRM consortium intends to meet

these objectives. The implementation strategies that will be adopted are outlined for

each of the major project components. In developing these plans the GOPA consortium

has been mindful of a number of critical requirements.

To work in close collaboration with line ministries and other development

partners to enhance sustainability;

To ensure traditional authorities and community leaders are fully informed and

are supportive of planned interventions;

To build on past experience and local expertise in community based interven-

tions;

To promote gender equality;

To ensure that new practices and management plans are developed by commu-

nities and owned by them.

The last requirement is the most critical and has the greatest influence on how our

interventions are planned and implemented. In particular it means that in each grazing

area, community needs and circumstances will determine what interventions are

planned, what training is given and at what speed change occurs.

We recognize the importance of having good communication and information ex-

change with a wide range of stakeholders. Our communication strategy will employ a

number of methods including regular meetings, progress reports, and collaborative

planning. Some of our methods will be institution specific but others will be relevant for

communication across a number of institutions, operating at different levels (see section

2.1).

Selection of communities to work with has two important dimensions. First is the issue

of which communities (grazing areas) to select. This has been driven by the need to select

areas that “can be made to work”. That is to say, basic criteria such as water are in place

and a minimum of social cohesion exists within the communities and with their

neighbors. It has also been driven by the fact that this is a pilot project and there is a

3


need therefore to apply the approach across a number of different situations across the

target area.

The second selection issue, which is of equal importance, is that of how the communities

were selected, particularly in terms of the involvement and participation of traditional

authorities and collaborating line ministries. Considerable effort has been put into this

early phase of the project because it is so critical to gaining credibility with the commu-

nities the project will be working with over the next four years. The process that has

been followed in selecting grazing areas is outlined in section 2.2.

Section 2.3 outlines the process of community mobilization that will take place once

communities have been selected. This will involve engagement at a number of levels. At

the regional level we will hold planning workshops with development partners, includ-

ing line ministries. At the level of the intervention area we will meet with traditional

authorities and community based organizations (CBOs) to outline plans and obtain

endorsement for them.

At the community level there will be numerous meetings to align project objectives

with local needs and circumstances and to obtain a commitment to working with the

project. These meetings will be with local governance structures (water point commit-

tees, farmer associations) as well as individual households and farmers.

Section 2.4 describes how we will build on experience and expertise to develop training

materials and how we intend to develop the capacity of our field facilitators (FFs) who

will be the direct link between beneficiaries and the project. This section also describes

how we will develop knowledge and skills with participating households, using a

demand driven, experiential learning approach.

Section 2.5 describes how land use plans will be developed and used and how they relate

to grazing area plans. Grazing area planning is the core of the CBRLM intervention,

around which other activities revolve. These grazing plans will focus on recovery peri-

ods and improving the soil water and mineral cycles. A starter pack will be used, which

consists of simple rules based on the principles of sound rangeland management as

described in the Namibian Draft Rangeland Policy and Strategy. The steps are described

which will be used as a framework for guiding the planning process.

Opportunities for improving livestock management will be discussed with communities

and it is envisaged that a number of improvement opportunities will be identified

around which instruction and training will be developed. The main areas of interven-

tion will include: general husbandry practices, nutrition and health, breeding and

selection, the control of internal parasites in small stock and poultry production. The

latter two are expected to specifically apply women farmers who have more control

over small stock and poultry than they do over cattle.

Support for livestock marketing will be provided at two levels. At the community level,

participating households will be supported in developing marketing and business plans.

4


This support will discuss with farmers their understanding of such aspects as: i) price

building and cycles, ii) economies of scale for selling livestock and purchasing inputs, iii)

accounting and finance and iv) risk mitigation through bank savings. The project will

look into the possibility to implement a mobile trading and banking scheme.

At the institutional level the CBRLM project will collaborate with a number of institu-

tions who are working to strengthen livestock marketing in the NCAs. These include

building capacities of Livestock Marketing Committees, implementing awareness

schemes around pricing and transparency, assisting communities to access the Live-

stock Marketing Efficiency Fund. The institutions that CBRLM will collaborate with on

these and other marketing initiatives include: MAFW, MEATCO, AGRA, MEATBOARD,

LMCs, CALLC.

Staffing for the delivery of these interventions comprises team leader, range manage-

ment expert, community development expert, livestock expert, marketing expert and

monitoring and evaluation adviser. These staff are based at the main office in Oshakati.

Two sub-offices are being established in Opuwo and Rundu, where two regional field

managers (RFMs) operate from. Two other RFMs have been recruited to cover the North

Central regions. Field facilitators (FFs) will be employed once the intervention sites have

been selected.

The workplan is divided into four phases. In the first phase (year 1) grazing area com-

munities will be selected, training materials developed and field facilitators recruited

and trained. Work will start on mobilising communities and obtaining commitment

from them to undertake CBRLM interventions in rangeland management, animal

husbandry and marketing.

The second phase of the project (year 2) will focus on providing communities the sup-

port they need to draw up and begin to implement plans for improving rangeland and

animal productivity, as well as to convert these productivity gains into sustainable

wealth and income gains.

In the third phase (years 3 and 4) project staff will work with participating communities

to support implementation of management plans, to work through and find solutions

for implementation problems and generally provide mentorship support.

The fourth and final phase of the project will focus on assessing and documenting

lessons learned and facilitating the handover of successful elements of the programme

to DEES for wider extension. This will take place in the last six months of the contract in

2014.

Monitoring of implementation progress will take place through the development of

activity planning and reporting formats. Data will be collected on activity progress

against targets set quarterly. The same system will be used to track the achievement of

monitoring indicators against targets. Impact assessment will be based on measuring

differences between treatment and control groups. The major indicators will be cattle

5


performance (herd composition, offtake rate and cattle weight), rangeland condition

(monitoring of grass growth and ground cover) and to a lesser extent household income.

The data for these indicators will be collected by an independent survey firm and analy-

ses by the impact evaluator (Innovations for Poverty Action). The CBRLM project will

provide assistance needed, particularly in relation to the data to be collected from

communities in the intervention areas.

A gender integration plan has been developed (Annex 1). This builds on recommenda-

tions of a study, commissioned by the CBRLM project, on the role of women and

vulnerable groups in livestock and rangeland management. This plan seeks to promote

the involvement of women in project activities and also seeks options for the support of

women oriented interventions. The project will adopt a policy of including women in all

training events and will measure changes in women’s participation rates over the

course of the project.

The CBRLM project commissioned a study on cultural and socio-economic aspects of

range and livestock management (Annex 2). The study comprised a literature review as

well as field surveys in the target areas. The findings of the report have been used to

inform our thinking on opportunities for interventions in livestock management and

marketing in particular.

6


2 Strategy and implementation plan

There are five key elements of the project strategy that need to be put in place for

successful implementation of the CBRLM pilot activity.

1. Strong local buy-in of the working group selection process

This is based first and foremost on thorough consultations with beneficiaries and

stakeholders. A good start has been made on this with the MCA-N led meetings with

regional councillors and local authorities across the six regions. We will maintain this

momentum and commitment at the regional level as we take decisions on which

communities to work with intensively to implement the project interventions. Section

2.2 describes the site selection process we are in the process of implementing.

2. Intensive community mobilisation prior to obtaining commitments to participate

It is important that communities are fully informed about the collective actions they

will be required to commit to when they participate in project activities. We need to be

sure that communities agree to participate for the right reasons and with a full under-

standing of what their responsibilities will be. We will conduct intensive outreach and

mobilisation of grazing area communities prior to the registration of participating

households. Section 2.3 describes our strategy for implementing this mobilisation

process.

3. The recruitment and development of a motivated field team of facilitator/trainers

The quality of our field staff will strongly influence the success of the project. We have

appointed a cadre of experienced field managers (see section 3). These managers will

oversee field facilitators who will be working full time with the selected working groups

in the RIAs. The field staff need to be well motivated to take forward CBRLM interven-

tions in flexible, innovative and imaginative ways. Our strategy for the recruitment,

training and management of effective field staff is related to the way in which we

envisage providing technical and institutional support to participating communities.

We elaborate on this in section 2.4 below.

4. Demand driven delivery of technical know-how

A wealth of training materials on range management, livestock husbandry and market-

ing exists in the region. This includes local material in documents such as the National

Rangeland Management Policy and Strategy, materials developed by previous develop-

ment projects such as NOLIDEP and materials developed by training organisations such

as AGRIFUTURA and AGRA. We will synthesise the available material that will be

appropriate for the CBRLM interventions. However, it is important that these materials

are packaged and delivered to participating households in a way that is relevant to their

7


needs. To this end we will deliver messages in the context of a management plan, which

is developed with communities and is demand driven. In sections 2.5 and 2.6 we de-

scribe how we intend to apply this experiential learning approach to improving

rangeland management and livestock husbandry.

5. Work in partnership with regional institutions to enhance sustainability

The implementation of the CBRLM project will be substantially enhanced by working

with government and non-government development partners, e.g. DEES, DVS, DWRSSC,

MEATCO, MEATBOARD, CALLC – Livestock Marketing Committees, AGRA). This collabo-

rative working will facilitate the sustainability of project activities. We see an

opportunity to have MAWF staff assigned to work directly with the CBRLM project and

to participate in training and implementation activities. This entails integration into the

CBRLM with respect to work plans and reporting of technicians. At the same time we see

a role for the project to strengthen local institutions, especially in relation to livestock

marketing. More detail on the opportunities for the CBRLM to contribute to improve-

ments in livestock marketing is provided in section 2.7.

Coordination and cooperation will also be extended to relevant projects from MCA-N

(eg. CDSS, CLS, INP and other livestock activities) and to projects from other donors (e.g.

Northern Communal Areas Farmers Mentorship Program).

We are aware of the importance of maintaining good communications with major

stakeholders and development partners. Our communication strategy will be imple-

mented at different levels. Some of our activities will be relevant for communication

across a number of levels. This is illustrated in the table below.

INSTITUTIONS

Type of activity: MCA-N Development

partners

Line minis-

tries

Local

authorities Communities

Regular briefing sessions X X

Progress reports X X X

Stakeholder planning work-

shops X X X X

Designated liaison persons X

Local partner (NNFU) X X X

Collaborative working X X

2.1 Communication and information exchange

8


Work with/strengthen local

institutions

IMFs X X

livestock marketing

committees X X

CBRLM field staff activities X X

Regular briefing sessions are held between the Team Leader and the Director of Agricul-

ture Projects at MCA-N. This communication is supplemented by the regular progress

reports (quarterly, annual) required under the contract.

We plan to hold stakeholder planning workshops at two levels once the working group

RIAs have been selected.

At the regional level, workshops will be held in August to inform local authori-

ties and communities about the outcome of the selection process and to plan

initial activities with communities in the intervention RIAs. Five workshops

will be held, one in each region, but Oshikoto and Oshana will be combined.

Regional staff from the MAWF and other relevant line ministries will also be

invited to these regional planning meetings. We will also invite support or-

ganisations, particularly MCA-N sub-activities e.g. CDSS, INP, CLS.

A national level stakeholder workshop will be held at the end of September to review

training materials and plan training programmes. The CBRLM is working collaboratively

with CALLC, the MAWF, the Communal Areas Farmers Mentorship Programme and

AGRA to develop relevant training materials on rangeland management, livestock

improvement and marketing, specifically for communal farming.

The CBRLM has agreed to work through the Inter Ministerial Forums (IMF) at the re-

gional level. The CBRLM will be represented at IMF meetings by their regional field

managers and other project staff will attend according to need. For example IMF meet-

ings have been convened in all target regions to inform stakeholders about the outcome

of the RIA identification and selection process. Divisional heads of DEES and DVS who

are not members of IMFs will be kept updated on and involved in CBRLM planning

activities.

In order to achieve effective partnership working with MAWF and regional councils we

will initiate meetings at ministry level at national and regional levels to establish and

entrench working relations. In addition we will attend and present quarterly updates to

the Regional Development Coordinating Committees (RDCCs).

The main unit of CBRLM intervention is a community of livestock owners who utilises

an area of rangeland to graze and water cattle and small ruminants. The process of

2.2 Selection of intervention units

9


selecting these intervention units in the northern communal areas is well advanced and

is expected to be completed at the end of July, 2010.

The strategy we adopted for implementing the selection process has been driven by the

need to gain and retain strong buy-in and ownership of project activities by key stake-

holders. The three key stakeholders in the selection process are the

MAWF,

the Regional Councils, and

the Traditional Authorities (TAs).

The Regional Councils and Governors of regions within Namibia are the administrative

structures put in place by the GRN to initiate and oversee development within the

regions. The Traditional Authorities are custodians of the land and people pay allegiance

to a specific TA. The TA also allocates grazing rights and therefore has a direct bearing on

the CBRLM sub activity. Rangeland management and the co-ordination and support of

all of these in each region will be critical to the success and sustainability of the inter-

vention.

2.2.1 Strategy for gaining ownership of the selection process

The CBRLM sub activity was first discussed with senior management of the MAWF. It

was agreed here that it was vital that the program is introduced and accepted by the

Regional Council and Traditional Authority in all regions before any work commences.

Rangeland management brings together many line ministry activities at the local level.

It was stated by the MAWF that the Consultant will work through the IMFs in each of

the regions. In addition to this, we will also include other relevant line ministries and

regional planners.

The meetings to introduce the sub activity to the Regional Councils, Traditional Authori-

ties and IMFs took place in February and March 2010. The sub activity was endorsed by

all above mentioned stakeholders within the six target areas.

It was also agreed in all meetings that the Consultant would proceed with site selection

with the MAWF representatives from the regions and work with CBOs and Traditional

Authorities to identify a list of eligible intervention sites. It was agreed that the list of

eligible sites would be discussed with all IMFs and with MAWF.

2.2.2 Identification of eligible sites

The identification of eligible intervention sites has progressed through several stages.

An initial identification of sites by MAWF staff was replaced by a GIS mapping process

which generated 36 areas, called rangeland intervention areas (RIAs). The boundaries of

these GIS RIAs were solely based on technical parameters and took no account of social

and political factors.

10


Legitimate boundaries in the communal areas must have the mandate of the Traditional

Authority and/or a mandate under Namibia’s legislation. It was agreed that the CBRLM

intervention should not spend undue time negotiating new boundaries and that the GIS

RIAs should therefore only be used as a guide for site selection.

The Namibian Government has embarked upon ambitious CBNRM programs that relate

to wildlife, tourism and forest resources. These programs have involved years of nego-

tiation of boundaries between neighbouring communities together with their

respective Traditional Authorities. These social units (CBOs) present a key opportunity

for the CBRLM program to use these boundaries as both entry points and supportive

local structures to engage with farmers and Traditional Authorities in an already de-

fined area. This approach avoids the need to negotiate boundaries within the communal

area which can be a long and complicate process (with some negotiations exceeding the

duration of this sub activity). It also provides a legitimate area within which to do land

use planning, grazing planning and as well as infrastructure planning. These structures

are recognised by government entities and the engagement of the IMF will allow the co-

ordinated delivery of services to these entities.

Three options were used to identify potential RIAs, as shown in figure 1 below. Option 1

looked for overlaps between GIS RIAs and other areas with legitimate boundaries.

Wherever possible community based organisations (CBOs) that have a mandate for

improved natural resource management were used (Communal Area Conservancies and

Community Forests). Figure 1, Option 1 illustrates this situation.

The second option for identifying potential RIAs applied where there were no overlaps

between GIS RIAs and CBO areas. In these cases the District Traditional Authority was

approached and requested to identify possible other intervention areas which had

overlap with GIS RIAs (see Figure 1, option 2).

The third option for identifying potential RIAs applied where there was no clear overlap

between GIS RIAs with either CBO areas or other areas identified by TAs. This involved

working in partnership with CBOs and TAs to identify potential areas lying completely

outside the GIS RIAs (see Figure 1, option 3).

Once potential RIAs had been identified, the RIA underwent a selection process based on

a number of criteria including: extent of fencing, water availability and quality and

access to the area. If a RIA met the required criteria then the number of settlements or

water points and grazing areas within the RIA were investigated. The criteria used to

assess the Grazing Area (GA) in more detail are as follows: number of households,

number of livestock and the specific livestock watering conditions within the grazing

area. This data was obtained through key informant discussions so as not to raise

expectations at the community level.

11


Figure 1: Simplified graphic explanation of the CBRLM RIA identification processes

Option 1:

Option 2:

Option 3:

Inter-ministerial committee representatives from MAWF, RWS, MLR and Regional

Planning were made aware of the site selection process and were involved wherever

possible in the field work as well as in the final analysis and selection process. The

detailed process of RIA and Grazing area identification will be described in the RIA

eligibility report to be submitted to MCA-N on 14 July, 2010.

2.2.3 Selection of intervention RIAs and control RIAs

We understand the need for the impact evaluation to be informed by measuring

changes in both intervention and control groups. Our early concerns have been miti-

gated by the RIA identification process agreed to, as described above and by the

multivariate matching process that will be adopted as part of the randomisation proc-

ess.

GIS RIA

GIS RIA

GIS RIA

CBO

Potential CBRLM RIA

Potential CBRLM RIA

Potential CBRLM RIA

RIA Proposed by TA

RIA Proposed by TA

12


As agreed with the IMFs and the MAWF, we will discuss the semi-final list of eligible

RIAs with them before finalising the eligibility report. At these meeting we will explain

the matching process that will result in the splitting of the eligible RIAs into two bal-

anced groups. We are confident that this dialogue will facilitate acceptance of the final

selection of intervention RIAs.

It is clear that the project pilot areas will fall within two categories some will be on

communal land controlled by the traditional authorities while others will be in commu-

nal conservancies or community forests where boundaries have been negotiated.

Despite the distinctions in both cases the land is still wholly controlled by the TAs. This

underlines the central point that TAs play in this project.

Efforts were made during the selection of Rangeland Intervention Areas to explain to

the potential pilot areas the objectives of project mostly at CBO and TA levels. Represen-

tatives of the two institutions signed letters of request to participate in the project. Due

to the limited time spent on RIA selection these letters will be followed by letters of

consent from the TAs and CBOs once the RIA has passed the selection stage. Before the

signing of the letter of consent, community mobilisation will be crucial to ensure the

inclusion of community members.

2.3.1 Levels of engagement

There are three levels of engagement that have been identified as key to ensuring

communities buy in to the project, these are:

the Traditional Authorities and CBOs,

the grazing area unit and

the individual farmers.

At all these levels gender integration will be an important theme (see Annex 1).

Traditional Authorities and CBOs

The TAs are the custodians of communal land and play an important role in the alloca-

tion of land and grazing rights. Due to reduced productivity of the land and limited land

available, undue pressure is put on TAs to allocate land for settling and for cropping to

farmers forcing them to allocate land previously meant for cattle posts mainly to now

be used for cropping and homestead areas. There is an antagonistic relationship be-

tween cropping and grazing as the former brings in the fencing of crop-fields breaking

the land into small parcels and only leaving corridors for grazing. The continual fencing

of land for cropping and homesteading has already led to shortage of grazing in some

2.3 Community mobilisation, engagement and commitment

13


areas. There is also a risk of the current cattle posts being fenced and converted into

cropping and homestead areas.

Strong commitment from the side of the TAs/CBOs is required to enforce the by- laws

governing cattle posts, this can only be achieved by reaching understanding between

the TA/CBO and the community.

The grazing area

The second level is the grazing area; a grazing area is the unit of intervention in a RIA

and can consist of different groupings of households. This may for example include a

cluster of households, a single village or several villages together, or a cattle post.

Grazing area communities needs to be sensitised for a successful implementation of the

project. The grazing area in some cases could be easily organised along water points, as

it has been shown that water is the most important aspect when it comes to livestock

management, since cattle using the same water point can be treated as a manageable

unit.

A challenge that was identified at the grazing area level is the number of households per

group, as in some cases the number seems to be too large to be manageable. This might

not be a problem for Kunene and Kavango but primarily in the North Central regions. As

household numbers exceed 20 households, the likelihood of conflicts increases and the

lower the possibility of the uptake of a joint grazing approach. This could however be

circumvented by creation of more water points in the grazing areas allowing for further

segmentation of communities into smaller groups. A ripple approach will be used

whereby some grazing areas that will adopt the project earlier will be used as model to

others who are still resisting changing their ways.

Individual farmers

The third level is the individual farmers who need to understand the benefits that

accrue from community based rangeland and livestock management. It is important

that each cattle owner within the identified grazing area participates in the project.

There is an existence of a large number of absentee farmers who employ herders to look

after their cattle. This group brings the challenge of dealing with decision makers who

are not at the area of intervention. It is however important especially at the beginning

to ensure the inclusion of the absentee farmers in all the decisions and any by-laws

enacted for range and livestock management.

The herders are another group who do not necessarily own the cattle but are responsible

for the day to day management of livestock; in some cases they are the owners of the

livestock in others they are family relatives, hired herders or children. Their direct

participation and understanding of the project objectives cannot be overemphasised.

Women are another group in the community that in most cases are directly involved in

livestock management although they might be cattle owners only in some instances.

They are much less likely to own cattle as compared to their male counterparts, however

14


women are in charge of small stock and poultry. Special caution is required to ensure the

inclusion of women in the project. The opportunities identified by the gender integra-

tion plan (Annex 1) include:

participation in the governance structures

marketing and selling of meat

involvement with small stock and poultry (see also sections 2.6 and 2.7)

animal health (see also section 2.6)

value added enterprises.

2.3.2 Approaches at community level, steps and processes

The project will be introducing new ways of rangeland and livestock management,

combining traditional methods with scientific best practices. It is normal that when

human beings are faced with change, that it is often resisted as it introduces a new way

of doing things and new risks to the community. In order to prepare the communities at

the grazing area level to implement the project the following steps/ interventions are

proposed:

The first step will be to meet with the responsible TA, mainly at the level of Senior

headmen and village headman to choose which areas in the RIA are the “best bet”

in terms of implementing the project. The same step will be done for RIAs in CBOs

where the CBO committee will provide the entry point for consulting the partici-

pating villages.

Hold meetings at village levels i.e. village development committees where they

exist, involving the herders, owners and all other affected community members.

At the village level there may be many meetings. Among other things these meet-

ings will:

enable the CBRLM staff to understand how the community operates with

respect to rangeland management and livestock husbandry

explain the objectives of the CBRLM programme, the responsibilities of

the project staff and those of the communities

discuss and identify issues around grazing and livestock management

prioritise important action points or intervention opportunities

agree way forward and levels of project support.

Agree with communities on new roles and responsibilities for implementing

range and livestock management

identify and agree on leadership for the CBRLM activity at the commu-

nity level. This step is vital as it could make or break project

implementation.

Develop and agree plans, timetables and milestones to be achieved for project

implementation.

15


It will be also crucial to the implementation of the project to strengthen the exist-

ing governance structures i.e. TAs and CBOs to prepare them to execute their

additional mandate. For any change process to take root the leadership is crucial

as any wavering on their part could cause a disruption in the implementation

plan.

Further support through targeted capacity building with the assistance from the techni-

cal experts of the project will support the community to implement their plan. During

these mobilisation steps, it will be necessary for the facilitators to be located close to the

community and to provide the day to day support and also to quickly respond to arising

challenges.

Exposure Visits

A major strategy proposed is for the project is to organise exposure trips. The aim will be

to illustrate the effects of land degradation and also to show how it can be turned

around through proper management.

Exposure visits to areas that are implementing community based rangeland and live-

stock management at the beginning of the interventions will provide a powerful way to

gain a clear understanding of the approaches, which the project is proposing. Represen-

tatives from both the TAs and GAs that are chosen will be included in exposure trips to

show them on what is possible. These visits will go a long way in motivating their

participation in or support for the programme.

2.4.1 The approach to capacity development

In our proposal we explained in some detail our implementation strategy with respect

to developing the capacity of communities in the areas of rangeland management,

livestock husbandry and marketing. This approach was spelled out again in the draft

inception report.

In essence our approach to developing the capacity of communities can be described as

experiential learning. It is, in other words, “the demand driven delivery of technical

knowhow and knowledge”. The idea is that skills and knowledge will be imparted in a

more lasting and meaningful way if they are introduced in the context of responding to

a particular need or management challenge. Skills and knowledge delivered in the form

of training sessions, modules and information leaflets outside the context of a man-

agement challenge are less likely to be adopted and built upon.

The CBRLM has a unique opportunity to promote experiential learning. We will be in a

position to develop the skills and the knowledge base of community members as we

work with them to overcome the challenges of improved rangeland management,

2.4 Experiential learning versus standard training modules

16


improved livestock husbandry and increased cattle marketing in the specific conditions

under which they operate.

The CBRLM will work with communities to develop and implement land use plans and

appropriate grazing management regimes. In the course of dialogue with community

members about the options available for improved rangeland management, there will

be opportunities to introduce new concepts, methods, technologies and approaches that

may help to overcome perceived or real obstacles to increasing the productivity of

grasslands. In this context, for example, it will be possible to deliver information on

principles of what is needed for strong grass growth, knowledge of methods of meeting

these needs and know-how and techniques which make it possible to adopt the re-

quired methods. These can all be delivered in a way that is highly relevant and needs

driven.

The challenge for the CBRLM project is to interact with community members through

field staff who:

can enter into a dialogue with community members about their rangeland, live-

stock and marketing problems;

are equipped with an array of “technology” options; and

will be able to deliver knowledge, know-how and skills training on an “as needed”

basis.

This requires a highly motivated cadre of field staff who are knowledgeable about the

range of technical options available, who have access to appropriate training materials

and who can call on specialist training and technical support. Above all, however, these

field staff need to have facilitation and dialogue skills in order to interact with farmers

not as teachers and preachers, but as collaborators in an experiential learning context.

This is why we call them field facilitators.

2.4.2 Building on existing technical knowledge and delivery experience

There is no shortage of regionally appropriate technical information and “training

material” available in the areas of range management, livestock husbandry and market-

ing. However, this material needs careful screening to ensure its relevance and

appropriateness for use in the context of communal grazing systems in the North of

Namibia.

There also exists a body of experience with delivering “improvement” messages through

the MAWF extension service and a number of focused range and livestock development

programmes. We propose to harness these two valuable resources in the following way

forward.

First we have joined with the CPPs CALLC programme to commission a local consortium

to review the relevant training material that exists in the areas of rangeland manage-

ment, livestock husbandry and business and marketing. The consultants will be asked to

screen this material for its relevance to the communal rangeland situation and its

17


appropriateness in the context of the CBRLM project’s capacity development philosophy

described above. During the consultancy a screening panel consisting of experts from

MAWF, CALLC, NGOs and CBRLM will meet regularly to further screen the material

identified by the consultants. The screened material will be compiled in the form of an

electronic library of printable training modules.

These training modules will be developed in four main blocks according to the major

components of the project. The list below is not comprehensive and is likely to evolve

during the course of the project.

Community mobilisation and facilitation skills

communication skills (talking with and not at farmers)

understanding farmers’ circumstances and motivations

understanding husbandry and grazing practices and their rationale

using problem identification and diagnosis tools

developing improvement options with farmers

strengthening community governance structures

Rangeland management

The rangeland management component will be based on the content of the Draft

National Rangeland Policy and Strategy and will include:

principles of sound rangeland management with a focus on recovery periods,

improving the soil water and mineral cycles

planned grazing and herding

land use planning and infrastructure planning (using Conservancy and

Community Forest approaches as well as notes from the Polytech

synergies between cropping and rangeland management

synergies between cattle post and cropped areas

bush encroachment – appropriate bush clearing methods and small business

development

fire management

fodder banks for drought mitigation

determination of water needs in relation to grazing

management of water sources

focal level monitoring of relevant aspects

institutional arrangement principles

linkages to improved livestock husbandry and marketing

Livestock husbandry

18


animal nutrition: seasonal needs, supplementation options

feeding and improvement of calving cycles

breeding programmes, controlled breeding

improving calving percentages and reducing early mortality

calving problems, assisted delivery techniques

dehorning

vaccination

sickness diagnosis and treatment (e.g. internal parasites in small stock)

herd management

goats and poultry

Livestock marketing and business skills

whole chain management

price - organic certification, small frame animal price discrepancy

linkages with livestock husbandry and rangeland management (e.g. adjusting

numbers to available feed for livestock and rangeland reasons)

principles of business identification and support

key factors of success (financial management, record keeping)

working in groups to obtain credit and managing loans

understanding of price building and accessing market price information

market demand, quality, traceability (tagging)

risk management

preparing marketing and business plans

Two types of training materials will be developed. The first consisting of materials

which the field facilitator will use to guide his/her delivery of the training. This will

include background material, steps to be followed, demonstration models, and so on.

The second will be delivered directly to and or left with farmers. These will include

pamphlets, DVDs, posters, calendars, maps. Materials delivered directly to farmers and

left with them will be translated into the local language.

Also to utilise and to build on in-country experience and expertise in delivering im-

provement messages the project will host a “best practices” training workshop. We

propose that the compiled set of training materials are used as resource materials at this

national level workshop, which will be held end of September in Oshakati. The objective

of this workshop will be to review the set of materials with potential collaborators such

as DEES, DART, IRDNC, UNAM, NAU, NNFU, RISE Namibia and private training organisa-

tions. We will jointly review the training materials and will especially focus on

experiences on how they have been received in the communal farming context.

19


The outcomes from the workshop will be a refined electronic library of training modules

consisting of facilitator guides and technical messages. This will form the basis of “First

Draft CBRLM Best Practices Training Materials”.

2.4.3 Developing capacity and motivation of the field facilitators

Having high quality field facilitators (FFs) is as important as having high quality training

materials. We propose to recruit up to 20 field facilitators who come from or near the

selected RIAs. The FFs will have been recruited in time to take part in the “best practices

workshop” in September. Their participation in the compilation of the training materials

will provide them with a sense of ownership of them.

Subsequently the FFs will be taken through the set of training materials so that they

become familiar with them. This will be done in the form of formal train-of-trainer

workshops (ToT). These workshops will be organised into sets of different training

modules (see preliminary list above) and will have a classroom and a field training part.

DEES, DVS and other relevant government staff will be invited as appropriate to take

part in the ToT workshops. This will also help for later collaboration in the implementa-

tion phase.

Field faciliators will also be given instruction on the use of equipment to help with

delivering the materials and will have an opportunity to practice their delivery. These

ToT sessions will be led by the CBRLM technical experts with the assistance of experi-

enced trainers contracted for the purpose. These ToT workshops will take place in

October and November 2010. The FFs will be encouraged to make notes about the

delivery methods and after each session a joint summary of “implementation guide-

lines” will be compiled together with the FFs, which will accompany the training

materials.

We also intend the FFs to play a role in developing the implementation guidelines. This

relates to the circumstances in which it will be appropriate for the FFs to share informa-

tion and knowhow with their collaborating farmers. We will take the FFs on a number of

field visits. Some of these will be to where communities or individual farmers have

adopted new methods or technologies. Some will be to the communities who have

expressed interest in participating in the CBRLM project. Through discussion of the

circumstances of the different visits, the implementation guidelines will be jointly

reviewed and refined. It is expected that part of these implementation guidelines will be

in the form of checklists, developed by the FFs, to help them apply the demand driven

approach to the delivery of knowledge and know-how.

It is expected that this process will give the FFs a strong sense of ownership of the

training materials and that they will feel motivated to provide feedback on how the

materials and methods of delivery are received by farmers. This feedback information

will be essential to modify and improve both the “implementation guidelines” as well as

the Draft Training Materials themselves, as experience is gained with their use. In this

20


way the CBRLM will generate a valuable output at the end of the project that will have

itself benefited from “experiential learning”.

2.4.4 Certification of field facilitators

The role of the field facilitators is first and foremost to engage community members in

dialogue about their production practices and problems. They must be as skilled in

listening to farmers concerns and views as in delivering technical messages. Our experts

estimate that that the skill requirement is 80% interpersonal and only 20% technical.

Given this, together with our strategy of adopting an experiential learning approach, we

are not in favour of providing our field facilitators with a full validation of competency

in advance of their deployment to work with grazing area communities. We intend to

adopt a two tier certification approach i.e.:

a certificate of attendance of CBRLM induction, followed later by

a full certification of competence in CBRLM facilitation.

An important element for certification of competence is feedback from beneficiaries.

As explained above, the FFs, together with the RFMs will receive classroom instruction

on the set of training materials. This will be followed by field testing and exposure visits.

The objectives of the field testing will include validation of the materials, instruction on

application of the materials and development of implementation guidelines, as well as

assessment of the FFs understanding of the materials and how to use them.

In the process of these induction sessions the FFs will be assessed in terms of:

their knowledge of the content of the materials

their understanding how to use the materials

their contribution to the development of the implementation guidelines.

At the end of the induction sessions the FFs will receive certificates of attendance.

Over the first year of the project the competency of field facilitators will be evaluated in

a number of ways. These will include:

1) assessments at CBRLM quarterly planning meetings on:

how they plan their work with communities

feedback they bring to the project on farmer response to proposed interven-

tions

2) assessments by CBRLM experts in the field on:

how they engage and interact with farmers

how they identify problems at community level

21


how they discuss solutions with farmers and the content of the solutions

offered

how they use the training materials

3) assessments from a questionnaire to participating farmers on:

how the field facilitators engaged with them

how interventions were introduced to them

how clearly the interventions were explained

how the field facilitators were able to help when they faced implementation

problems.

Using this approach, we will be able to provide CBRLM field facilitators, DEES staff and

others who have worked with us certificates of competency after they have worked on

the CBRLM project for a full year. We therefore propose that the timing of the first

monitoring indicator (number of trainers certified) be postponed to November 2011.

2.5.1 Land use planning in Namibia

Land Use Planning is the “systematic assessment of land and water potential, and of

alternatives for land use and economic and social conditions in order to select and adopt

the best land-use options.” The purpose of land use planning therefore is to select and

put into practice those land uses that will best meet the needs of the people while

safeguarding resources for the future. Land use planning should not take place in isola-

tion from other development planning.

The Ministry of Lands and Resettlement (MLR) in Namibia is starting to develop Re-

gional Land Use Plans for the country. The MCA CBRLM initiative will be informed by

these Regional plans, but there is also potential for locally developed plans feeding into

the regional plans.

Due to a proliferation of policies and laws in different sectors, many different stake-

holders affect land use planning and land use including line ministries, RCs, TAs,

conservancies, community forests, farmers’ associations, etc. In many instances over-

lapping authority over land and land use leads to conflicting allocations of land.

2.5.2 Land use planning in the CBRLM project

The CBRLM project undertakes to improve the productivity of rangelands that should

have consequences for livestock, crops, wildlife and other activities. Planning the range-

land resource allows the potential investigation of synergies between various land uses

namely crops, tourism, livestock and wildlife. CBRLM will work in areas defined by the

TAs and the local residents through the formation of Conservancies and Community

Forests. Within each designated area communities will be sensitised regarding the focus

2.5 Land use planning and grazing management

22


of the project and interested and able communities will be supported to develop local

level land use plans for the entire intervention area.

In each region the establishment of a TA forum on rangeland will be investigated and its

roles and responsibilities cascaded to the local TA level. The exact nature of this forum is

still to be determined but it will take up issues at the regional level and ensure that all

are aware of the current consequences of poor rangeland management, the possible

actions that can be taken, feedback on what is and is not working and why. The body

could also receive and deliberate on proposals from the RIAs in terms of initiating and

sustaining sustainable rangeland efforts at the local level. These structures will also be

informed of the marketing and other aspects and provide support and ways forward

from these fora on these issues.

The CBRLM land use planning process will need to take into account land use plans that

have already been developed at the local level by CBOs as well as TAs and other respon-

sible bodies. If land use plans already exist, these will be reviewed from a rangeland

management perspective.

A process will be embarked upon whereby the RCs and TAs support the local level

planning process and are involved and regularly informed of its progress. The various

line Ministries through the Inter ministerial Forums will also be kept informed and

involved wherever necessary. The land use plans will be developed with MLR and

lodged with the Land Board.

These land use plans will be mapped. These maps will become a very important com-

munity resource. They will represent a strong statement of intent of a community to

implement a rangeland management plan. They will represent the focal point for

subsequent discussion on rangeland and livestock management. It is important there-

fore that definitive versions of these maps reside with and at the working group. It is

expected that experience from the 60 or more communal conservancies will enable the

CBRLM project to build on best practice lessons on how to formulate, present and display

maps for use within communities.

2.5.3 Grazing Area planning

Planned grazing

Within each intervention area there may be a number of grazing areas. Farmers at each

of these grazing areas will be exposed to sound rangeland management principles and if

interested and able, will be assisted to develop a grazing plan. The Grazing Area Plans

will inform the larger intervention area and the Intervention Area land use plans will

inform the grazing area plans. Grazing planning has various levels of complexity that

can be applied – the level of intervention will depend on the lead farmers in a given

area.

23


A starter pack will be used, which consists of simple rules based on the principles of

sound rangeland management as described in the Draft Rangeland Policy and Strategy.

Planned grazing has various levels of complexity that require changes during the grow-

ing and non growing season. The following is a framework from which specific steps

will be developed to guide the planned grazing process.

All people responsible for putting the grazing plan into effect need to gather

and consider all the factors that may influence the plan. For example, fire risk

and important areas for thatching grass, disease prone, predator prone, theft

prone and poisonous plants areas as well as other land uses such as crops,

wildlife and tourism. Animal needs must also be considered e.g. milking, calv-

ing, bulling, planned sales etc as well as treatment to the land to improve it in

identified areas

The grazing area should be divided into 5 to 12 partitions and corridors

planned to reach these areas. These must be recorded on the base map for the

grazing area which has been developed at the local level

Herd structure should be recorded

Based on the above – a planning process must be embarked upon to plan

when animals should be where as well as treatments you want to apply to

crop fields or rangelands to improve productivity

The plan will be reviewed to ensure that adequate recovery and grazing peri-

ods are achieved and that all important factors are accounted for

The pan will be plotted, implemented monitored and changes made as

needed for the growing season as well as the non growing season.

If herding is the adopted implementation strategy then low stress livestock techniques

will be imparted to farmers.

Planned infrastructure

Infrastructure requirements may be identified at the grazing area or the rangeland

intervention area level. Infrastructure that is required to enable an improvement in

animal or rangeland production should be noted on the relevant base map and a priori-

tised implementation plan developed with farmers. Infrastructure may include

additional water points, upgrading existing water points, crush pen, loading ramps etc.

These should be prioritised in terms of return to farmers and plans developed to realise

the most important infrastructure.

The CBRLM will seek financial sources for infrastructure including self-financing or

match funding from communities themselves. This would be done in a way that vul-

nerable groups and the poor are not prevented from access. There would be

encouragement for herd structures to be to be improved through sales of poor quality

stock to finance such investments.

The following figure 2 shows hypothetically a mapping for a land use plan for a RIA with

grazing area units inside.

24


Cattle Movement (Travel Corridors)

Grazing Area Boundary

Land Use Plan Boundary (CBRLM RIA)

Other Land Use Zoning Boundary

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

Water Point

Household Cluster

Road

Grazing Partition

Wildlife Borehole

Community Forest

Core Wildlife Area

Cropping

Planned Water Point

Cattle Post

Planned Crush Pen

Figure 2: Rangeland intervention planning units (Grazing Areas) shown within the

broader land use planning unit (CBRLM RIA).

Map is not to scale and represents a hypothetical planning scenario.

25


2.5.4 Other rangeland interventions

Fire management

Uncontrolled fire has been raised as a major problem affecting sound rangeland man-

agement. A number of initiatives at the cross border, regional, rangeland intervention

area as well as the grazing area need to be investigated and put in place to enable fires

to be managed. In areas without livestock and low numbers of wildlife early burning

should be considered as is currently being applied in Caprivi. Where improved rangeland

principles are being applied fire should be excluded from management unless there is a

clear benefit from it. The use of fire will need to be reviewed at the end of the project

period and fire management recommendation provided within the final report. .

Bush Clearing

In many areas bush encroachment has reached a closed canopy state. Grass production

under this canopy is limited and any significant rangeland interventions will require a

thinning of bush. Fire cannot be considered as an option as fuel loads are too low.

Methods of clearing should be investigated as well as local businesses investigated that

clear wood and sell wood to other regions where it is in short supply. This intervention

will be critical to the success of rangeland improvements in these areas and must also be

accompanied by the planned grazing process outlined above.

Destocking/Restocking

Preparation for a marketing program that can respond to a regional or national lack of

fodder needs to investigated. Assessments done in May will indicate whether there is

enough fodder to see farmers through to March next year. If fodder runs out before this

then a major initiative that supports the early sale of livestock with incentives to sell

early need to be established, as well as mechanisms for securing money until re-

investment in livestock after the drought has broken can be facilitated.

Synergies with marketing

Links between rangeland and croplands will be investigated, such as finishing animals

on improved pastures in the settled areas, leading to increased livestock productivity as

well as improved fertility and production of the croplands.

Animal husbandry interventions will largely revolve around the training of farmers in

general animal husbandry practices. We will apply the approach to training we have

outlined in section 2.4. That is to say it will be demand driven, delivered in the context of

a management plan and will be practically oriented involving experiential learning.

Section 2.4 also outlines our strategy for developing relevant and appropriate training

materials. This process is underway and it is not possible at this stage to provide a list of

2.6 Livestock management

26


those materials. In this section we outline some of the major training opportunities we

expect to be able to identify and respond to. These are informed partly by the results of

the study we commissioned on the socio-cultural aspects of cattle keeping (see Annex 2)

and partly by the experience of our experts from working in the region. It needs to be

understood that the list of training opportunities is not exhaustive and it does not

represent a curriculum that all farmers will be put through. Training on a topic will only

be delivered in support of a demand driven management plan and to address specific

issues, problems or opportunities identified by grazing area communities themselves.

2.6.1 General animal husbandry practices

The socio-economic study (Annex 2) has described a number of aspects of cattle keeping

in the NCAs that provide opportunities for improved productivity. These include:

Cattle kept for security and prestige reasons resulting in less than optimal

herd composition for maximisation of income

Cattle are not dehorned because it is fulfilling to have many animals with big

horns. When the cattle die or get slaughtered, the horns are strategically

placed in the homestead to reveal the wealth status of the owner. At wed-

dings and funerals, the value of the gift in form of cattle is measured by the

size of the animal and size of horns. That is, the bigger the horns the better

the gift and hence the extent to which the love towards the beneficiary is

measured. Big and sharp horns have many negative effects towards produc-

tivity such as injury and sometimes death of other livestock, difficulty to get

the cattle into crush pens for health management purposes or marketing, nu-

trients wasting by the animals building horns that have no economical value,

and space wasting in vehicles during transportation.

Poor and inconsistent branding or other forms of identification.

These suggest opportunities for our FFs to discuss with farmers issues such as the

age at which male animals are castrated, herd composition, dehorning and cattle

identification (see section 2.8 below for further details on tagging).

2.6.2 Improved nutrition and health

In the NCAs significant production loss is associated with poor nutrition and disease

incidence which is highly correlated with nutritional status.

Supplementary feeding is practiced in some cases but is often less beneficial than it

could be. Supplements are not fed based on deficiencies and needs of the animals at a

given time. Commonly communal farmers use dry straws from crop field and some-

times poor quality hay bought from the commercial farmers on the south of the

veterinary cordon fence. The most common mineral supplement is sodium chloride,

often placed in the kraals where the livestock are housed at night. Other minerals

necessary for livestock health are only given as prescription from veterinarians when

the animals are reported as sick. Mineral deficiencies do result in production problems

such as fractures of legs leading to death or premature slaughter, stunted growth,

27


reproductive failure and wastage. Over the short term mineral supplements are essen-

tial, but as rangelands improve dependence on supplements should decrease and its cost

effectiveness becomes questionable.

In some grazing areas there may be potential to improve productivity through appropri-

ate mineral supplementation. In other areas it may be possible to make hay on open

grazing areas where grass grows and matures in the summer without being eaten by

cattle. This would provide better nutrition than the dry low quality grass that would be

grazed in the winter.

Significant losses occur due to disease. Under the NOLIDEP and NASSP projects commu-

nity animal health workers (CAHW) were trained and supported. The performance and

efficiency of these people has been low due to inadequate support and lack of update on

issues of livestock health.

CBRLM is currently reviewing ways to engage these CAHWs to help facilitate discussion

with farmers (and herd boys) on basic animal health issues. The CAHWs would be

supported take the lead in developing community plans for disease prevention, im-

proved nutrition and early detection of sick animals.

2.6.3 Breeding and selection

Some richer farmers in the NCAs engage in limited livestock breeding through buying

bulls with superior qualities from commercial farmers. The MEAT Board of Namibia has

for a number of years been running a Breeding Bull Scheme to improve the quality of

herds in the NCAs. However, the success rate of the approach used has been low. Pres-

ence of inferior bulls in grazing land has been a reason for some farmers to search for

new grazing areas so as to isolate their cows and heifers from mating with the inferior

bulls that out-compete the superior bulls which they have bought. Under communal

grazing, individual effort to improve one’s herd will be greatly frustrated and leads to

persistency of inferior progeny in the herds in spite of the effort.

Currently, farmers do not pay attention to selection of cows. Every female calf is re-

garded as a breeding stock in spite of any inferior quality noticed. Farmers believe they

can solve their herd problems through bull selection alone.

Development of communal grazing plans and the joining of individual herds provide

opportunities for achieving genetic improvement through controlled breeding. Options

include:

selection of superior bulls in common mixed herds

culling of cows and heifers with undesirable traits

synchronisation of cows using hormones and exposure to bulls with superior

traits

synchronisation of cows and then perform artificial insemination.

28


Such options would need to be thoroughly discussed with communities to ensure that

all owners fully understand the implications of the different measures and agree to

support them fully.

2.6.4 Control of internal parasites in small stock

The socio-cultural study (Annex1) shows that cattle are generally kept for prestige,

traditional exchange and ceremonies, as a reservoir of wealth, as a reserve to be used in

case of poor crop yield, and almost never for home consumption. Small stock and poul-

try are therefore the forms of readily available protein source for family consumption

and household cash needs.

The gender integration plan (Annex 1) shows that women have greater decision making

powers and responsibility for small stock and poultry husbandry than for cattle. Improv-

ing the productivity of small stock and poultry is therefore a major means for

empowering women and reducing their dependence on men for their household and

financial needs.

A survey by DVS and the Northern Research Extension and Epidemio - surveillance

Project (NOREESP) conducted in 2003 showed that lambs and kids constituted at most

12% of sheep and goat flocks. This indicated high mortality of young stock and was

supported by perceptions of farmers that 33% of their losses were due to gastrointestinal

parasite infection.

An approach to parasite control in small stock is available which is based on treating

only the animals that are severely affected and unable to withstand the current parasite

infection. This both reduces costs and also lowers development of work resistance to

available drugs to very low levels. Application of the FAMACHA® system that was

developed in South Africa and proved to work in communal areas will enable animals

that are infested and physically challenged with internal parasites to be identified. Use

of this approach could enable parasite control that is progressively less dependent on

direct participation of veterinary staff and will empower farmers in general animal

husbandry through hands on disease management of their flocks.

Field facilitators will be encouraged to discuss internal parasite control with their

communities and especially with women. Where a problem is identified CBRLM will

organise appropriate training and support for interested groups to implement the

FAMACHA® system.

2.6.5 Improved poultry production

Ownership of chickens is more widespread than other stock in the NCAs. Figure 2 shows

that 80% of the households in the NCAs own chickens, 50% households own small stock

while only 40% own cattle. Villagers usually regard the absence of chicken at a house-

hold as a measure of poverty. In a survey done for DVS, it was found that in some

families where chicken consumption was high, the value of the chicken meat eaten in

one year equalled a young ox (N$3200- N$4320). However, none of these families

29


slaughtered a single head of cattle for home consumption throughout the year. This

signifies the role played by chicken in providing family well being.

Opportunities for improving poultry production include:

scaling up guinea fowl production enterprises

reducing chick mortality through improved rearing facilities

wider distribution of the dual purpose breed from Mashare Livestock Devel-

opment Centre in Kavango

disease management through CAHWs

Figure 3: Ownership of livestock across regions.

Source: Adapted from a report for DVS, 2010 on Cross-sectional survey to characterise poultry and

other species demographics and Avian and Human Influenza (AHI) exposure factors in Namibia.

The CBRLM project has not yet started to develop its marketing component. The section

below presents initial thoughts how to address this theme.

2.7.1 Background

The livestock industry is of fundamental economic importance for Namibia. It accounts

for 90% of all agricultural production and contributes 11% of the GDP and 25% of export

value. However, the livestock sector in the NCA compared to the commercial areas has a

very low productivity, although cattle and goat numbers north and south of the VCF are

2.7 Livestock marketing

30


of comparable magnitude. The official cattle annual off-take rate through the MEATCO

abattoirs in Oshakati and Katima Mulilo has been only 2% compared to 20-30% in the

commercial sector. The total cattle off-take rate in the NCA is unknown, but is assessed

to be around 7%. The livestock productivity in the Kunene region and part of Omusati

region however is estimated to be higher Here the livelihood of the rural population

depends almost solely on livestock, where the Herero and Himba tribes are skilled cattle

herders. Farming systems in the other regions have mixed crop and livestock production

and non-farming activities constitute a higher share of household income here.

The major constraints to livestock marketing in the NCA are:

Distance to markets and marketing services

Non-transparency of market prices and limited understanding of price as-

sessments of MEATCO. MEATCO prices are perceived to be clearly

undervalued (often expressed to be robbery)

Lack of access to EU market due to non-disease free status

Cattle have social and cultural values and are kept for non-bank safety rea-

sons. Thus, larger herds with high numbers of unproductive but prestigious

male cattle prevail. Such large oxen with big horns are preferable for slaugh-

ter at weddings and funerals

Little commercial attitude of farmers – livestock is sold on an as-needed basis.

Investment opportunities in the NCAs are limited. Livestock represent a sound invest-

ment in terms of growth, security and accessibility. Provided it is sustainable in relation

to the resource base, growth in cattle numbers represents a benefit in terms of private

and social wealth. In circumstances where the amount of feed available in a given

season exceeds the projected consumption the achievement of increased cattle off-take

rates is expected to be difficult. However, in the event of projected feed shortage enter-

prise risk can be mitigated by increased marketing rates. Cash realised from such

marketing will need to be secured in some way to enable restocking once feed supplies

are restored. This suggests the development of a marketing strategy around discussions

with famers about selling at the right time for the right reasons.

2.7.2 Opportunities and approach

MEATCO and AGRA have recently changed their policies and are addressing this market

more intensively. Since September 2009 MEATCO has been trying to address the market

access problem and is buying on the hoof directly from the farmers. Currently MEATCO

is in the process of constructing 70 multipurpose crush-pens for communities in the

NCA financed by the EU. These new marketing policies have already resulted in signifi-

cantly higher turnovers; hence MEATCO is facing logistical problems as they have only 2

trucks available to reach the crush-pens. In Kunene however cattle sales to MEATCO

plummeted in 2009 as most animals were sold to Angolan buyers who offered higher

prices.

31


AGRA has started to organise cattle auctions in the NCA as good prices can be obtained

from Angolan and partly Zambian buyers. Cattle at these auctions mostly originate from

areas south of the VCF. AGRA intends to open a branch shop in Oshakati in the near

future.

The marketing component of the CBRLM project has two objectives;

First to improve income levels of participating households, and

second to overcome marketing constraints existing in the NCA.

Thus the marketing component will address community needs by working directly with

farmers, but will also work at an institutional level.

The following ideas and opportunities are currently being explored and pursued:

A) Community Level

Marketing and Business Management Plans - as outlined in the CBRLM contract the

participating communities will be trained in marketing and business skills. Understand-

ing of

i) price building and cycles,

ii) economies of scale for selling livestock and purchasing inputs,

iii) accounting and finance, and

iv) risk mitigation through bank savings etc.

will among others be important topics of the training. Communities will be assisted to

draw up simple Marketing and Business Management Plans.

Mobile trading and banking scheme - the project will look into the possibility to imple-

ment a mobile trading and banking scheme. The idea is that firstly on a pilot scheme a

truck would move around visiting selected crush pens. The truck personnel would trade

loaded goods like farming inputs (licks, vaccination drugs, fodder, animal husbandry

tools, etc), food and other interesting commodities against livestock directly with the

farmers. The possibility to include a mobile banking (and perhaps the sale of solar power

installations) into this mobile trading scheme will also be investigated at a later stage if

first results are positive. An operator for this mobile trading scheme has to be identified

(e.g. AGRA). This scheme is expected to provide very visible incentives to increase the

marketing rates.

Goats and poultry - small stock animal and poultry production is mainly associated with

women. Different from cattle small stock is regarded as a liquid asset that can be dis-

posed relatively easily for either consumption or marketing. Transport to markets also

poses less of a problem as goats can be transported by a simple pick-up vehicle. How-

ever, only local markets are available. The CBRLM project will look into the potentials of

32


improved profitability of small stock production and marketing. Another emphasis

could be given to guinea fowl projects and their marketing, as this product has a high

local demand birds fetch good prices. These aspects are part of the gender integration

plan and can contribute significantly to improving household incomes.

B) Institutional Level

Livestock Marketing Committees - in all 6 regions there are Livestock Marketing Com-

mittees (LMCs) comprising of members from each constituency and promoted by

MEATBOARD. The LMCs in the north central regions are currently supported by CALLC.

These 4 LMCs have developed action plans. CBRLM will cooperate with CALLC to build

capacities of the LMCs, but will also address the Kavango and Kunene LMCs where

CALLC is not active.

MCA Livestock Marketing Efficiency Fund - this grant fund has been recently launched

by MCA and has a total volume of 6.8 million USD. The project will assist eligible stake-

holders to access this fund and formulate relevant concept papers and proposals. If

appropriate implementation can be also be supported.

Ondangwa Tannery - leather production and processing is an important opportunity to

make use of livestock resources other than meat and milk. Such industry would create

employment and help farmers to market their hides. A reopening of the Ondangwa

tannery is currently pursued by the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI). It is proposed

that a Feasibility Study is commissioned – possibly to be financed under the grant fund

scheme – to investigate the economic viability of a leather industry in the NCA.

Upgrading small slaughterhouses and market places - beside the MEATCO abattoir in

Oshakati, there exists a slaughter house in Oshakati operated by Porquitier for African

Market (and owned by the municipality?) and one in Outapi owned by NDC. Both

slaughterhouses are of a very poor standard and present hygienic hazards to consumers.

There are other smaller slaughterhouses in Eenhana and Rundu, which are also poorly

operated. It should be investigated if the upgrading of these slaughterhouses is eco-

nomically viable. This would strengthen the competitive situation in the market.

Furthermore local slaughtering and meat market places are in the open and hygiene

conditions are problematic. Cooling facilities do not exist and meat needs to be sold in a

short period. Possibilities of upgrading local meat market facilities will also be investi-

gated.

Education and awareness building - the project will work out and implement with

MEATCO, CALLC and other stakeholders an education and awareness scheme on price

building and price transparency, which shall also encourage the commercialisation of

livestock production in the NCA. This scheme may also improve the reputation of

MEATCO posing a constraint to marketing. CBRLM will also work with MEATCO to

improve their communication approaches in working with communities.

33


Bank savings - CBRLM will also look into a possible cooperation with the banking sector

(e.g. Agribank) to introduce financial products which can compete with cattle as an

investment and store of wealth. Diversified risk mitigation strategies due to limited

grazing capacities and drought risks will be part of the above education and awareness

scheme.

The CBRLM project will coordinate all the above activities closely with the main stake-

holders (MAFW, MEATCO, AGRA, MEATBOARD, LMCs, CALLC, etc) and will explore

further opportunities.

The above scope of intervention options go beyond the ToR for this marketing compo-

nent, which focus on the training of the communities. However, a mere training on

marketing skills would achieve very little, if there are no general improvements of the

marketing conditions and the marketing infrastructure in the NCA at the same time.

Hence, the CBRLM Consultants have to investigate further which of the above options

are realistic and could have implementing partners.

For the CBRLM project there are three broad classes of data that will be collected. These

are as follows:

activity plans and achievements

monitoring indicators

impact or outcome indicators

These are further elaborated in the following.

2.8.1 Activity plans and achievements

An integrated planning and reporting system has been set up to operate as follows.

Project staff work together to develop quarterly activity plans, comprising

components, main activities and sub-activities

Monthly targets are set for the achievement of each sub-activity

For each sub-activity, agreement is reached on who is to take the lead for any

sub-activity and on who will provide support

Leaders of sub-activities are responsible for reporting on achievements

against targets at the end of each month

Activity descriptions, targets and achievements are captured on an integrated database.

The database uses the numbering structure for components and activities adopted in

chapter 10 of the GOPA proposal. Reports generated from the database by component,

activity and sub-activity for each month, form the core of our activity reporting for each

quarter.

2.8 Data collection plan

34


2.8.2 Monitoring indicators

The integrated database is also designed to capture information on the eleven monitor-

ing indicators that have been identified in the contract. Additional monitoring

indicators will be identified for sub-activities in the way described for the activity plans

above. There are two key differences that distinguish monitoring indicator targets from

general sub-activity targets.

First, most sub-activity targets are set as the percentage of the work task to be

undertaken within a specified month. Monitoring indicators will be set as

physical targets, with the units being indicator specific. For example, the first

monitoring indicator listed in the contract document is “# of trainers certified”.

The monthly targets set for the sub-activity will be in terms of numbers of

trainees

Second, monitoring indicators will be set at the level of grazing area communi-

ties. This is because it is expected that the sub-activities related to most of the

monitoring indicators will be planned at community level. Each grazing area

community will work at its own pace and will start and complete monitoring

indicator activities at different times.

Despite these differences, the setting of targets for monitoring indicators, the reporting

of indicator units achieved, the capturing of the information on the database and the

quarterly reporting of results will follow the same procedures as described for the

activity plans and achievements above.

At the end of each month a record of the days spent by expert staff on each sub-activity

is captured on the same database. For field staff we will more closely monitor how their

time is used. One of the monitoring indicators is the number of days field facilitators are

on site at grazing areas during the previous three months. We will capture this informa-

tion on daily records sheets that will be completed on a weekly basis by all field staff.

The information captured for each staff member for each day will have three dimen-

sions:

level of operation (GA level, RIA level, regional level, project level)

location of work (GA, RIA, region, HQ)

type of work:

preparatory activities (collect information, gain commitment, receive

training)

topic specific work (governance structures, land use planning, range

management, livestock production, marketing and business, community

development)

35


2.8.3 Impact/outcome indicators

MCC has contracted Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) as the impact evaluators for

the CBRLM project. The contractor, MCA-N, MCC & IPA consultants were all involved in a

field trip 13-18 June, 2010 to finalise the CBRLM impact evaluation and the selection

process of the RIAs. As a result of discussions held and agreements reached during the

field trip, critical decisions were taken in relation the collection of data related to impact

indicators.

Pending formal confirmation of these decisions, our understanding of the decisions

taken are summarised in the table below:

Responsibility for

Baseline project

impact indicators design of collection

instrument

collection of the

data

Timeline

Cattle numbers

(tagging)

Cattle ages

Cattle weights

NamLIST pilot

contractor, DVS

NamLIST pilot

contractor, DVS Sept-Oct, 2011

Household income

Household wealth

Participant percep-

tions

IPA, survey contrac-

tor, GOPA Survey contractor

Completed by

January 2011

Rangeland productiv-

ity To be decided To be decided

May and

October of

each year

Cattle parameters

GOPA will no longer be responsible for collecting cattle performance data for impact

assessment. However, GOPA will be involved with the process as it is applied to herds

from the intervention grazing areas. We will assist DVS with logistical planning and will

provide cattle owners with information about the tagging process and its potential

benefits.

We see the tagging and weighing activity as providing an important entry point for

livestock husbandry training and for building relationships between participating

farmers and the CBRLM project. It will provide a strong motivation for farmers to bring

all their cattle to the crush pens.

Tagging identification will be attractive to farmers for a number of reasons:

36


It will eliminate the damage done by current poor branding, ear cutting, ear

tattoos that often cause bacterial infection and fly miasis

successful ear-tagging will ensure that all farmers will easily identify their

own cattle within a large grazing herd in the pastures. The CBRLM project’s

range management approach is being built around herding cattle in large

communal herds and not individually as is happening now. With proper

identification, it is assumed that farmers within the RIAs will become more

willing to mix their livestock without fear of ownership disputes. This will

contribute greatly to the success of the project.

For the purposes of training and to enhance local level monitoring of interventions

GOPA will enable participating farmers to keep local registers of herd numbers, ages and

weights. GOPA will encourage farmers to use this information for management plan-

ning as well as in the development of business plans and marketing decisions.

Household surveys

The survey firm contracted by MCA-N will conduct a household and community survey

from November 2010 to January 2011, which will act as the baseline for evaluating

programme impact. This firm will also conduct follow-up surveys at frequencies yet to

be decided, but at least one in 2014. The survey instruments and content will be devel-

oped by IPA and the survey firm. Data storage and analysis procedures will be designed

by IPA. GOPA will also expect to be involved with decisions of what household level

data to collect and to have access to the information for the participating households to

assist with planning household level interventions, especially in relation to gender

integration.

Rangeland monitoring

The monitoring should include early warning indicators for the mineral and water cycle

and changes to the soil surface as well as detect increased production. There may be two

levels of effort required - one that deals with all grazing areas and controls, and a more

detailed level that captures important spatial data that can be correlated to the lower

levels of effort.

The information collected at all sites may include fixed point photographs and farmers

biomass estimates in May. The second tier will need to include more detailed assess-

ments of the vegetation and soil that enables the use of GIS models. The analysis should

inform policy decisions regarding triggering of early warning marketing incentives as

well as temporal analysis that can be used for monitoring changes in key variables over

time.

37


There are three key users of the monitoring information:

1) Local level to inform decisions and note progress at the Grazing Area and

RIA level.

2) The RIA data can be consolidated into regional reports and finally ending

up with an Annual State of Rangeland in the communal areas of Namibia.

3) Annual regional and national drought triggering mechanism.

Information collected at the local level must be sufficient to provide info for 1 to 3 over

time. In the short term the CBRLM could test the use of local level monitoring mecha-

nisms to inform stock control decisions at the grazing area level, especially when grass

availability is inadequate to carry herds over to the next season.

The CBRLM will also investigate the inclusion of rangeland early warning indicators into

the national Disaster Risk Management System.

CBRLM will lead the process of bringing together MCA-N, MAWF and IPA to discuss and

develop a rangeland monitoring system.

38


3 Organisation structure

The CBRLM organisation chart is indicated below. All expert and field management

positions have been filled. All staff operate from the Oshakati office with the exception

of the Field Managers in Kunene and Kavango. Sub-offices will be made operational in

Rundu and Opuwo. In Rundu the sub-office will also serve as a sub-office for NNFU, our

consortium partner. Office assistants will be engaged to provide administrative support

for the sub-offices.

CBRLM Organisation Chart

All field staff will report directly to Esther Lusepani, the Community Development

expert.

For Kunene and Omusati, the Rangeland Management expert will be responsible for the

work programmes and activities undertaken with RFMs and FFs. For Kavango this will

be the responsibility of the Team Leader. The Livestock expert and the Community

39


Development expert will be responsible for work programmes and activities undertaken

with RFMs and FFs in Oshana, Ohangwena and Oshikoto.

For technical issues and especially for technical training the respective experts will be

responsible for their areas of expertise across all regions.

We have recruited field managers who have considerable working experience in the

rural areas of the NCAs, and/or who have strong links with traditional authorities and

line ministries. These links have been very valuable in obtaining information and

endorsement from local leaders regarding the identification of eligible RIAs. They will be

equally important as we start to work with communities who will need to know that

traditional leaders endorse grazing management planning.

Our strategy for the recruitment of Field Facilitators (FFs) recognises that these positions

are key and we need to carefully select suitable candidates. RFMs and expert staff will

use connections in their respective networks to identify potential FFs. We have already

begun the search and have some potential candidates on our list. We think it is impor-

tant that FFs come from the area in which they will work, although not from the villages

in the selected grazing areas themselves. However, the most important aspect is to

identify qualified candidates. Once the treatment RIAs have been selected we can move

quickly to appoint the first group of FFs. Training of FFs is discussed in section 2.4.3.

Depending on the geographical spread of RIAs and GAs we will take decisions on the

placement of FFs and their mobility. We do not foresee providing all FFs with vehicles. In

keeping with this we envisage FFs being at two levels. The more experienced and

qualified FFs will have vehicles. These will provide logistical support to the less experi-

enced FFs who will be located in their allocated RIAs. Logistical arrangements will be

made after the selection of the RIAs.

40


4 Detailed workplan for year 1

The outline of the workplan for the twelve months March 2010 to February 2011 is given

in the table below. The following sections provide a more detailed breakdown of the

work activities, description of the tasks, responsibilities and timelines.

2010 2011

M A M J J A S O N D J F

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Component A: Rapid contract startup

A1 Staffing and logistics

A2 Stakeholder liaison and communications

A3 Annual workplan and inception report M

A4 Gender integration planning M

A5 Information system and data collection plan M

A6 Develop environmental screening tool

A7 Outreach and selection of RIAs M

A8 Recruit trainers & compile training materials

C2 Develop training team, materials and modules M

Component B1: Community mobilisation

B1.1 Engage with IMF management re support to selected

working groups

B1.2 Conduct rapid assessments of community structures

and skills

B1.3 Obtain commitment and register participating house-

holds

B1.4 With management committees draw up land use plan

implementation agreements

Component B2: Baseline data collection

B2.1 Notify participating communities about data collec-

tion and survey activities

B2.2 Support livestock baseline data collection

Component C1: Land use plans

C1.1 Support communities to draw up and map land use

plans (6 GAs)

M

M=Milestone

41


Staffing and logistics – A1

Staff inputs months

lead support Mar Apr May

A1.1 Locate and equip field office HP LC C

A1.2 Recruit livestock expertise HP C

A1.3 Recruit administrative/support staff HP LC C

A1.4 Procure remaining vehicles and equipment HP CN C

C = completed X = planned

HP = Heinrich Pielok EL= Esther Lusepani CN = Colin Nott

OM = Oloff Munjanu LI = Laura Imbuwa AL = Allan Low

LC = Luke Courtois EM = Edmore Maisaire FFs = Field facilitators

RFMs = Regional Field Managers IPA = Innovations for poverty alleviation

Stakeholder liaison and communications – A2

Staff inputs months

lead support Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

A2.1 Introductory sessions with regional repre-

sentatives MCA CN, EL C

A2.2 Introductory sessions with stakeholders HP C

A2.3 Liaison with regional farmers unions OM LI C

A2.4 Recruit 4 regional field managers (RFMs) EL CN, HP C C X

A2.5 Conduct stakeholder strategy/planning

workshop AL HP,CN EL postponed to mid September

A2.6 Hold 3-5 regional stakeholder planning

workshops EL

CN, HP,

EM, LC X

4.1 Component A: Rapid contract startup

42


Four regional field managers are in place. Decisions on the full complement of the

regional field managers needed and their roles will be taken once we know the distribu-

tion of the selected RIAs.

Workplan and Inception Report – A3

Staff inputs months

lead support Apr May Jun Jul Aug

A3.1 Develop year 1 workplan and draft inception

report AL All C

A3.2 Develop design guidelines for land use plans,

training materials and certification CN All X X

A3.3 Review socio-cultural aspects of range manage-

ment and livestock ownership EL All C C

A3.4 Write and submit final inception report AL All C

A3.2 is being addressed through the training materials consultancy and consultation

process described in section 2.4.

Gender integration planning – A4

Staff inputs months

lead support May June

A4.1

Examine options for integration of W&VG and submit

report on how to increase incomes of W&VG through

CBRLM activities

EL consultant X X

A3.3 and A4.1 have been undertaken as a joint consultancy. See annexes 1 and 2 and

section 2.3.

Programme management information system and data collection plan – A5

Staff inputs months

lead support Apr May June July

A5.1 Design MIS for tracking activity plans and progress AL *Geocarta C C X X

A5.2 Data collection plan for monitoring indicators AL CN, EM C X

A5.3

Support planning for tagging, development of

cattle herd registers and weighing of 3 year old

cattle

EM AL X X

*contracted to provide database programming for the development of the MIS

43


The data collection plan is outlined in section 2.8.

Development of an environmental screening tool – A6

Staff inputs months

lead support June July Aug

A6.1 Review Namibia Strategic Environmental Assess-

ment, Livestock report HP consultant X X

A6.2 Develop CBRLM Environmental Screening tool HP Consultant

CN X X

We have employed an environmental expert on a short term contract to provide two 8

week inputs, one mid 2010 and the other mid 2011. During the first 8 week visit the

expert will develop an environmental screening tool based on the Namibia Strategic

Environmental Assessment, Livestock thematic analysis report. The environmental

screening tool will be submitted for approval by the MCA-N Director for Environmental

and Social Assessment.

The second 8 weeks of the consultancy will take place in mid 2011, by which time it is

expected that range and livestock management plans and infrastructure needs reports

will have been submitted by the first batch of the Working Groups. The purpose of this

second visit will be to apply the Environmental Screening Tool to generate an environ-

mental screening report in relation to each submitted land use plan. For sites with

potential significant environmental impacts, the consultant will develop a site specific

Environmental Management Plan. The short term consultant will work with a local

counterpart identified by the CBRLM project, who will continue the environmental

screening work with the remainder of the GAs as they submit their management plans

and infrastructure needs reports.

Outreach and selection of RIAs – A7

Staff inputs months

lead support Mar Apr May Jun Jul

A7.1 Selection of potential RIAs using GIS and other

criteria MAWF CN C

A7.2 Process for RIA boundary refinement CN EL, RFMs C

A7.3 Field application of RIA boundary refinement process

and identification of GAs CN

HP, EL,

RFMs C C C C

A7.4 Eligible RIAs reviewed with local leders/key infor-

mants CN EL C C

A7.5 Eligibility report produced, RIA selection undertaken

and endorsement by TA, RC EL RFMs CN X X

44


Details of the process followed under A7 are provided in section 2.2.

Recruit and train field facilitators – A8

Staff inputs months

lead support Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

A8.1 Advertise and recruit prospective field facilitators HP All X X X

A8.2 Induction of FFs with RFMs HP All X X X

A8.3 FFs involvement in training material development

and learning about content HP All X X

A8.4 ToT workshops, field visits and practical application

of materials HP All X X

A8.5 Induction certification of FFs HP All X

Compile training materials and implementation guidelines – C.2

Staff inputs months

lead support Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

C2.1 Contract consultants to compile library of relevant

training materials HP All X X X

C2.2 “best practices” workshop and finalisation of training

materials HP All X X

C2.3 Field test training materials and develop implemen-

tation guidelines HP All X X

C2.4 Compile first draft training material implementation

guidelines HP All X

Components A.8 and C.2 are closely linked and overlap to some extent, since we com-

bine the development of the training materials and their implementation guidelines

with the training and capacity development of our field facilitators. See section 2.4 for a

detailed discussion of this strategy.

Deliverables from Component A

The deliverables from component A are given in the table below by type of product and

date of delivery.

45


Deliverables Type of product Month

A3 Draft inception report and annual workplan Report to MCA-N April, 2010

A4 Gender Integration Plan Report to MCA-N June, 2010

A3 Final Inception report For approval by MCA-N June, 2010

A7 RIA eligibility report For approval by MCA-N July, 2010

A5 Data collection plan For approval by MCA-N July, 2010

C2.2 “First draft” training materials Report to MCA-N September, 2010

C2.4 Draft implementation guidelines Report to MCA-N November, 2010

= Milestone

46


Community mobilization and development of land-use plan agreements – B1

Staff inputs months

lead Support Au Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

B1.1 With DEES assess support needs of se-

lected working groups EL DEES, RFMs, CN X

B1.2 With DEES plan support to selected

working groups EL DEES, RFMs, CN X X

B1.3 Registration of participating households

(MI#4) EL DEES, RFMs, CN X X X X

B1.4 Draw up land use plan implementation

agreements (MI#3) EL DEES, RFMs, CN X X X X X

Timetables will be drawn up with local support bodies for implementing the mobilisa-

tion support plans. CBRLM, RFM and FF staff will work with identified interested local

support bodies (e.g. interested DEES field staff) to produce a rapid assessment training

needs report with each community. On the basis of this report the community or the

CBO will request assistance needed to make proposals for preparing and submitting a

land use plan. This assistance may involve support to establish or strengthen a function-

ing community structure (e.g. rangeland management committee) with the authority to

generate a land use plan agreement on behalf of the community or the CBO. The com-

munity may also request guidance or training on aspects of range or livestock

management that may be needed to inform a land use implementation agreement.

Baseline Data Collection – B2

Staff inputs months

lead Support Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

B2.1 Notify working groups about data collection

and survey activities AL EM, RFMs, FFs X X

B2.2 Support collection of baseline data on cattle

ages and weights EM EM, FFs, DVS

4.2 Component B: Community Mobilisation

47


The contractor is no longer responsible for collecting baseline data on cattle parameters.

However, as discussed in section 3.8, we still see a strong role for the CBRLM project in

supporting the process for collecting cattle information on herds of participating house-

holds.

Deliverables from Component B

The deliverables from component B are given in the table below.


Rapid appraisal community governance train-

ing needs

Report to MCA-N August, 2010

B1

Land use plan implementation agreements Report to MCA-N October, 2010

B2 Baseline cattle age and weight register Electronic database November, 2011

= Milestone = IPA/survey firm

48


Staff inputs months

Lead support Dec Jan Feb

C1.1 Support initial working groups to draw up land use

plan CN RFMs, FFs X X X

Land use maps and plans – C1

It is envisaged that RFM and FF project staff and collaborating support bodies will work

with a fixed set of communities. In this way strong relationships can be built up be-

tween project staff and communities. Each community will work with a constant

“support team” comprising, for example a RFM, a FF and a DEES officer (or other inter-

ested local support body) The support team will work with their communities to

strengthen community governance structures (see section 3.3) and develop a land use

plan based on land use maps (see section (3.5).

Deliverables from Component C1

The deliverables from component B are given in the table below.


C1 Land use plans for 6 working groups Report to MCA-N February, 2011

= Milestone

Impact evaluation – F1

F1. Baseline household survey

Staff inputs months

lead Support Ju Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

F1.1 Host impact evaluators in the project area

and plan baseline household survey Team X

F1.2 Support baseline household survey Survey

team IPA, AL X X X

4.3 Component C: Land use plan

49


The CBRLM will collaborate closely with the impact evaluators in design, implementa-

tion and analysis of the household surveys. However the lead for this component will be

taken by the impact evaluators and the survey team.

50


5 Notional workplan for the remainder of the

contract period

In the first year of the project grazing area communities will have been selected, train-

ing materials will have been developed and field facilitators will have been recruited

and trained. Work will have started on mobilising communities and obtaining commit-

ment from them to undertake CBRLM interventions in rangeland management, animal

husbandry and marketing. These activities may be regarded as comprising the first

phase of the project and have been detailed in the year 1 action plan presented in section

4.

In the remainder of the project three further phases may be identified.

Phase 2 - will focus on providing communities the support they need to draw up and

begin to implement plans for improving rangeland and animal productivity, as well as

to convert these productivity gains into sustainable wealth and income gains. This

phase will take place largely in year two of the project.

Phase 3 - project staff will work with participating communities to support implementa-

tion of management plans, to work through and find solutions for implementation

problems and generally provide mentorship support. These activities will largely take

place in years three and four of the project.

Phase 4 - the fourth and final phase of the project will focus on assessing and document-

ing lessons learned and facilitating the handover of successful elements of the

programme to DEES for wider extension. This will take place in the last six months of

the contract in 2014.

An overview of these major phases of the project is given in the Summary Activity

Schedule below. This is followed by a detailed break down of the summary and illus-

trated activities beginning with phase 2 and its respective activities as follows:

Phase 1: components A, B1, B2 and C2 (year 1)

Phase 2: components C1, D1 and D2 (year 2)

Phase 3: component E (years 3 and 4)

Phase 4: component F (year 5)

51


Summary Activity Schedule 2010 phase 1 2011 phase 2 2012 2013

Phase 3

2014 Phase 4

= milestone m a m j j a s o n d j f m a m j j a s o n d j f m a m j j a s o n d

Component A: Rapid contract startup

A1 Staffing and logistics

A2 Stakeholder liaison and communications

A3 Annual workplan and inception report M

A4 Gender integration planning

A5 Information system and data collection plan

A6 Develop environmental screening tool

A7 Outreach and selection of RIAs M

Component A8/C2: Develop training team and materials

A8 Collect best practice training materials

C2 Develop training team, materials and modules M

Component B1: Community mobilisation

B1.1 Engage with DEES management re support to selected working groups

B1.2 Conduct assessments of community structures and skills

B1.3

Support capacity building of community governance structures & register participating

households

B1.4 With management committees draw up land use plan implementation agreements M

Component B2: Baseline data collection

B2.1 Notify groups about data collection and survey activities

B2.2 Support livestock baseline data collection

Component C1: Land use plans

C1.1 Support communities to draw up and map land use plans M

C1.2 Support development of grazing plans

C1.3 Agree marketing plans

C1.4 Agree other strategies and complete land use plan

52


Summary Activity Schedule 2010 phase 1 2011 phase 2 2012

Phase 3

2013

2014

Phase 4

= milestone m a m j j a s o n d j f m a m j j a s o n d j f m a m j j a s o n d

Component D1: Management capacity building

D1.1 Rangeland management training M

D1.2 Animal production training M

D1.3 Business training develop simple business plans M

Component D2: Infrastructure needs and environmental impact

D2.1 Water and infrastructure needs and development

D2.2 Apply environmental screening tool as needed M

Component E:: Mentoring and support with implementing plans

E1 Mentor and support implementation of management plans

Component F: Sustainability and handover

F1 Baselines (2011) and evaluation results

F2 With DEES facilitate information exchange visits

F3 DEES facilitate supply of infrastructure needs of CGs

53


2011 #

GAs Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Component C: Land use plan

10

20 C1.1 Facilitate GAs to draw up land use map

20

10

20 C1.2 Support development of grazing plans

20

10

20 C1.3 Agree marketing plans

20

10

20 C1.4

Agree other land use plan strategies

and complete land use plan

20

Land use maps and plans – C1

One of the main uses of the land use maps will be as the framework for discussing

livestock management strategy. Where an indicated strategy might involve reductions

in livestock numbers over time considerable sensitivity will need to be exercised on how

this issue is approached. It may be necessary to first develop and implement plans

which bring short term production benefits (e.g. reductions in stock mortality through

grazing management or use of feedlots prior to marketing). If tangible benefits from

such interventions can be achieved, it is more likely that potential benefits to be gained

from more sensitive actions like reducing herd numbers can be introduced with some

prospect of being given serious consideration.

5.1 Component C1: Land use planning

54


Deliverables from Component C1

The deliverables from component C1 are given in the table below by type of product and

date of delivery.


Land use plans for 6 GAs Report to MCA-N February, 2011

Land use plans for 20 GAs Report to MCA-N May, 2011 C1

Land use plans for 24 GAs Report to MCA-N August, 2011

= Milestone

55


2011 2012 #

GAs May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

Component D1: Management capacity build-

ing

10

10

10

D1.1 Develop rangeland management

plan

20

10

20 D1.2 Develop livestock management

plan

20

10

20 D1.3 Develop business management

plan

20

Management capacity building – D1

CBRLM field staff will take the lead in delivering management training to their assigned

GAs. It is expected that each FF will be assigned to about 4 GAs. The training officers will

receive support from the rest of the GA support team (CLO and local support body) and

will receive technical backup support from the CBRLM experts and Lead Training Officer.

The training sessions will develop the capacity of grazing area communities to set out

their own plans in the areas of rangeland management, livestock management and

marketing. The training sessions will provide technical information and building blocks

for putting plans together. They will also have a practical relevance as they will be

delivered in the context of working towards the development of these plans. However

the communities themselves will formulate the plans.

5.2 Component D1: Management capacity building

56


2011 2012 #

GAs May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

Component D2: Infrastructure & environmental

impact

10

10

10

D2.1

Identify water and infrastruc-

ture needs to support land

use plans

20

10

10

10

D2.2

Apply environmental screening

tool and develop site specific

environmental management

plan

20

Infrastructure needs and environmental impact – D2

As part of their rangeland and livestock management plans, GAs will identify infrastruc-

ture needs to support livestock enterprises, taking into account existing infrastructure

and evolving needs based on the management plans. The identified needs will be

consistent with securing reliable and sustainable resources to support communities’

rangeland and livestock management plans.

We welcome the agreement in principle to provide an additional US$ 1 million for

infrastructure investment in the treatment grazing areas. This will greatly enhance our

ability to generate management plans that will make a real difference to communities

and to gain strong commitment from communities.

It is anticipated that potential adverse environmental impacts could result from con-

struction of certain water infrastructure such as boreholes. Although we recognise that

boreholes are plentiful, especially in the more densely populated areas and boreholes

should not be planned without careful consideration of the implications for grazing

resources.

Other potential adverse environmental impacts could result from animal health activi-

ties that involve chemicals, rangeland management activities that involve herbicides

and/or land management activities that impact wildlife habitat or water resources.

Once range and livestock management plans have been formulated and the infrastruc-

ture and husbandry practices to support them have been identified the environmental

screening tool will be applied to assess potential significant environmental impacts.

5.3 Component D2: Infrastructure needs and environmental impact

57


For sites where significant environmental impacts are identified, we will engage a short

term consultant to work with a local counterpart to develop site specific environmental

management plans (EMP) for about 5 GAs’. The local counterpart will complete any

other EMPs required.

Deliverables from Component D

The deliverables from component D are given in the table below by type of product and

date of delivery.


Rangeland management plans Report to MCA-N February, 2012

Livestock management plans Report to MCA-N February, 2012 D1

Marketing and business plans Report to MCA-N February, 2012

Infrastructure needs report Report to MCA-N February, 2012

D2

Environmental management report Report to MCA March, 2012

= Milestone

58


2011 2012 2013 2014 #

G

As Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

Component E: Mentoring of GAs im-

plementation of integrated

management plans

10

10

10

E1

Support implementa-

tion of integrated land

use and livestock

production manage-

ment plans 20

E2 Certification of FFs

E3 Final workshops

By July 2011, the first GAs will have developed their management plans. These GAs will

then be assisted by their CBRLM support teams to implement these plans in an inte-

grated way. This mentoring support will continue to the end of the project period.

During the implementation phase, it is expected that the training materials and guide-

lines will continue to be amended, elaborated and improved. The contribution of FFs to

upgrading of training materials will be one of the factors upon which their competency

is assessed. Formal assessment of FF competency will take place in November 2013 and

certificates will be awarded in December 2013.

In March 2014 all upgrades to training materials and implementation guidelines will be

brought together in a final set of training materials. Three final workshops will be held

in Opuwo, Oshikati and Rundu in April, May 2014 to present these materials and other

major lessons learned from the CBRLM project.

Throughout the project period there will have been a strong and continuing collabora-

tion with local support bodies and individuals. An expected outcome of this

collaboration will be that GAs continue to receive support beyond the life of the project.

A proposal for handing over more formally to DEES is given in section F below.

5.4 Component E – Mentoring of GAs in the implementation of management plans

59


2011 2012 2013 2014

Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q4 Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 1 Q 2

Component F1: Monitoring and

evaluation

F1.4 Cumulative indicator

tables

F1.5 Baseline household

survey results

F1.6 Beneficiary household

survey results

F1.7 Cattle baseline results

F1.8 Cattle performance

results

F1.9 Rangeland monitoring

Component F2: Community

information exchange

F2.2 Community exchange

visits

Component F3: Handover to

DEES

F3 CG infrastructure needs

report to MCA-N

= by MCA-N = by DEES

Monitoring and evaluation – F1

Required outcome and objective level indicators include cattle production parameters,

vegetation assessments, land use plan implementation rate and household income data.

The collection of cattle performance data and the maintenance of the livestock registers

has been discussed in section 3.2.2 above.

The land use implementation rate and household income data will come from the

beneficiary surveys. It is our understanding that MCA-N will conduct a baseline house-

hold survey in November 2010 to January 2011. Decisions on when the follow-up survey

will be conducted are yet to be taken. Details of rangeland monitoring procedures and

timing are also still in discussion.

5.5 Component F– Programme sustainability

60


Community information exchange – F2

Given that the CBRLM project is a pilot, we agree that it is important to establish a

process for enabling information exchange to take place between pilot GAs and those

not in the working group. The proposed exchange visits scheme seems the best way to

facilitate the dissemination of improved range management experience to the wider

community.

We agree that the dissemination process through exchange visits and utilisation of

demonstration sites needs to be well integrated with the role of DEES. However this is

not an aspect that we feel should be addressed in the last year of the project. Our ap-

proach will be to involve DEES, and other local support bodies, in the design,

development and delivery of CBRLM activities from the start of the programme.

Through this DEES staff buy in to the CBRLM interventions will be enhanced and its

elements will be carried forward by DEES to other communities after the termination of

MCA-N support to CBRLM.

Handover to DEES

The obvious sites for DEES to take over support for the CBRLM concept will be in the

comparison group GAs. We endorse the proposal to provide the comparison group GAs

with infrastructure support from MCA-N programme funding in the last year of the

programme. We suggest that DEES should be given the responsibility of supporting

these communities to undertake land use planning exercises to identify infrastructure

needs. DEES would submit the infrastructure needs report to MCA-N, who would make

funds available for implementation through DEES.

We feel that giving DEES the responsibility of managing the proposed final year support

to the control group GAs, together with the resources to do so in a meaningful way,

holds out the prospects for enabling an effective handover of the CBRLM project from

MCA-N to DEES

Deliverables from Component F

The deliverables from component E are given in the table below by type of product and

date of delivery.


Indicator tracking table Quarterly reports from August, 2010

Summary M&E reports Annual reports from September, 2011

Beneficiary survey results Annual reports from September, 2011

F1

Exchange visits report Report to MCA-N May, 2014

F3 CG infrastructure needs report DEES report to MCA-N February, 2014

= by DEES

Annex 1: Gender integration plan




Gender Integration Plan

GOPA Consultants

Hindenburgring 18

61348 Bad Homburg

Germany

Phone +49 6172 930-508

Fax: +49 6172 930-350





Gender Integration Plan

June 2010

i

CONTENTS

GOPA CONSULTANTS Community –based Rangeland and Livestock Management Sub-Activity-Gender Integration plan

Contents

1 The context .....................................................................................................................................1

2 Findings of the study on gender integration ..................................................................... 3

2.1 Access to and control over resources..............................................................................................3

2.2 Roles and responsibilities.....................................................................................................................3

2.3 Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 4

3 Gender integration strategy .................................................................................................... 5

4 Gender integration plan and timelines ...............................................................................6

4.1 Involvement of women in project activities ..............................................................................7

4.2 Seeking options for women oriented interventions.............................................................. 8

4.3 Assessing changes in women’s participation rates ............................................................... 8

4.4 Gender mainstreaming and timelines .........................................................................................9

Annex 1: Commissioned study: integrating women and other

marginalized groups in the CBRLM project

1

GOPA CONSULTANTS Community-based Rangeland and Livestock Management sub-Activity-Gender Integration

1 The context

The CBRLM project has been designed to contribute to two major development goals. First to

address environmental degradation on common grazing land in the North of Namibia.

Second, to increase incomes of poor rural households in the Northern Communal Areas.

These goals are to be achieved by working with selected communities to change cattle

management practices in relation to grazing, husbandry and marketing. The project is

tasked to work with 1500 households owning more than 10 head of cattle in Kunene,

Omusati, Oshana, Ohangwena, Oshikoto and Kavango.

In these six regions, fewer than half of households own cattle, except for Kunene, where

cattle are owned by about 60% of households (Table 1).

Table 1: Livestock Ownership in the Northern Regions of Namibia

Source: Report for DVS, 2010 on Cross-sectional survey to characterise poultry and other

species demographics and Avian and Human Influenza (AHI) exposure factors in Namibia

2


Cattle ownership is very skewed with 80% of the cattle being owned by 20% households.1

Poor households have both smaller herd sizes and a greater incidence of households without

livestock.1 These data explain the statement made in the gender integration study commis-

sioned by the CBRLM: “Even though livestock keeping offers promising opportunities to

combat poverty, there is a significant risk that livestock sector development especially cattle

will exclude smallholder farmers”.2

There is an equally strong risk that cattle focused livestock development initiatives will

exclude women. Men have de jure ownership rights over animals. Cattle, goats and sheep

are controlled by men. Even though decisions on the marketing of cattle, goats and sheep

may be taken jointly, the control of the money rests with men and the men has the power to

overrule the women. 2

This gender integration plan has been developed to mitigate the very real risk that the

CBRLM project, with its focus on cattle management and improved rangeland, will exclude

women.

1 Katjiua M, Imbuwa L and Nesongano C, . Cultural and socio-economic aspects of range

and livestock management. Study commissioned by CBRLM, June 2010

2 Nesongano C, Imbuwa L and Katjiua M. Integrating women and other marginalized

groups in the CBRLM project. June 2010.

3


2 Findings of the study on gender integration

The CBRLM commissioned a study on livestock keeping and gender integration with the

objectives of:

Assessing the risks of women being excluded from the benefits of the CBRLM

project

Exploring opportunities for mitigating the risks of women’s exclusion from pro-

ject benefits.

A literature review and a field study were conducted in May and June 2010 to examine

access and control of resources by gender and the roles and responsibilities of men and

women. A synopsis of the findings is contained in Annex 1 and may be summarized as

follows:

Both the literature review and the field study found that access to and control over resources

is heavily influenced by gender. In general, men in rural households have greater ownership

and control over cattle, wells, and money and crop fields than women. Women have more

control over pigs, chickens, guinea fowls and mahangu fields.

In general, few female headed households are reported to own cattle. Both the literature

review and field study found that, even where women own large stock, control still rests

with men. The literature review cites studies indicating that when a woman buys a cow, it

only belongs to her when it is inside the household premises. All cattle belong to men when

they are outside the household.

According to the literature, female-headed households are traditionally regarded as insig-

nificant and ranked very low in the community. The eldest son or brother makes all the

major decisions.

According to the literature, men are responsible for herding livestock, making sure they have

access to water, takes them from the kraal and back, milks, attend to sick animals. Women’s

main responsibility is the maintenance of the household, families and communities. This

includes fetching water and firewood, pounding mahangu, preparing food and housework.

2.1 Access to and control over resources

2.2 Roles and responsibilities

4


Women are reported to provide more than 90% of the labour for crop production. Women do

basketry, process marula nuts and oil, rear chicken, pigs and goats to increase their income.

The field study found however, that gender roles for keeping livestock are changing to a

certain extent. Women were observed herding cattle. One of the drivers of these changing

roles is thought to be the HIV/AIDS pandemic causing infected men to become weak and

incapable of herding livestock.

There is also evidence in the literature of changing roles and status of women. A study in

Oshana found that men and women are equally represented in water point committees,

drought relief committees and constituency development committees.

The conclusion from the studies was that in relation to activities related to large stock

production, management practices and rangeland it will prove difficult to integrate women

immediately in order to increase their incomes. Asset ownership, roles and responsibilities

are strongly influenced by culture. It was observed by the study that

Since culture does not change overnight, the project should assist women in those areas

where they have control over as an entry point.

The recommendation made was to start with support to small stock in which women are

already engaged before adopting initiatives aimed at increasing women’s’ participation in

rangeland and cattle management.

The gender integration argument for developing interventions aimed at increasing the

productivity of small stock is reinforced by the findings of the socio-economic study. 1

A recommendation of this study was that development programs should put more empha-

sis on increasing the profitability of small stock production as opposed to cattle production.

This was based on the observation that small stock represents a more liquid asset than cattle

and is kept to generate household income.

2.3 Recommendations

5


3 Gender integration strategy

Our strategy for gender integration in the CBRLM is consistent with the recommendations

from the commissioned studies on socio-cultural aspects of cattle keeping and gender. There

are three other drivers that inform our gender integration plan.

First gender integration work must be consistent with the overall philosophy of our CBRLM

intervention. That is to say, it must be demand driven.

Second gender integration activities and interventions should not divert resources and

attention away from the main objectives of the project, which are to improve grassland

production, to increase cattle productivity and to increase household incomes.

This means that our gender integration plan will be a rolling plan. It will evolve as we start

working with communities and develop rangeland, livestock and marketing plans with

those communities. The gender integration plan will not be consistent across communities

and will move at different speeds depending on the strength of our engagement with

individual communities.

Third, we want to ensure that gender is mainstreamed into overall project activities. Lessons

from previous projects aimed at promoting women in agricultural development suggest

that the design of separate women specific programs is not the best way forward. These

have often been add-on components, which do receive adequate attention or funding. 3

3 Commonwealth Secretariat. Gender mainstreaming in agriculture and rural development. Malborough House,

London. 2001.

6


4 Gender integration plan and timelines

The main objectives of our gender integration plan are to:

Reduce gender inequalities that exist in the communities in which the project

operates

Encourage both men and women to participate in the project activities

Create conditions for the equitable participation in project implementation and

decision making.

In order to achieve these objectives, we propose a three-pronged approach to gender integra-

tion in the CBRLM project. First, where possible and appropriate, we will involve women in

the intervention activities we undertake with grazing areas communities. Second, we will

actively seek intervention options, which specifically target women. Third in the grazing

area communities, we will conduct a baseline of women’s participation in livestock related

activities and monitor women participation rates over the project period.

The plans we have developed for project components are shown below. Within these plans,

we have added in dark yellow the activities where we intend to particularly promote the

involvement of women, or to seek options for women specific interventions. Also shown

within the implementation plans is an additional baseline survey related to the monitoring

of women’s participation rates.

7


The following areas have been identified where we will promote women’s involvement in

project activities:

G1 Consider women candidates in the recruitment of prospective field facilitators

G3 Promote women to decision making roles in committees

G5 Ensure women are involved in making land use plan implementation agree-

ments

G6 Consider women for keeping local records on data on cattle ages and weights

G7 Involve women in publication and local level monitoring of the land use plans

G8 Involve women in grazing plans for small stock

G13 Involve women in water point committees and planning of additional water

infrastructure

G14 Involve women in developing and monitoring environmental management

plans

Including women among our field facilitators is one way of ensuring women’s perspectives

are understood and taken account of by our cadre of field staff. The other way, which we will

also pursue, is to include training sessions on gender awareness for all field facilitators.

Wherever community level training sessions or exposure visits are organised, women

should be included. It may be useful to agree early on with communities that a quota is set

for women participation on all training events.

There are three areas of training in particular that we think women should be included on a

minimum quota basis. First in rangeland management training. Even though rangeland

management is currently entirely a male domain, it is important to build awareness within

the community about pasture conditions and how degradation occurs.

Second, during the planning stage of land use and infrastructure plans, women should be

included because these plans also relate to the other activities that they are directly involved

in such as collection of thatching grass and collection of water for domestic needs.

4.1 Involvement of women in project activities

8


Third, women must be included in training related to skills needed to improve the perform-

ance of local governance structures. A quota system for women on decision-making bodies,

especially in range and livestock management, could be regarded as an external intrusion on

the communities and would be counterproductive. Rather we prefer to concentrate on

empowering women by providing them with the skills to exert influence and participate in

decision-making.

The following areas have been identified where we will consider options for supporting

women oriented interventions:

G2 Include small stock, poultry, crafts and others in training modules

G9 Include options for women in marketing plans e.g. value added, processing

G10 Include other options in land use plans, e.g. tourism

G11 Include women oriented options in livestock management plans e.g. small stock,

poultry

G12 Include women oriented options in business management plans e.g. processing,

SME’s

Finally, the activity G4 will be added. This will conduct a baseline survey on women’s par-

ticipation in livestock related activities. This survey will be conducted in each intervention

GA and will:

Act as baseline for assessment of change in women participation rates

Act as indicator for opportunities for interventions

Provide an opportunity to investigate roles and responsibilities.

Women from the GA communities will be encouraged to assist with administrating the

baseline survey. The results will be presented to the community and a group of women will

be selected to monitor and record changes in participation from the baselines.

4.2 Seeking options for women oriented interventions

4.3 Assessing changes in women’s participation rates

9


In the tables below, we indicate how the gender integration activities will be mainstreamed

into project components and their timelines, which match those of project activities. The

gender aspects of our plans are indicated in the planning tables in brown text.

Recruit and train field facilitators – A8

Staff inputs months

lead support Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

A8.1

G1

Advertise and recruit prospective field facilita-

tors

Consider women candidates

HP CN, EL,

EM X X X

A8.2 Induction of FFs with RFMs HP CN, EL,

EM X X X

A8.3 FFs involvement in training material develop-

ment and learning about content HP

CN, EL,

EM X X

A8.4 Field visits and practical application of materi-

als HP

CN, EL,

EM X X

A8.5 FF examination and certification X

4.4 Gender mainstreaming and timelines

10


Compile training materials and implementation guidelines – C.2

Staff inputs months

lead support Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

C2.1

G2

Contract consultants to compile library of

relevant training materials

Include small stock, poultry, crafts

HP CN, EL,

EM, LC X X X

C2.2 “best practices” workshop and finalisation of

training materials HP

CN, EL,

EM; LC X X

C2.3 Field test training materials and develop

implementation guidelines HP

CN, EL,

EM; LC X X

C2.4 Compile first draft training material imple-

mentation guidelines HP

CN, EL,

EM, LC X

Community mobilization and development of land-use plan agreements – B1

Staff inputs months

lead Support Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

B1.1 With DEES assess support needs of GAs EL DEES,

RFMs, CN X

B1.2

G3

With DEES plan support GAs (including

governance structures)

Promote women in governance struc-

tures

EL DEES,

RFMs, CN X X

G4 Conduct gender participation baseline

study EL AL X X X

B1.3 Registration of participating house-

holds (MI#4) EL

DEES,

RFMs, CN X X X X

B1.4

G5

Draw up land use plan implementation

agreements (MI#3)

Ensure inclusion of women

EL DEES,

RFMs, CN X X X X X

11


Baseline Data Collection – B2

Staff inputs months

lead Support Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

B2.1 Notify working groups about data collection

and survey activities AL EM, RFMs, FFs X X

B2.2

G6

Support collection of baseline data on cattle

ages and weights

Consider women for local level record

keeping

EM EM, FFs, DVS

Component C: Land use plan

2010

#

GAs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

10 X X

20 X X X

C1.1

G7

Facilitate GAs to draw up land use

map.

Involve women in publication and

local level monitoring of the plan

20 X X X

10 X

20 X

C1.2

G8

Support development of grazing plans

Involve women re small stock grazing

20 X

12


2010

#

GAs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

10 X X

20 X X

C1.3

G9

Agree marketing plans

Include options for women, e.g. value

added

20 X X

10 X

20 X

C1.4

G10

Agree other land use plan strategies

and complete land use plan

Options for women e.g. tourism

20 X

13


Component D1: Management capacity building

2010 2011

#

GAs

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

10 X

10 X X X

10 X X X

D1.1 Develop rangeland management plan

20 X X X

10 X X

20 X X X

D1.2

G11

Develop livestock management plan

Include options for women e.g. small

stock, poultry

20 X X X

10 X X

20 X X X

D1.3

G12

Develop business management plan

Include options for women e.g.

processing, SME’s

20 X X X

14


Component D2: Infrastructure & environnemental impact

2010 2011

#

GAs

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

10 X

10 X X X

10 X X X

D2.1

G13

Identify water and infrastructure

needs to support land use plans

Consider role of women on water

management committees

20 X X X

10 X

10 X

10 X

D2.2

G14

Apply environmental screening tool

and develop site specific environ-

mental management plan

Involve women in developing and

monitoring environmental plan

20 X

Annex 1: Commissioned study: integrating women and

other marginalized groups in the CBRLM project

Namibia

INTEGRATING WOMEN AND OTHER MARGINALIZED GROUPS

IN THE CBRLM PROJECT

commissioned by the CBLRM Project


Namibia: Community-based Rangeland and Livestock Management Sub-Activity – Inception Report fgd

Compiled by: NAM ENVIRO MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING SERVICES

Christine Nesongano, Laura Imbuwa and Mutjinde Katjiua.

i

GOPA CONSULTANTS Community-based Rangeland and Livestock Management Sub-Activity-Gender Integration Plan

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background.................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Objective of the Study............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2.1 Overall Objective ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Specific Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 1

2 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Study Areas..................................................................................................................................................3

2.2 Desk Study ...................................................................................................................................................3

2.3 Field Research.............................................................................................................................................3

3 LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................................. 5

3.1 Gender concept in Namibia ................................................................................................................5

3.2 Efforts for greater Gender Equality..................................................................................................5

3.3 Access and Control of Resources.......................................................................................................7

3.4 Roles and Responsibilities................................................................................................................... 8

3.5 Opportunities for integrating women and

vulnerable groups in programs ........................................................................................................9

4 FIELD RESEARCH .........................................................................................................................12

4.1 Resource Base: Livestock and Rangeland

Management ............................................................................................................................................12

4.2 Access, use and Control of Resources ...........................................................................................12

4.3 Roles and Responsibilities..................................................................................................................13

4.4 Challenges Facing Women and Vulnerable

Groups: ....................................................................................................................................................... 14

ii


4.5 Areas for Women integration and

involvement..............................................................................................................................................15

5 CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO INCLUDE

GENDER IN CBRLM.................................................................................................................... 16

6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR GENDER

INTEGRATION............................................................................................................................. 19

7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................24

iii


Acknowledgements

This report has come through the efforts and cooperation of a number of people whose

contribution are greatly acknowledged.

Many thanks are extended to all key informants in all the selected areas (Kavango, Kunene

North, Ohangwena, Omusati, Oshana and Oshikoto), who willingly participated in the

study and provided the needed data and information which was used as a basis for compil-

ing the reports. A lot of insight on gender and challenges facing women and vulnerable

groups emerged because of this contribution.

Our appreciation goes to PELINA Development Consultants for conducting the field survey,

collecting and analysing data including report writing of the field research. The reports

complemented the outcome of our literature review. This enabled us to finalise this report

and to identify opportunities for integrating women and vulnerable groups in the CBRLM

program.

Finally yet importantly, we appreciate with sincerity the opportunity provided to us by

GOPA to participate in this assignment.

iv


Acronyms

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

CBOs Community Based Organisations


ELCIN Evangelical Lutheran Church in Namibia

GOPA Gesellschaft für Organisation, Planung und Ausbildung (Society for

GRN Government of the Republic of Namibia

HIV Human Immune Deficiency Virus

LAC Legal Assistance Centre

MAWF Ministry of Agriculture Water and Forestry

MAWF Ministry of Agriculture Water and Forestry

MCA-N Millennium Challenge Account Namibia

MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MGECW Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare

NCAs Northern Communal Areas

NDP 3 National Development Plan 3

NGOs Non Governmental Organisations

NGP National Gender Policy

NGPA National Gender Plan of Action

NID Namibia Institute for Democracy

NPC National Planning Commission

WAD Women’s Action for Development

v


Definition of Terms

Gender: Gender is a socially given attribute of roles and activities connected to being femi-

nine and masculine in a given social grouping. Gender also refers to expectations which

society has of women and men based on sexes. Gender roles do change over time and are

not fixed neither are they universal (Iipinge and Williams, 2000). Gender roles are socially

determined and can be affected by factors such as education and economics. Gender roles

may vary widely within and between cultures, and often evolve over time (MCA-Namibia:

Gender and Social Integration Strategy, 2010).

These definitions tie in with that of Bhasin (2004). Gender refers to the socio-cultural defini-

tion of man and woman; the way societies distinguish men and women and assign them

social roles.

Gender Integration: The process of assessing the implications for women and men of any

planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels. It

is a strategy for making women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral

dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and pro-

grammes in all political, economic and societal spheres, so that women and men benefit

equally and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality

(MCA-Namibia: Gender and Social Integration Strategy 2010).

Vulnerable Groups: Vulnerable Groups are those who cannot defend their own interests

and who may be inadvertently excluded from project activities or for whom benefits may be

inaccessible as a result of severe poverty, low levels of education, social isolation or other

factors (MCA-Namibia: Gender and Social Integration Strategy 2010).

1


1 INTRODUCTION

The Community Based Rangeland and Livestock Management (CBRLM) Sub- Activity is part

of the Land Access and Management Activity within the key Agriculture sector. The CBRLM

project will provide support to the Millennium Challenge Account-Namibia (MCA-N) and the

Government counterpart, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF), in fur-

therance of the implementation of the Sub- Activity. The Sub- Activity’s goal is to enhance

the productivity and sustainability of the livestock sector in the NCAs (Kavango, Kunene

North, Ohangwena, Omusati, Oshana and Oshikoto), through improved rangeland resource

and livestock management. Improved rangeland and livestock management will be

achieved through a series of interventions, including enhanced community- based man-

agement plans for rangelands and the introduction of technologies and skills to improve

productivity of grasses and livestock.

In rural areas of Northern Namibia, roughly, half of all households are headed by women,

and female- headed households accounted for 44% of all households farming in the four

north-central regions. However, women in communal areas of Namibia have been in many

cases marginalized with regards to traditional livestock and rangeland management, own-

ership and practices, even though they are in the forefront of livestock – raising and are also

actively involved in rangeland management.

1.2.1 Overall Objective

The overall objective of the study is to identify opportunities for integrating women and

vulnerable groups in CBRLM project activities and to ensure that they benefit through

increases in personal and household income.

1.2.2 Specific Objectives

The Specific Objectives of the Study are to:

Conduct literature review on studies carried out in the selected areas, focusing on

the development and involvement of women and marginalised groups in rela-

tionship to livestock management and husbandry. From the literature review,

identify best practices in successfully raising income and integrating women

1.1 Background

1.2 Objective of the Study

2


and other marginalised groups in relation to livestock management and hus-

bandry in rural household in communal areas.

Identify cultural specific needs of women and marginalised groups in relation to

livestock management and animal husbandry.

Make cultural specific recommendations on how to design CBRLM intervention

methods and processes to achieve CBRLM project objectives while incorporating

the indentified gender and marginalised group needs.

Identify opportunities for integration of women and vulnerable groups in the

CBRLM program.

3


2 METHODOLOGY

The CBRLM activities will be carried out in selected areas in the six Northern regions of

Namibia, namely: Kavango; Kunene North as well as Ohangwena, Oshana, Omusati and

Oshikoto in North Central. A pre- selection of intervention areas has taken place, and cur-

rently 36 intervention areas have been identified within the CBRLM project.

This activity involved collecting and analysing secondary information such as existing

studies, reports pertaining to gender, women empowerment, access, ownership and control

of resources in order to identify best practices in successfully raising income and integrat-

ing women and other marginalised groups in relation to livestock management and

husbandry in rural household in communal areas.

Data was collected through semi-structured questionnaires, which were designed and

administrated, to a number of key informants in the selected areas. The study covered five of

the six regions making up the northern communal areas of Namibia, namely: Ohangwena,

Kavango, Kunene, Oshikoto and Omusati. Although Oshana was not covered per se during

the field research, information in this study can be relied on since the south western part of

Oshikoto and the South eastern part of Omusati farming practices and landscape are more or

less similar to that of Oshana.

Focus discussions were held with constituency councillors and MAWF staff in Ohangwena

and Kavango regions; the Councillor of Okahao in Sheya Shuushona village; in Kunene

North discussions were held with the Ehi rovipuka conservancy committee. In communities

where informants were many, the respondents were divided into two to three groups and

then they were interviewed as a group. Efforts were made to solicit response from all mem-

bers. The sample size of the respondents interviewed was large enough to provide sufficient

reliable sample estimates (table 1).

The field research was aimed at answering a number of questions regarding access to

resources, ownership and control. Other questions included are (i) Who makes decisions at

2.1 Study Areas

2.2 Desk Study

2.3 Field Research

4


household level (ii) What are the gender roles with regards to rangeland and livestock

management and who does what? (iii) What opportunities exist for integrating women and

vulnerable groups in the CBRLM program? The same research sought to establish the chal-

lenges faced by women and vulnerable groups with a view to engage them in a more

meaningful way. Critical to the field research also was to appreciate what the locals in the

study areas want to pursue in order to improve their income in general and in particular

with regards to rangeland and livestock management.

Table 1: Number of respondents

Informants Ohangwena Kavango Kunene Oshikoto Omusati

MAWF (DEES, DVS, Forestry) 5 5 3 2 3

Constituency Councillors 1 2 1* 0 1

Community Forest/ Conservancy Committee

Members

8 9 10 3 9

Community Development Committee (CDC) 0 28 0 0 0

Community members: Old men 8 5 7 3 4

Community members: Young men 5 8 13 4 3

Community members: Old women 2 9 8 5 4

Community members: Young women 4 7 12 3 4

Total 33 73 54 20 28

* Councillor and Member of Parliament

5


3 LITERATURE REVIEW

The construction of gender concept in Namibia has been influenced by colonial administra-

tion, historical policies, Christian missions and modernisation (Angula 2010). Iipinge et al.

(2000) show that at ethnic level, the cultural perception of gender is seen in relation to men

and women’s roles and responsibilities as well as symbolism attached to a concept of man or

woman. The study further notes that in general men are seen as the head of the household

and chief provider of the family, while the women are seen as nurturer and caregivers

(Iipinge and Williams, 2000).

Gender Equality, which is seen as extending freedom and opportunities to both women and

men, as discussed in studies, reports and programs, places more emphasis on the empow-

erment of women. The reason being that in Southern Africa and other parts of the world the

majority of women are still vulnerable and marginalised (Hunter, 2004; GRN, 2004; MGECW

Strategic Plan, 2005/2011).

Gender and development is considered a cross- cutting issue in the National Development

Plan three of Namibia (NPC, Guidelines for the formulation of NDP 3, 2007). The Programme

document – United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF, 2008) for Lesotho

(2008-2011) also considers it as a cross- cutting issue. They place emphasis though on the

enhancement of women participation in legislative processes and decision to mention a

few. On one hand it calls for gender equality but it recognises marginalisation of women and

hence this emphasis on women enhancement.

Among the eight Millenium Development Goals (MDGs), Goal 3 calls for the promotion of

Gender Equality including Empowerment of Women (GRN, 2004). This is also emphasised in

the Namibia National Poverty Reduction Strategy Review, where emphasis is placed on

greater consideration for gender division of labour, gender power in all poverty reduction

programs (MCA-N Gender and Social Integration Strategy, 2010).

All Millennium Challenge Corporation-funded activities are required to positively address

gender issues and where necessary, the empowerment of women and vulnerable groups.

(MCA-N Gender and Social Integration Strategy, 2010).

3.1 Gender concept in Namibia

3.2 Efforts for greater Gender Equality

6


Twelve out of the 15 SADC countries have gender or women empowerment policies in place.

The Namibian Constitution, article 10 (2), furthermore makes provision to eliminate all

discriminatory practices based on sex, colour and race.

The establishment of the Ministry for Gender Equality and Child Welfare in a number of

countries, Namibia included, is another testimony of a greater need for gender equality. The

mandate of the Ministry is to promote gender equality at all levels of society including the

implementation of gender related national, regional and international legal instruments

and policies as well as to ensure that women and men, girls and boys have equal rights and

opportunities. One of the priority areas of the Ministry as enshrined in the National Gender

Policy (NGP) and the National Gender Plan of Action (NGPA) is to ensure gender balance in

power and decision making (NPC, NDP 3, and Vol. I).

It is acknowledged that the empowerment of women and the improvement of their social,

educational, economic and political status are vital for sustainable development in all

spheres of the economy (Namibia 2004 Millenium Development Goals).

Other efforts of empowering women in Namibia include the first ever-Namibian National

Conference for Rural Women on Sustainable Empowerment. The theme of the conference

was "Towards Sustainable Empowerment of Rural Women; Exploring Opportunities that

Promote Access to Information and Resources: Dignity and Justice for All of Us". The confer-

ence ran for three days at Ongwediva Trade Centre in the Oshana Region (New Era; 2008).

However, one of the main challenges still, facing the Ministry of Gender in Namibia is the

persistent cultural and traditional beliefs of inequality between men and women, for

example inequality with regard to ownership and control of productive properties, inheri-

tance and decision – making especially within family settings (MGECW Strategic Plan

2005/2011).

Other organisations involved in promoting women’s greater participation in power sharing

and decision making include the works of Namibian Women’s Network, the Women Solidar-

ity, the Legal Assistance Centre (LAC) and the Women Action for Development (WAD) (NPC,

NDP3, Vol.1, 2008).

The need to do no harm to gender relations amongst communities during development

interventions was highlighted in Gender and Pastoralism Volume 1- Rangeland and Re-

source Management in Ethiopia (Ridgwell et al. 2007). They call for organisations to open up

opportunities for greater gender equitable social change; however, they note that a lot of

NGOs and Governments are still struggling to achieve this.

7


Access to and control over resources is heavily influenced by gender. Women have little

access to scientific and technological information and facilities and are mainly dependent

on simple traditional technologies such as the labour-intensive mortar and pestle, grinding

stones, sun drying, wood fuel, hoes and axes that are widespread in cattle areas. The more

efficient, simple and environmentally friendly technologies such as hammer mills, oil

presses, biomass and oxen technology has not been introduced to them (Muhato, 2003).

In general, men in the rural households and in particular male headed households, own and

control more than women with regards to cattle, wells, money, and crop fields, while in

general women have more ownership over mahangu fields (NPC: Regional Poverty Profile-

Omusati, 2006). For example if a woman buys a cow, it only belongs to her when it is inside

the household premises, as all cattle belong to the men when outside the household. The

same principle also applies to ownership and control of goats and donkeys. With regards to

control and access to cattle, goats, and moneys, men own and control most. Of interest is the

fact that if the wife wants to do anything extra- ordinary with regards the resources she

owns, she still has to consult her husband.

A similar trend is found in other study areas; Ohangwena and Oshikoto. There are minor

variations for specific households within constituencies. In the case where women own

large stock, control still rests with the men since culture and tradition gives greater powers

to men (NPC- Regional Poverty Profile Ohangwena, 2003 and Oshikoto, 2006).

Lendelvo (2008) reported that in three villages in Ondonga Traditional Authority, Oshikoto

region the average number of female- headed households is 45%, which is a considerable

percentage of all households. The majority of female- headed households belong to widows

and divorced or rejected women. Pension and social welfare grants were reported as main

and most consistent income source. Lendelvo also reported that few female headed house-

holds own cattle and their agricultural activities are limited to crops.

It is however reported by Angula (2010), that literature is silent as to how decision making

and power relations take place in female- headed households. However, a female- headed

household is traditionally regarded as insignificant and ranked very low in the community;

the belief is that a proper household should be headed by a men. The eldest son or brother

makes all major decisions in a female- headed household (Angula, 2010).

Angula (2010) conducted a research on gender and climate change in the Epyeshona village

(Oshana region) and found that women and men are equally represented in water point

committee, drought relief committees and constituency development committees.

3.3 Access and Control of Resources

8


Although the representation of women on these committees has improved, it is reported

that the traditional based roles as discussed above still exist. Women have still unequal

access to information and resources and are under- represented in decision- making.

Women and youth are generally marginalised in the decision making processes at both

community and household levels. Decision making powers usually belong to the men;

Women are regarded as dependents and are therefore required to follow decisions and

directions by the man. Although many decisions are made in consultation with a women,

the men has the power to overrule a woman’s decision (Angula, 2010).

In essence this implies that women and those households which are headed by women are

vulnerable and can easily fall into poverty because in reality they own nothing and have

no decision making power.

The issues discussed above are also reported in detail in Improving the Legal and Socio-

Economic situation of Women in Namibia as well as in Namibia, Agriculture and Rural

Development, (NDT 1994, FAO 1995), which both report similar findings. The poor perform-

ance in the agriculture sector is seen as resulting from the fact that Governments and donors

do not comprehend and respond to the growing role of African women in the economy

(Saito et al. 1995).

Asset ownership is strongly related to culture. The culture also has a strong bearing on the

roles and responsibilities of men and women. Men are first and foremost responsible for

herding livestock, ensuring that it has water, fetches it from the grazing areas, milks, takes

care of it when it is sick, takes it from the kraal and back. Ploughing is also found to be one of

men’s major responsibilities.

Across cultural groups in Namibia, women are seen as subordinate to men, who must make

the major contributions to their communities. Women are primary providers of necessary

food and crops for the household, they still carry the main responsibility for maintaining

households, families and communities, which includes fetching water and firewood, pound-

ing mahangu, preparing food, cleaning the house, washing dishes and clothes. Women are

socialized to be obedient, tend to the household and take care of children. Women also

produce cash crops for the market and earn a household income.

Women do basketry, process marula nuts and oil, rear chicken, pigs or goats to increase

income (Angula 2010). Women constitute the majority of those engaged in subsistence

farming (Lendelvo, 2008) and provide more than 90% of the labour for agricultural produc-

tion (Muhato, 2003).

3.4 Roles and Responsibilities

9


In the article, Gender, HIV/AIDS and Rural Livelihoods in Southern Africa: Addressing the

Challenges, Mutangadura (2005) cites that critical mitigation intervention required to make

women less vulnerable to the socio-economic impacts is empowering women to access

credit and in generating income. She further notes that income generating projects have

been used widely in development programs even before HIV/AIDS to address lack of access

to food, primarily economic access and as a major poverty reduction strategy. In her study, it

was indicated that training is a major determinant of success of an Income Generating

Activity.

In an article “Legal and Social Obstacles: Namibia’s Experience” Iipinge (2000) states that

some of the mis- matches between supply and demand of credit to women is caused by lack

of information provision to women in business on issues such as marketing. She calls for

more information provision (WIB-SADC Fair and Investment forum 2000).

In agriculture, poultry and pigs are seen as the livestock of women (Masaire and Kachin-

gunda 2010). Poultry is an ideal livestock for smallholder communal farmers because of the

minimum input costs such as water, feed, labour, land requirement and other production

inputs. Masaire and Kachingunda (2010) interviewed households in all northern regions and

found that most households are keeping chicken (see table below).

Table 2: Percentage of households owning chicken

Region % of households owning chicken n

Kavango 63 89

Kunene 76 67

Ohangwena 76 42

Omusati 97 58

Oshana 82 60

Oshikoto 100 17

Poultry might have a high potential for women to increase their income. Mostly poultry is

owned by women and they are responsible for the production and selling of the poultry.

3.5 Opportunities for integrating women and vulnerable groups in programs

10


However, paradoxically, women do not have control over the production tools and benefits

gained from this venture. Even when decisions are being made by women regarding their

birds, they usually consult the head of the household (Masaire and Kachingunda 2010).

Therefore, the benefits gained by poultry keepers from this subsistence poultry sector do not

go exclusively to the keepers, especially if they are women. They are in most cases enjoyed

by all family members and thus contribute to the family well-being.

Other experiences from which to draw lessons on how to integrate women and vulnerable

groups include the works of Women’s Action for Development (WAD), “When WAD becomes

active in a region, it works through churches, schools, traditional authorities, decision-

makers, etc. to reach women. The women are firstly expected to undergo basic training in

Hygiene, Nutrition, Family Planning, Child Development Care, AIDS awareness, Violence,

Counselling, etc. This is followed by skills development training (of the members’ choice)

provided that a market exists for the skills in which they are trained. The next step is for

WAD to assist the project members with kick-start equipment or materials to start viable

projects.

This is given once only, as WAD discourages a hand-outs or dependency mentality among its

members. The WAD regional staffs then further assist the project members on a daily basis

with further training. (WAD, 2008).

It has also been recognised by the organization ‘Integrated Rural Development and Nature

Conservation’ (IRDNC), that women have little decision making power. In an article in the

magazine ‘Conservation and the Environment in Namibia’, Jacobsohn (2008/9) sets out the

IRDNC strategy to include women into decision making and opinion forming.

The IRDNC is supporting several conservancies in Kunene and Caprivi, where the involve-

ment of women in decision making is supported by building confidence and skills of women

members of the conservancies. IRDNC is organizing two-day fully participatory public

speaking courses for women. It was reported by Jacobsohn that the women stepped out of

their traditional roles and transformed from women who had never spoken in public

before into accomplished speakers; the women developed into confident, clear and effec-

tive communicators.

Other lessons to draw from include discussions, which emanated from the article of the

Namibian National Conference for Rural Women on Sustainable Empowerment in New Era

(2008). It was observed that most rural women did not complete formal education and

hence basic literacy and numeracy would assist them to access services and be in a position

to take control of their lives. Economic empowerment of rural women provides them with

access to information, entrepreneurship skills and development programs.

11


In the study “Improving the Legal and Socio-economic situation of Women in Namibia” NDT

indicated the need to encourage institutions, particularly those focussing on women

empowerment to extend revolving funds so that women can invest in assets. They too

emphasised on the need to extend such information to all women (NDT, 1994).

12


4 FIELD RESEARCH

A number of findings related to the objectives of the study did emerge. Each issue is pre-

sented and discussed in detail below. In general, livelihood activities for women are arable

farming, gathering of veld products, formal and informal employment, whereas males are

into pastoral farming, employment (formal and informal) as means of livelihood. This has

resulted in women being over-represented among the poor. Most people in rural areas

depend on natural resources for livelihood and the majority is women.

With regards to decision making power on livestock at household, level it is invested in men,

while traditional authorities decide on land allocation and rangeland management. How-

ever where conservancies exist, decisions are made by relevant authorities and committee

members. With regards to livestock marketing, decisions are made jointly by husband and

wife. Women headed households make marketing decision with their elder sons or other

elder male relative members.

The study has established that cattle, goats, sheep, donkeys, horses, chickens and guinea

fowls are some of the resources found in all the selected regions. Pigs are found mainly in

Ohangwena, Kavango, Oshikoto and Omusati. Resources, which are also common to these

regions, include: (i) crafts (baskets, bows and arrows); (ii) devils claw and indigenous fruits

for example marula, (iii) bird plums and monkey oranges. Crop fields mainly for mahangu

and beans and Bambara nuts are also associated with these regions. Salt pans are found in

Oshikoto and Omusati while Mopani worms are the domain of Kunene, Oshikoto and

Omusati. Commercial thatching grass, hunting quotas for trophies, are more common in

Kavango.

The research found that both men and women have access to and make use of the resources

such as cattle, goats, sheep, donkeys, horses. This also applies to mahangu crop fields.

However, the study revealed that cattle, goats and sheep are controlled by men. Both men

and women control and make decisions over donkeys and horses, the study established.

Women have more control over pigs, chickens, guinea fowls and to a great extent mahangu

fields. It appears the ownership is allowed because the resources have low social and market

value.

4.1 Resource Base: Livestock and Rangeland Management

4.2 Access, use and Control of Resources

13


This level of control also applies to products such as beans and Bambara nuts. It was estab-

lished that decision making on marketing of cattle, goats and sheep is done jointly although

the control of the money rests with the man.

With regards to salt pans, Mopani worms, crafts and wild life, both men and women have

access to these resources. Men make use of salt pans, while mopani worms are mainly used

by women.

The control of salt pans, Mopani worms, indigenous fruits, and commercial thatching grass

rests with the Traditional Authorities. Granting of hunting quotas is done by the Ministry of

Environment and Tourism. Wild life is mainly controlled by Conservancy Committees.

Access to credit due to lack of collateral affects all selected areas. Access to credit is especially

needed for economic activities, like marketing, establishing businesses, buying livestock etc.,

by both men and women.

It is important to make a distinction among the types of responsibility that women have

over livestock: ownership, control over decision-making, use rights and provision of labour.

Men’s de jure ownership rights over animals are guaranteed by a near universal set of

inheritance rules that are gender biased and rooted in religion and patriarchal kinship

systems.

The study explored on the resources available to women and vulnerable groups from where

they derived their livelihood most. Women in general have less access to the means of

production in comparison with the extent of their labour contribution. There are, however,

important regional variations. Even though livestock keeping offers promising opportuni-

ties to combat poverty, there is a significant risk that livestock sector development

especially cattle will exclude smallholder farmers. Access to the fast-growing and more

remunerative markets for meat and milk products is dependent on meeting higher quality

and safety standards, which can add value and generate employment along the supply

chain.

Given that traditionally women are burdened by other household chores (rearing children,

cropping, cooking etc.) their opportunity to access lucrative livestock market is a challenge.

Cattle are sold more often at high price as compared to goats and chicken.

Gender roles for keeping livestock are now, to a certain extent, changing. The study found

out that out of ten farms in Kavango, women own four. The trend is more or less similar

throughout other selected regions. The informants perceived that women farmers need to

be motivated, because farming is time consuming and expensive.

4.3 Roles and Responsibilities

14


The HIV/AIDS pandemic also enforces changes in gender roles. In some cases when men

who traditionally are perceived as herders become infected and weak, women are taking

over. Women were observed herding cattle which traditional (with exception of Kunene) is

mainly the sphere of men. HIV/AIDS’ reality is now acknowledged throughout all of the

selected regions. Interviews in Ohangwena and partly Kavango coincided with the free

HIV/AIDS testing day. The turn-up at both centres at Omufitu wekuta and Mpungu were

overwhelming.

The identified vulnerable groups in relation to livestock and rangeland management are

women, people with specific disabilities, internally displaced people, refugees, indigenous

people, children and other vulnerable groups such as individuals from minor ethnic groups

who find themselves as cattle herders of others or migrant workers (mainly from Angola)

and have been engaged in a remunerated activity in Namibia.

Challenges women are facing include (i) lack of decision making in their own rights, (ii)

being regarded as minors, (iii) lack of skills in livestock husbandry, animal health, and value

addition to natural resources with known potentials as well as marketing of livestock.

In all the selected regions, the study established that in general people living with disabili-

ties are not recognised. Often they are not seen, used to be hidden from public, hence they

lack access to economic opportunities for raising incomes.

Internally displaced people include women whose husbands died and have nothing to

inherit from their marriage. They are placed as ordinary minor members within other

households. This challenge was expressed by the respondents of Kunene region.

With regards to refugees, the major challenge facing them is lack of Identity Documents (ID).

It is general practise for institutions to request for some form of identify if requesting for

loans or grants. The lack of IDs therefore hinders refugees’ access to economic opportunities.

However, access to such economic opportunities should be within the laws of the Republic

of Namibia.

Indigenous people of which the San are part are regarded as cheap labour. This was more

pronounced in Ohangwena, Oshikoto and Omusati regions. The Kung and Khwe in Kavango

are regarded as second class citizen and deprived from numerous benefits. The same applies

to the Ovatwe, Tjimba in Kunene. They form the minority group.

With regards migrant workers, most from Angola are used as cheap labour. This was ex-

pressed by respondents in Ohangwena, Oshikoto and Omusati.

4.4 Challenges Facing Women and Vulnerable Groups:

15


Challenges facing children include the following: (i) high school dropouts boys used as cattle

herders into Angola – this is true for all the regions, (ii) Most san children do not attend

school and are used as cheap labour- this is more common in other regions except Kunene,

(iii) orphan headed households.

In general socio-economic and inter cultural instability has affected women and marginal-

ised people’s lives particularly in Kunene, Kavango and Ohangwena, where individual and

family disintegration cases were reported. Due to some external and internal circumstances

of individuals or families, including domestic violence, parents or the family at large are

deprived and unable to acquire vital benefits from the rangeland. The reason for disintegra-

tion varies significantly.

The livestock resources and production systems in all selected regions can be broadly divided

into three categories of increasing responsibility based on gender and age. The degree of

involvement of women however differs considerably according to region, with Kunene

rated as high followed by Oshikoto, Kavango, Omusati and Ohangwena. The level and

degree of involvement are as follows:

Women are responsible for:

1 Processing livestock products such as milk and meat;

2 Managing and processing small stock and other animals kept at the home-

stead;

3 Managing and herding large stock and other animals

Although some women are involved in managing and herding of livestock, the number of

women involved is minimal. Areas where women are not involved include pastoral

nomadism and transhumance, marketing of large stock.

4.5 Areas for Women integration and involvement

16


5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

INCLUDE GENDER IN CBRLM

Conclusions and recommendations have been drawn from both literature review and the

field research and they are presented below:

1 Gender Equality and Women Empowerment in Namibia is a national priority and

hence this is in line with the efforts of CBRLM program. Activities on gender

awareness should be done in conjunction with the Ministry of Gender Equality

and Child Welfare as well as the Department of Extension and Engineering Ser-

vices in the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry. They have several

offices including Extension Officers and Technicians at both Regional and Con-

stituency levels.

2 The achievement of gender equality will take time as it is influenced by culture,

traditions and the power structure. This requires that the CBRLM program works

its way through the existing Traditional Authority structures by influencing the

communities as well as demonstrating the benefits to be gained by both men and

women in their approach and program implementation. Where appropriate the

CBRLM program should encourage participation of beneficiaries during the plan-

ning phase.

3 In an effort to integrate women in the CBRLM program and increase incomes

through rangeland and livestock management the program could firstly assist

women increase incomes on those activities presenting potential or opportunity

for economic growth which the women are already engaged in before moving

them to focus on rangeland and livestock management.

Easy areas for integration and raising of incomes include:

Provision of skills for women and vulnerable groups on :

o Public speaking in order to create confidence and participation in meet-

ings. This could also lead to women and vulnerable groups’ occupying

management positions for example as Chairpersons, Secretary, Treasur-

ers in Water Point and Grazing Committees as examples. Increase extent

of women’s involvement in planning and management of water projects

at community level.

o Basic numerical, marketing and business management so that they can

run their income generating activities and businesses more profitable, be

able to keep records and appreciate movement of their money within

17


their business. In some areas, the program could train women as market-

ing agents.

Increase access to micro financing (moderate loans) for women and vulner-

able groups to procure and start up projects with goats, chicken and

domesticated guinea fowl, which are the main enterprises that will contrib-

ute to improve their personal incomes since they have more control over.

Conduct practical training to equip women with skills in adding value to live-

stock products such as processing milk into butter, cheese, yoghurts since

they have access to livestock products. Through CBRLM program, the women

could be linked to the University of Namibia, Faculty of Agriculture and Natu-

ral Resources since the Department of Food Science is already processing milk

into butter, cheese, and yoghurts. The University also runs courses on mush-

room cultivation using local made materials. Women and vulnerable groups

could be encouraged to participate in these courses and establish income

generating project on mushroom production and selling as this could increase

incomes.

Equip women and vulnerable groups including unemployed youth with rele-

vant skills and equipments for processing livestock hides, skins, hoofs, bones,

blood, horns etc. to manufacture and manufacture shoes, bag, jacket, leather

and belts. Bones and horns can be used to make buttons, necklaces and other

valuable jewelleries. Investment in value addition will enable women to

actively participate in trade fairs, gain confidence and improve incomes.

Once women have been trained in equipment for processing livestock prod-

ucts they can be involved in mentoring other women in the selected regions.

In areas with high Tourism potential, women can be more engaged in tour-

ism related activities, like selling baskets, pottery and crafts.

Provide skills training for women (in conservancies) in tourism guide, attrac-

tion of trophy hunters.

4 Through the program, the women could be encouraged to apply for land to set up

community projects.

5 While income generating projects outlined above can increase incomes on the

part of women and vulnerable groups, access to markets and the corresponding

infrastructure needs to be in place for example central collection points and cool

rooms where required.

6 There are areas, which will prove difficult to integrate women immediately in

order to increase their income. Such areas include activities related to large stock

production, management and rangeland, as ownership and control lies with the

men. However, this could be overcome through the following activities.

18


Organise workshops to address cultural aspects on disempowering women

and vulnerable groups and the implications thereof. It is crucial to involve

the children and youth in sensitizing campaigns through schools etc. This

awareness raising of the cultural practices of disempowering women should

start at a young age. Furthermore, workshops should be organised for Tradi-

tional Authorities, and for both men and women in all the selected areas. The

outcomes are outlined in table 3 on Gender Integration Plan.

o Conduct training for women and vulnerable groups’ contribution to live-

stock and rangeland management. Carry out education and publicity for

women to encourage partaking in livestock marketing and rangeland

development activities.

o Develop gender sensitive training material in community forestry/ con-

servancies and distribute these materials to CBOs, Forest/conservancies

committees for use in training programs. Carry out gender targeted pro-

grams on the technical and managerial aspects of animal husbandry.

o Train women to become producers and sellers of fodder, treating stover

and licks

o Where women have more knowledge and interest in veterinary science

and animal husbandry than men do, provide them with skill training

opportunities as CAHAs for rural women guide regarding livestock.

7 Establish Monitoring and Evaluation Systems to monitor the participation and

benefits of women and vulnerable groups within the CBRLM.

19


6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR GENDER INTEGRATION

In the context of Communal Areas, land, cattle, goats, donkeys and horses are means of

production, income generation and poverty alleviation. Equally, ownership and control of

these means by both men and women could be one way of alleviating poverty and increas-

ing incomes at individual and household level. Ownership and control of these means of

production is cultural determined. On one hand, culture is not static. It evolves with time.

Therefore, this understanding should be inculcated firstly at the Traditional Authority Level

since they are the custodians of these areas and authorities over this culture. The same

understanding should be shared between men and women are imparted. Since culture does

not change overnight, the program could assist women in those areas, which they have,

control over as an entry point (table 3).

20


Table 3: Opportunities for Gender Integration

Areas of involvement Opportunities Means of achieving opportunities Indicators of Success Stakeholders

Water Point

Committees.

Grazing Committees.

Producers Committees

for example Fodder

Growers Association,

Farmers Association,

Livestock Marketing

Committees.

Constituency

Development

Committees.

Involvement in

leadership positions

Chairperson.

Secretary.

Treasurer.

Management

Committee

Train women and vulnerable

groups in public speaking,

leadership, management,

numerical skills, record keeping

and minutes taking.


groups to become producers and

sellers of fodder, treating stover

and licks.


groups as marketing agents.

Develop relevant training

materials.

Conduct participatory workshops.

Monitor and Evaluate impact of

training.

Increased number of women

and vulnerable groups attending

workshops.


and vulnerable groups

participating in the planning

and management of several

committees at community level.



occupying leadership positions

in Water Point Grazing, and

Constituency Development

Committees including

Producers’ Association etc.


and vulnerable groups selling

fodder, treating stover and licks.

Women and

Vulnerable Groups.

CBRLM Trainers.

CBOs.

Water Point

Committees.

Grazing Committees.

Producers

Association.

Constituency

Development

Committees.

Traditional

Authorities.

Ministry of

Agriculture water and

Forestry.

Animal Husbandry: Cattle

Processing milk into

products like butter,

cheese and yoghurts.

Skin processing,

Selling livestock

production inputs.

Selling of manure to

vegetable garden

owners and general

households.

Capacitate women and vulnerable

groups in rangeland and livestock

management, processing of milk,

and business management and

marketing

Link women and vulnerable

groups with the University’s

Department of Food Science and

other training institutions for

practical processing courses.

Ensure access to small grants for

starting a business.


and vulnerable groups attending

workshops.



establishing income generating

activities and able to effectively

manage them and increase

incomes.

Women and

Vulnerable Groups.

CBRLM Trainers.

University of

Namibia, Department

of Food Science

Other training

institutions

CBOs.

Finance institutions/

schemes.

Sources of chicks.

21



Conduct participatory workshops

to impart the production skills

required.

Ensure access to markets.


training.


income generating activities.

Marketing outlets.

Ministry of

Agriculture water and

Forestry.

Goats

Buying and selling of

goats.

Processing milk into

products like butter,

cheese and yoghurts.

Skin processing,

Selling livestock

production inputs.

Selling of manure to

vegetable garden

owners and general

households.


groups in business management

and marketing


materials.


to impart the necessary

production skills required.



Ensure access to markets.


training.





attending workshops.


and vulnerable groups buying

and selling goats and able to

effectively manage their

business and increase incomes.


and vulnerable groups getting

incomes from processing milk,

skins including selling of

manure.

Women and

Vulnerable Groups.

CBRLM Trainers.

Training institutions

CBOs.


schemes.

Marketing outlets.

Ministry of

Agriculture water

and Forestry.

22



Poultry (guinea fowls,

chicken, ducks)


broilers and eggs.


guinea fowls.



and marketing


materials.


to impart the necessary

production skills required.



Ensure access to markets


training.







and vulnerable groups buying

and selling broilers, eggs and

guinea fowls and able to

effectively manage their

business and increase incomes.

Women and

Vulnerable Groups.

CBRLM Trainers.


CBO.


schemes.

Marketing outlets.

Ministry of

Agriculture water

and Forestry.

Other :

Tourism

Selling baskets, pottery

and crafts.

Tourism guide,

attraction of trophy

hunters.



and marketing


materials.


to impart the necessary skills

required.



Ensure access to tourist markets

Create linkages between

communities/ women and tourist

operators


training.








establishing income generating

activities and able to effectively

manage them and increase

incomes.

Increased interactions between

communities and tourists.

Women and

Vulnerable Groups.

Conservancies


CBRLM Trainers.


CBO.


schemes.

Marketing outlets

Tourist operators

Tourists

Ministry of

Agriculture water

and Forestry.

Ministry of

Environment and

tourism.

23



Gender sensitization.

Awareness raising of

cultural aspects on

disempowering women


and the implications

thereof

Children and youth

Traditional authorities

Community

committees, like water

point committees,

grazing committees,

community

development

committees


to increase the awareness on

cultural aspects disempowering

women and vulnerable groups


materials.


training.

Increased number of traditional

authorities, children/ youth and

community committees


Increased number women and

vulnerable groups participating

in the planning and

management of several

committees at community level.

Number of women occupying

positions in Water Point

Grazing, and Constituency

Development Committees

including Producers’ Association

etc.

Women and

vulnerable groups

Ministry of Gender,

Equality and Child

Welfare

Regional Council.

Traditional

Authorities.

Schools.

CBRLM Trainers.


Water Point

Committees.

Grazing Committees.

Producers

Association.

Constituency

Development

Committees.

CBOs

24


7 REFERENCES

Angula, M. 2010. Gender and Climate Change: Namibia Case Study. Heinrich Boell

stiftung Southern Africa. Online retrieved on 16 June 2010 on

http://www.boell.org.za/downloads/Namibia.pdf

Bhasin, K., 2000. Understanding Gender. New Delhi: Paulus Press.

FAO, 1995. Women, Agriculture and Rural Development, National Sectoral Sup-

port in Namibia.

Hunter, J, 2004. An introduction to Gender Issues in Namibia. Windhoek: John

Meinert Printing.

Iipinge, E.M., Williams, M., 2000. Gender and Development. Windhoek: John

Meinert Printing.

Iipinge, E.M.2000. Overview of Legal and Social Obstacles: Namibia’s Experience.

Proceedings of WIB-SADC Fair 2000 and Investment Forum, “Women Let’s Us

Join Hands For A change”

Jacobsohn, M., 2008/9. Rural role models take charge. Conservation and the

Environment in Namibia. Pp. 32-33.

Masaire, E. and Kachigunda, B., 2010. Cross- sectional survey to characterize

poultry and other species demographics and Avian and Human Influenza (AHI)

exposure factors in Namibia. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry; Direc-

torate of Veterinary Services, Namibia.

MCA-N, 2010 Gender and Social Integration Strategy, Online retrieved on 19 June

2010 on http://www.mca.gov.na/docs/gender_integration_sml.pdf

Muhato, W. 2003. Gender Assessment Namibia Country Strategic Plan: 2004 –

2010. USAID, Kenia.

Mutangadura, B., 2005. Gender, HIV/AIDS and Rural Livelihoods in Southern

Africa: Addressing the Challenges. Online retrieved on 19 June 2010 on

http://www.jendajournal.com/issue7/mutangadura.html

Namibia Development Trust. 1994. Improving the Legal and Socio-economic

Situation of Women in Namibia.

New Era, 2008. Towards Sustainable Empowerment of Rural Women; Exploring

Opportunities that Promote Access to Information and Resources: Dignity and

25


Justice for All of Us. Online retrieved- on 19 June 2010 on

http://www.newera.com.na/article.php?articleid=1367

NPC, 2004. Namibia 2004, Millennium Development Goals. Windhoek: Polytech-

nic Press.

NPC, 2004. Ohangwena Regional Poverty Profile- Summary Report, based on

Village-level Participatory Poverty Assessment.

NPC, 2006 Omusati Regional Poverty Profile, based on Village-level Participatory

Poverty Assessment.

NPC, 2006 Oshikoto Regional Poverty Profile, based on Village-level Participatory

Poverty Assessment.

NPC, Third National Development Plan (NDP3) 2007/2008-2011/12 Volume

1.Windhoek.

Ridgewell, A., Mamo, G., Flintan, F., 2007. Gender and Pastoralism Vol 1: Range-

land and Resource Management in Ethopia. Online retrieved on 19 June 2010 on

http://www.sahel.org.uk/pdf/Gender%20&%20Pastoralism%20Vol%201%20-

%20ebook.pdf

Saito, K.A., Mekonnen, H., Spurling, D., 1994. Raising the Productivity of Women

Farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, World Bank Discussion Papers; 230.

UNDAF, 2008. United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF

2008) for Lesotho (2008-2011) Online retrieved on 19 June 2010 on

http://www.undp.org.ls/documents/UNDAF%202008%20-%202012.pdf

WAD, 2008, Brief Overview on the Development Programmes of Women’s Action

for Development (WAD Namibia). Online retrieved on 19 June 2010 on

http://www.wad.org.na

Annex 2: Socio-cultural study of livestock keeping

CULTURAL AND SOCIO- ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF RANGE AND LIVESTOCK MAN-AGEMENT

Compiled by :

NAM ENVIRO MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING SERVICES CC

Mutjinde Katjiua, Laura Imbuwa and Christine Nesongano

CULTURAL AND SOCIO- ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF RANGE AND LIVESTOCK MAN-AGEMENT dfdf

GOPA Consultants

Hindenburgring 18

61348 Bad Homburg

Germany

Phone +49 6172 930-508

Fax: +49 6172 930-350


CULTURAL AND SOCIO- ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF RANGE AND LIVESTOCK MAN-AGEMENT

Compiled by :

NAM ENVIRO MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING SERVICES CC

Mutjinde Katjiua, Laura Imbuwa and Christine Nesongano

June 2010

i

CONTENTS

GOPA CONSULTANTS CULTURAL AND SOCIO- ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF RANGE AND LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT

Contents

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................1

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 Rationale.......................................................................................................................................................2

1.2 Objectives .....................................................................................................................................................2 1.2.1 Overall Objective ......................................................................................................................................2 1.2.2 Specific Objectives ...................................................................................................................................3

1.3 Study Areas..................................................................................................................................................3

2 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................4

2.1 Land use and land tenure .................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Rangeland condition..............................................................................................................................6

2.3 Livestock farming....................................................................................................................................6 2.3.1 Transhumance.......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.3.2 Herd composition and livestock numbers...................................................................................7 2.3.3 Keeping different domestic animals ............................................................................................. 8

2.4 The socio-cultural and economic value of livestock .............................................................. 8 2.4.1 Livestock ownership .............................................................................................................................12 2.4.2 Labour division and occupation in rural households ...........................................................12

2.5 Livestock production constraints ...................................................................................................13

2.6 Livestock Marketing and Marketing Constraints.................................................................. 14 2.6.1 Food security and social status........................................................................................................15 2.6.2 High cash income alternatives ........................................................................................................15 2.6.3 Costly transport services ................................................................................................................... 16 2.6.4 Perceived poor prices received at local abattoirs................................................................... 16 2.6.5 Rudimentary slaughtering facilities and services .................................................................17 2.6.6 Meat storage and cooling facilities................................................................................................17 2.6.7 Insufficient or lack of fodder and watering services for livestock at

holding camps..........................................................................................................................................17

ii

CONTENTS


2.7 Microfinance / credit extension..................................................................................................... 18

3 Survey Methods ......................................................................................................................... 19

3.1 Study area ................................................................................................................................................. 19

3.2 Data collection ........................................................................................................................................ 19

4 Findings from the fieldwork...................................................................................................21

4.1 Land use ......................................................................................................................................................21

4.2 Livestock farming...................................................................................................................................21 4.2.1 Number of households owning cattle ........................................................................................ 22 4.2.2 Reasons for keeping livestock ......................................................................................................... 23 4.2.3 Potential Areas of Expansion or value addition in livestock by-

products ..................................................................................................................................................... 25 4.2.4 Socio-cultural challenges of livestock management and husbandry ......................... 25 4.2.5 Rangeland constraints in livestock production......................................................................26

4.3 Livestock marketing............................................................................................................................. 27 4.3.1 Opportunities for women involvement in livestock production and

marketing/trade .................................................................................................................................... 27

5 Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................................28

6 References ....................................................................................................................................30

iii

TABLES


Tables

Table 1: Distribution of cattle across households of the Northern

Communal Areas. ................................................................................................................................ 9

Table 2: Percent contribution of livestock production to total farm-

household income by region*...................................................................................................... 10

Table 3: Livestock distribution among households .............................................................................. 10

Table 4: A typical labour division among household members......................................................12

Table 5: Constraints of livestock production in the north central regions.................................13

Table 6: Number of respondents ................................................................................................................... 19

Table 7: Number of households in selected villages, number of households

and livestock per households ...................................................................................................... 23

Table 8: Livestock types and their uses .....................................................................................................24

iv


Acronyms


CDC: Community Development Committee

GOPA: Gesellschaft für Organisation, Planung und Ausbildung (Society for Organisation, Planning

GRN: Government of the Republic of Namibia

MAWF: Ministry of Agriculture Water and Forestry

MCA-N: Millennium Challenge Account Namibia

MCC: Millennium Challenge Corporation

MDGs: Millennium Development Goals

NCAs: Northern Communal Areas

NDP 3: National Development Plan 3

NGOs: Non Governmental Organisations

NPC: National Planning Commission

PELINA: People’s Environment, Livelihood, Integrity, Natural resource and their Aspirations

1


Acknowledgements

This report has come through the efforts and cooperation of a number of people whose

contribution are greatly acknowledged.

Many thanks are extended to all respondents in all the selected areas of the northern com-

munal areas (Kavango, Kunene North, Ohangwena, Omusati, Oshana and Oshikoto), who

willingly participated in the study and provided the needed data and information which

was used as a basis for compiling the reports. A lot of insight on the socio-economic and

cultural aspects of livestock and rangeland management and challenges facing women

emerged as a result of this contribution.

Our appreciation goes to Pelina Development Consultants for conducting the field survey,

collecting and analysing data including report writing of the field research. The reports

complemented the outcome of our literature review. This enabled us to finalise this report

and formulate conclusions and recommendations.

Last but not least we appreciate with sincerity the opportunity provided to us by GOPA to

participate in this assignment.

2


1 Introduction

The Community Based Rangeland and Livestock Management (CBRLM) Sub- Activity is part

of the Land Access and Management Activity within the key Agriculture sector. The CBRLM

project will provide support to the Millennium Challenge Account-Namibia (MCA-N) and the

Government counterpart, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF), in fur-

therance of the implementation of the Sub- Activity. The Sub- Activity’s goal is to enhance

the productivity and sustainability of the livestock sector in the Northern Communal Areas

(NCAs: Kavango, Kunene North, Ohangwena, Omusati, Oshana and Oshikoto), through

improved rangeland resource and livestock management. Improved rangeland and livestock

management will be achieved through a series of interventions, including enhanced com-

munity- based management plans for rangelands and the introduction of technologies and

skills to improve productivity of rangelands and livestock.

Currently cattle off-take in the NCA is about 7% per annum, with only 2% entering the

formal marketing channels. In contrast the offtake on commercial farms south of the veteri-

nary cordon fence (VCF) is estimated at 25%. Some of the discrepancies in offtake between

cattle kept north and south of the VCF are due to limited marketing infrastructure, differ-

ences in livestock husbandry practices, price differences and socio-cultural factors.

This study will contribute to the implementation of the CBRLM project of the MCA-NAM,

which seeks to improve the living standard of livestock farmers in the NCAs through appro-

priate/ adaptive management of rangelands, improved livestock husbandry practices and

marketing of livestock and livestock products.

1.2.1 Overall Objective

This study will investigate the cultural and socio- economic factors affecting livestock

production in the NCAs, and how that may influence the implementation and outcomes of

the range management, livestock husbandry and marketing interventions under the CBRLM

project.

1.1 Rationale

1.2 Objectives

3


1.2.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the study are to:

Conduct literature review on studies carried out on the socio- cultural aspects of

keeping cattle on traditional communal grazing areas in Southern Africa.

Assess the impact of cultural and socio-economic factors on the outcomes of for-

mer and ongoing interventions aimed at increasing cattle productivity in the

NCAs.

Identify region specific cultural and socio- economic aspects of cattle holding in

the project area.

Assess how the identified cultural and socio- economic aspects might affect range

management practices, including transhumance and the pattern of livestock

ownership; and

Make region specific recommendations on how to design CBRLM intervention

methods and processes to achieve CBRLM project objectives in relation to the

identified cultural and socio- economic aspects identified.

The CBRLM activities will be carried out in selected areas in the six northern regions of

Namibia, namely: Kavango; Kunene North as well as Ohangwena, Oshana, Omusati and

Oshikoto in north central. A pre- selection of intervention areas has taken place, and cur-

rently 36 intervention areas have been identified within the CBRLM project.

1.3 Study Areas

4


2 Literature Review

The NCAs are state land, and traditionally is has been under the control of respective tribal

authorities. Thus, for instance, the different tribal authorities such as that of the Hambuku-

shu and Kwangali in the Kavango region would commonly allocate portions of land under

their jurisdiction to individuals for residential and arable agriculture. This situation is similar

to what is happening in the north central communal areas (Ohangwena, Oshikoto, Oshana

and Omusati regions). In Kunene North, the tribal authorities reign over districts and their

subject use the rangelands within the districts, while movements outside are negotiated

and agreed upon depending on availability of rangeland resources. Thus there is no defined

allocation of portions of land to individuals for residential and arable agriculture. Certainly,

this is a result of the nomadic lifestyle of the inhabitants of Kunene North.

In East Africa the allocation of residential and arable plots to individual households is com-

monly practiced, whereas the rangeland is communally used (Moyo et al. 2008; Ndikumana

et al. 2001). Although the use of rangelands is communal, access is generally controlled by

the tribal authorities. Like in the Namibia situation the control of access is mostly applicable

to intruders. Intruders are regarded as members of other tribes at a regional scale or non-

village members at the local level. Some Namibia villages have established strong water

point committees that not only control access to water but also to rangelands at the village

level. In Aminius and Okakarara constituencies a few villages have put boundary fences

around the periphery of villages to better prevent access and use of the rangelands by non-

village residents (Benjaminsen et al. 2002). In these situations the use of rangeland by the

residents remain open access, with subsequent potential overgrazing within the village as

human and livestock populations increases. Recently in the Kaokoveld (Kunene North) and

in the Okakarara constituency some villages have introduced cattle herding as a way to

apply rotational grazing. This system is reported to have yielded some positive results in

terms of rangeland recovery and conservation of forage resources (Nott and Goldberg, 2010).

There is anecdotal evidence that some individual farmers have put periphery fences around

government water points and subsequently “privatized” rangelands in the Oshikoto region.

Management of communal areas as a common property seems to work well under relatively

low human population pressure, but as soon as the human population increases beyond

certain limits the effectiveness of local-level institutions to manage rangeland resources

wanes off (Ainslie, 1998; Moyo et al. 2008). In these situations the biggest challenges for the

management of common property resources are to:

2.1 Land use and land tenure

5


1 Reduce the cost of monitoring the many resource users by maintaining a system

where each community member is monitoring the other, and to apply social

sanctions that deter defaulters;

2 Maintain a low cost conflict resolution mechanism in which transaction costs are

kept to the minimum; and above all

3 Maintaining strong, effective decentralized local-level institutions and organiza-

tions for the management of common property resources. The reality in most

communal areas of southern Africa shows that local institutions are generally

weak and therefore will be challenged by the need to keep livestock numbers

within the village carrying capacity and to manage rangelands sustainably under

increasing human pressure (Moyo et al. 2008).

While rotational grazing remains the only practice that promotes rangeland productivity

and retention of perennial grasses, experiences from Ethiopia (Oba 1998; Admasu et al. 2010)

and East Africa in general (Abule et al. 2005) have shown that the creation of individually-

owned pockets of small plots of croplands and rangeland enclosures near homesteads has

helped to conserve forage better in relation to livestock numbers. Given these experiences it

may be possible that the creation of individually owned small-scale commercial farming

units in the Ohangwena, Kavango and Caprivi regions may lead to effective management of

rangeland resources if beneficiaries are provided with appropriate knowledge and skills. In

contrast, fencing of rangelands in the Eastern Cape (South Africa) was rather promoted by

beneficiaries as a way of reducing labour and time spending on livestock husbandry as

opposed to facilitate improved grazing management (Moyo et al. 2008). Thus the rational for

fencing should be clear to everyone to minimize conflicting interests.

Rangeland enclosures are only favoured under certain social and ecological conditions.

Those with less number of animals usually think that they will get less benefit, while those

living in more variable environments perceive that fencing of communal lands will increase

their vulnerability to the spatially variable rainfall and droughts (Oba 1998; Admasu et al.

2010). In Namibia, pastoralists in the more arid areas such as Otjimbingwe (Ward et al. 1998)

and similarly in Kunene North have resisted against the creation of individually-owned

rangeland enclosures, while in the semi-arid regions such Omaheke, and Otjozondjupa small

rangeland enclosures near homesteads are common practice. These enclosures are used to

conserve forage grasses and browse for sick animals, bulls, calves that need to be weaned off

or for temporarily putting in cows that need to calf.

The options of moving livestock to unused areas to relieve grazing pressure in existing

villages during dry years is becoming increasingly limited in arid environments due to high

human population growth. Therefore the future of sustainable rangelands lies with the

combined management of stocking rates and rotational grazing and perhaps the creation of

small rangeland enclosures for the conservation of forage resources. The capacity of local

6


institutions in land allocation, management of livestock, water points and rangelands

should be strengthened.

Heavy stocking (Shackleton, 1993), poor management (Ward et al., 1998) and land degrada-

tion (Hoffman and Todd, 2000; De Klerk 2004; Katjiua and Ward, forthcoming) are the main

characteristics of communal rangelands. The North central Namibia has suffered major

deforestation (particularly in Oshana and Omusati), overgrazing and land degradation as a

result of inappropriate crop farming practices and overstocking (Quan et al. 1994). Increased

activities of privatization of communal farming lands in the north central, particularly in the

Oshana and northwestern Oshikoto region have led to concentration of livestock along

corridors of fenced-off zones and within the confinement of small camps or crop fields. The

Cuvelai drainage system which encompasses the Omusati, Oshana and parts of Ohangwena

and Oshikoto regions is overstocked (Mendelsohn et al. 2002). Consequently, there has been

massive migration of particularly well off farmers in the north central regions to eastern

Oshikoto region, to the Kavango region and to southern Angola. A similar trend of farmers

moving from Omusati region into the Kunene North region is taking place, although to a

lesser extent. It is estimated that 75% of the daily fodder requirements of cattle in the

Omusati and Ohangwena regions are met from Angolan rangelands as grazing is becoming

more limited in the NCAs (MCC, 2008).

Unless appropriate rangeland management practices are introduced, the confinement of

animals in small camps and along corridors will continue to degrade rangeland resources.

This will increase the prevalence of unpalatable invasive species, reduce perennial pastures

and increase drought vulnerability of livestock production.

The increased use of Angolan rangelands by Namibian farmers cannot continue forever. The

formalization of cattle sales and export will require a tight control of foot and mouth disease

at the Namibian-Angolan border.

2.3.1 Transhumance

The spatial variation in rainfall and hence forage resources over the arid and semi-arid

rangelands have led to the evolution of transhumance lifestyle to exploit the spatially

variable forage resources (Ellis et al. 1993; Illius and O’Connor 1999). For instance the Ova-

himba pastoralists would use areas far away from the Kunene River to exploit seasonally

available water and forage resources during the wet season and move back to the Kunene

River when the seasonally available water dries up. While the grazing areas are often not

2.2 Rangeland condition

2.3 Livestock farming

7


fenced, the herds of different farmers are usually separated by mutual agreement or by

allocations and rights accorded by traditional leaders, especially in Kunene North. However,

those farmers with large herds have access to the biggest and best grazing area as a result of

the size of their herds, their social standing and their capacity – as wealthy farmers- to

employ herders and transport water (Mendelsohn 2006).

In a similar fashion the Owambo farmers created the system of cattle posts that is used on

seasonal basis. This system of transhumance allowed for rangelands to rest and recover after

heavy grazing bouts. However, this system of migrating with livestock has limited function-

ality in maintaining rangeland productivity and sustainable utilization of the rangelands

because of the increasing human population density in north central Namibia. The land

pressure in north central Namibia is high and agro-pastoral production systems are chang-

ing more quickly than in any other part of the NCAs. Increase in human density per km2 is

closely related to a decrease in livestock numbers. The decrease in cattle numbers is sharper

than for goats in the north central regions (Mendelsohn et al. 2000). In the central Cuvelai,

customary transhumance patterns have collapsed under the weight of increased human

and livestock populations and subsequently small-scale peasant-based range enclosures

have mushroomed (Sweet, 1998). Thus the former cattle posts are fast becoming permanent

settlements in the NCA. In the Kavango region the environmental conditions are still rela-

tively benign and land pressure is low. Consequently forage is plentiful, the interior of the

region is lightly stocked and seasonal movements involve little more than keeping herds

away from crop fields between planting and harvest (Sweet 1998). There have been conflicts

between residents of the Kavango and Ohangwena regions over the use of rangelands in the

Kavango region, where pastoralists from Ohangwena are being accused of invading the

Kavango region without permission and it is demanded that they leave the area.

2.3.2 Herd composition and livestock numbers

Manipulation of the herd composition is also an adaptive strategy to cope with uncertainty

in variable environments (Moyo et al. 2008). A high proportion of female animals in the herd

are kept to ensure the survival of a sizeable breeding stock and thus enabling a fast recovery

of livestock numbers after droughts (Ndikumana et al. 2001; Admasu et al. 2010). Livestock

numbers are usually high in pastoral systems (Abel 1993). As the objective of pastoralists is

to maintain high animal numbers to cater for low individual animal productivity such as

low fertility rates, to make provision for animals to produce at varying times of the year and

ensure milk and milk products (Admasu et al. 2010), and to exploit time and space variation

in the availability of forage resources. Thus unless the objective of livestock rearing changes

among pastoralist communities to the one of maximizing profit per animal, thus keeping

fewer and more productive animals (in terms of fertility rates and beef production), the

large-animal-number objective will be difficult to maintain sustainably in increasingly

confined communal rangelands. Therefore stocking rates will become the determining

factor in the sustainable utilization of communal rangelands.

8


The will be an increasing need to keep livestock numbers within the limits of the variable

carrying capacity of the northern communal areas of Namibia. Thus the opportunistic

stocking rates should be practiced.

More emphasis should be placed on productive animals, than on quantity of stock.

2.3.3 Keeping different domestic animals

Many pastoral communities keep a variety of domestic animals such as cattle, goats, sheep,

camels and donkeys. This allows for the efficient exploitation of the forage resources, and

also enables pastoralists to maximize the use of the animal products during different times

of the year. While most cows naturally calf during the rainy season, goats lamb during both

the dry and wet seasons. Thus providing milk and milk products at the time when cows are

dry. There are different uses for the different types of animals in the social and economic

setups of traditional livestock farmers (pastoralists).

Livestock are the main assets of pastoralists in most of rural Africa (Oba 1998, Ndikumana et

al. 2001; Abule 2003; Katjiua and Ward 2007; Admasu et al. 2010). Livestock are used as a

source of food (milk, meat and blood), for social functions (weddings, funerals), as cash

income when sold, as store of wealth and as a symbol of status. Cattle and goats are the

most prominent livestock types in the northern communal areas, except for Kunene North

where sheep production also features strongly (Vigne, 2005). Large animals are raised not so

much for their meat as for their milk, but they are also the ‘bank account’ and ‘security

deposit’ of the pastoralist. African sheep and goats are not kept primarily for their milk, but

for their meat, their ‘liquidity’ and to a lesser extent, their hair (Niamir, 1991).

Livestock farming have always been the main source of livelihood in the NCAs. In the Kun-

ene North region, livestock is the most significant livelihood activity, where 90% of the

estimated 4,740 households have cattle, while in Ohangwena only 44% of 35,938 households

have cattle (Table 1).

2.4 The socio-cultural and economic value of livestock

9


Table 1: Distribution of cattle across households of the Northern Communal Areas.

Region

Number

of HH)

Estimated %

of HH with

cattle

Cattle no.

in 2004

Average no.

of cattle per

HH

Kavango 22,000 56 132,086 6

Ohangwena 35,938 44 175,981 4.9

Oshikoto 26,164 57 191,412 7.3

Oshana 20,689 62 84,236 4.1

Omusati 37,822 51 233,655 6.2

Kunene North 4,740 90 189,052 39.9

TOTAL 147,353 1,006,422

Source: MAWF, 2003

The majority of households in the Omusati, Oshana, Oshikoto and Kavango have no cattle.

Livestock production contributes most to livelihood in the Kunene North region, but de-

creases to a third place in the rest of the NCAs, while wages and pensions become more

significant (Table 2).

Central north areas: Cattle are the most important domestic livestock, it is highly valued and

ownership is associated with high social status. Cattle ownership in the central northern

regions of Namibia is very skewed, such that about 80% of the cattle are owned by 20% of all

the households, while the average cattle per household is about six (Mendelsohn et al. 2000).

Many households have more goats than cattle, such that ownership of goats is more even

among households (Table 3). About 36% of an estimated 2.2 million goats in Namibia are

found in the north central regions of Namibia, especially in Cuvelai drainage system (Men-

delsohn et al. 2002). Female headed households have much fewer livestock than male

headed households.

10


Table 2: Percent contribution of livestock production to total farm-household income by

region*

Ohangwena Omusati Oshana Oshikoto Kavango

Wages & pensions 40% 36% 38% 25% 20%

Crop output value 34% 32% 31% 44% 54%

Livestock output value 10% (32%)** 18% (28%)

17%

(20%)

20%

23%

(42%)

Other cash income 16% 14% 15% 12% 3%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: Farm-household economics survey. Directorate of Planning, MAWF (1997-2001)

* Data were not available for Kunene

** The figures in brackets are based on livestock-owning households (source: MCA-N

Social and Environmental Assessment field team survey data).

Table 3: Livestock distribution among households

% households with Kavango (%) Ohangwena (%) Oshikoto (%) Oshana (%)

Omusati

(%)

No cattle 49 59 57 66 52

30 cattle 39 34 34 30 41

More than 30 cattle 12 7 9 4 7

No goats 59 34 37 37 27

11


% households with Kavango (%) Ohangwena (%) Oshikoto (%) Oshana (%)

Omusati

(%)

30 goats 38 59 50 56 62

More than 30 goats 3 7 13 7 11

No pigs 86 66 57 56 43

Some pigs 14 34 43 44 57

No sheep 99 99 99 93 83

Some sheep 1 1 1 7 17

No donkeys 97 76 72 80 55

Some donkeys 3 24 28 20 45

No poultry 35 8 8 8 7

Some poultry 65 92 92 92 93

Source: Mendelsohn, 2006

As would be expected, poor households have both smaller herd sizes and a greater incidence

of households without livestock. The limited ownership of livestock amongst the poor

coexist with a greater reliance by them on income from livestock sales: this income accounts

for 20% of total income of the poor, but only 10% of total income of the richer households

(Yaron et al., 2006).

In Kavango, livestock owners are supported by diversified sources of livelihood in which

livestock production is constrained by non- pastoral concerns. Households are dependent on

cash incomes and herd sizes are small, few animals are sold and owners are reluctant to

invest in developing communal stock water facilities (Sweet 1998).

12


2.4.1 Livestock ownership

Data on ownership structure of livestock at household level is difficult to obtain as members

of households do not want to provide this type of information. However it is common

practice that men are the heads of households, and control livestock decisions especially

cattle and usually own most of the animals. Unless the husband has passed away, house-

holds are headed by men. The great majority of pastoral societies are male- dominated. The

reason for this is not always clear, but the root cause appears to be related to the importance

of not dispersing viable herds, as reported by Blench (2001). In an exogamous system, if

women can own significant herds of their own, on their marriage these will be taken away

by new family and thereby potentially depleting the herd of her parents’ household.

Cattle are often exchanges, borrowed or pooled between members of a family. For example,

relatives who live elsewhere may have their animals herded with others belonging to a

resident rural family. Herd boys are often family members, and the size of the farming

enterprise is generally related to the number of people in a household. The number of cattle

may further depend on the extent of off-farm income and number of extended family

members who contribute remittances.

The lending of cattle in Kunene North is one way off maintaining kinship ties and enabling

young family members to start their own herds or build them up in the event of loss due to

disease (Mendelsohn 2006). Some households have cattle that are regarded as holy, which in

case of cows, means that their milk or meat is reserved for consumption by people of a

particular lineage. These animals cannot be sold and only be slaughtered for certain ceremo-

nies.

2.4.2 Labour division and occupation in rural households

Different pastoral groups have strong, culturally prescribed norms for division of responsi-

bilities between sexes and age groups (Beruk 2003; Admasu et al. 2010). In the study area the

division of labour is commonly as follows (Table 4):

Table 4: A typical labour division among household members

Type of Activity Persons doing the work

Person responsible that

such work is done

Herding cattle, moving cattle to cattle posts Young boys, Men, head of household

Herding small ruminants, crop cultivation, weeding Children and women Women

13


Type of Activity Persons doing the work

Person responsible that

such work is done

Decisions relating to household chores: fetching

water, collecting firewood, veld fruits

Women, daughters Women

Decision relating to migrating, sale or purchase of

livestock

Husband (man) decides;

boys move the animals

Head of household or

husband

Sales if firewood, veld fruits, fish, etc.

Young boys, daughters,

women

Women

Livestock production is constrained by a number of factors. The north central regions are

mainly plagued by limited availability water and livestock diseases (Table 5). Other con-

straints include insufficient labour available for herding and moving livestock in search of

grazing during dry seasons and drought years. Low fertility is a constraint and calving rates

are usually below 50% (Mendelsohn, 2006). This is because limited efforts are made to

monitor pregnancy, calving, growth rates and the fertility of bulls and cows. Herds expand

when grazing is good, but crash when grass or water is short in supply. Most losses are

caused by disease and insufficient food, which leads to starvation and greater susceptibility

to infections, particularly botulism, anaplasmosis, pasteurellosis and black quarter (Mendel-

sohn, 2006).

Table 5: Constraints of livestock production in the north central regions.

Constraints

Ohangwena (%

of households)

Oshikoto (%of

households)

Oshana (%of

households)

Omusati (%of

households)

Average (%of

households)

Water availability 24 28 19 33 26

Diseases 22 22 16 20 20

2.5 Livestock production constraints

14


Constraints

Ohangwena (%

of households)

Oshikoto (%of

households)

Oshana (%of

households)

Omusati (%of

households)

Average (%of

households)

Rangeland quality 12 12 17 10 13

Land scarcity 14 13 15 6 12

Pests 11 9 11 11 11

Weather conditions 9 9 10 12 10

Soil quality 8 7 12 8 9

TOTAL (%) 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Kaurivi et al. 2010

Livestock production in the Kunene North is limited by frequent droughts and water, while

the latter is also limiting livestock production in the Kavango region.

The formulation of a comprehensive rangeland and livestock management capacity build-

ing strategy and action plan is needed to address constraints posed by livestock diseases,

rangeland degradation, low calving rates and poor livestock nutrition. Furthermore water

infrastructure needs to be provided to open up new grazing areas where that exist for

instance in the southern Kavango region.

Livestock use in Sub-Saharan Africa is multifunctional (Baldwin et al. 2008). Thus attempts

to increase livestock sale should consider livestock uses and household decisions in retaining

or selling the different livestock. Cattle offtake in the NCA is low. In the Ohangwena region

about 18% goats are slaughtered each year, of which the majority is consumed domestically.

It is estimated that 7% cattle are slaughtered with 5.5% being consumed domestically and

only 1.5% sold in the informal market and Meatco (Mendelsohn et al. 2000). A recent survey

for the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (Kaurivi et al. 2010) has shown that on

average 73% of households in the north central Namibia sell their agricultural products in

the informal local markets. The majority of cattle, goats and their derived products traded in

the informal markets in Omusati and Oshana are brought from Kunene North or Angola,

2.6 Livestock Marketing and Marketing Constraints

15


while those traded in Ohangwena region originate largely from Angola (Kirsten 2000).

Locally produced cattle are only sold when sick or old, although goats have a higher offtake

rate. Kunene North is the only region with relatively high offtake of locally produced live-

stock.

A number of factors collude to contribute to the low offtake, particulary for livestock mar-

keted to Meatco, these are:

2.6.1 Food security and social status

The low offtake in the north central regions of Namibia may be explained by the value of

livestock as food resources (e.g. mostly for milk consumption) to be used in the event of food

shortages. Mendelsohn et al. (2000) suggested that the collective experience of seven fam-

ines between 1821 and 1932 may have had an effect on farming strategies such that

pastoralists tend to keep their animals for future use. The other explanation provided is that

cattle have a low calving rate and growth rate, which makes building livestock numbers a

long-term objective. A third explanation may be that keeping many livestock confers a high

social standing and power to the owner within the local community.

In Kunene, Erongo and Omaheke small stock is more regarded as liquid assets that can be

disposed at any time for either consumption or cash. The sale of small stock, particularly

goats is very easy and buyers are also readily available in the informal markets in addition

to the formal market. It is easier for a household to buy a goat for consumption than buying

a cow which it would find too much to consume. Baldwin et al. (2008) suggested that since

small stock are more of liquid asset than cattle, it allow the holder to liquidate a smaller

portion of their total asset base to cover the various cash expenses such as school fees,

clothing and groceries.

Therefore development programs should put more emphasis on increasing the profitability

of small stock production as opposed to cattle production. This is an area that has received

low attention in Namibia, especially in the northern communal areas.

2.6.2 High cash income alternatives

Only a minority of households rely on farm produce to provide for the food intake in the

north central communal areas and in the Kavango region. The majority of households buy

additional food (Mendelsohn et al. 2000). Cash from sales of livestock in the north central

regions is less than 10% (Mendelsohn et al. 2000). This figure has not changed much; it is

now estimated at 12.5%, while old-age pension (22.4%) is the single largest source of cash

income (Kaurivi et al. 2010). The combined majority of cash income (36%) in the north

central communal areas comes from the activities of small and medium enterprises, which

encompass the selling of veld fruits, fish, vegetables, crops, handicraft, local beer, grass,

firewood, labour and milling of grain (Kaurivi et al. 2010).

16


In Kenya, Baldwin et al. (2008) found that households with self-employment had a 9%

higher cattle offtake on average. She attributed this to the need of these households to

finance their home-based businesses. In contrast, households with wage employment had

6% lower offtake than average, suggesting that wages from their employment were used to

cover short term expenses. Weekend farmers in Namibia spend their wages on running

farming activities and household expenses, while only sell when a major need arise, and

hence they rarely sell their animals. A similar observation was also made by Mendelsohn et

al. (2000) that the well off pastoralists in the north central Namibia only sell few of their

livestock when it is be expected that they sell between 15 to 30 % of their livestock annually

consistent with commercial farmers of similar herd sizes south of the veterinary cordon

fence.

Diversification of cash incomes should be further encouraged in the NCAs because the

available land cannot support the many potential livestock producers. Therefore, efforts

should be placed on income generating activities derived from livestock production along

the producer-consumer chain.

2.6.3 Costly transport services

Lack of appropriate transport services at regional and village levels to transport livestock to

auctions and abattoirs, and if available the cost of transportation to markets are seen as

inhibitive (Kaurivi et al. 2010). Livestock producers near markets offer their animals at prices

that are low to cover transport and other transaction costs experienced by remote producers.

In Kenya, Baldwin et al. (2008) have also demonstrated that offtake is higher with proximity

to marketing centers because of reduced transaction costs associated with getting animals

to the marketing centers. Similarly Kirsten et al. (2000) indicated that poor road infrastruc-

ture away from marketing centers constrained livestock trading in the northern communal

areas of Namibia. Since September 2009, Meatco is buying cattle on the hoof, but the prices

received by the farmers are perceived as being too low.

Due to the unavailability of funds to make use of official transport to the market, farmers

bring the livestock on the hoof. This means that the animals loose body condition as a result

of walking long distances without sufficient grazing, water and resting.

Local small enterprises should be encouraged to transport livestock to marketing centers. An

incentive system to promote such enterprises should be devised such as subsidized trans-

port costs for a certain number of animals transported.

2.6.4 Perceived poor prices received at local abattoirs

Poor prices received at local abattoirs and auctions are put forward as one reason why

farmers do not sell their livestock to Meatco (Mendelsohn et al. 2000, Kaurivi et al. 2010).

17


This however does not explain the overall low offtake through both the informal and formal

sectors.

The informal meat market is a growing business consisting of three types of traders mainly

which serve as the link between producers and consumers. Kirsten et al. (2000:99) described

the traders as:

Livestock traders, who buy cattle and goats from producers to sell to butchers at informal

markets such as those in Ombalantu (e.g. Onhimbu Market), Ondangwa and Oshikango;

Butchers, who buy live animals from livestock traders to slaughter and sell meat either to

the public or to meat sellers; and

Meat sellers, who either sell meat for butchers or who buy meat from butchers and sell fresh,

cooked or fried meat.

Marketing of livestock through the informal sector also has its additional challenges and

constraints, these are:

2.6.5 Rudimentary slaughtering facilities and services

The livestock marketing centers are mostly private owned, controlled by the owners and

tribal authorities. Animals are only slaughtered if a permit is approved by the tribal author-

ity to control for theft. In some places the regional councilors also may approve or reject the

slaughtering permits if there is doubt about the origin and ownership of the animal. Slaugh-

tering facilities are very basic and mostly without potable water.

The establishment of veterinary offices will facilitate the issuing of animal movement

permits, and that will reduce livestock theft. The provision of basic facilities will improve

public hygiene.

2.6.6 Meat storage and cooling facilities

The majority of slaughtering / marketing centers are in the open and hygiene could be

problematic. The market / slaughtering places do not have cooling facilities and thus meat

go spoiled if not bought or consumed within a given period.

Entrepreneurs make use of this business opportunity and provide cooling facilities.

2.6.7 Insufficient or lack of fodder and watering services for livestock at holding camps

Sometimes livestock have to wait for some days before slaughtering. In this case the owner

has to take the animal somewhere for grazing. This is a particular problem in the Cuvelai

system where human population density is high and grazing is scarce. Animals loose body

condition as a result.

18


It may be a possibility that owners of marketing centers / slaughtering place provide grass

bales for sale for feeding of animals waiting to be slaughtered.

Access to credit is a big constraint for pastoralists and communal farmers in general since

financial institutions require collateral, which is usually in the form of fixed assets such as

investment or immovable property such as a house in an urban area. According to (Niamir-

Fuller 1994), the most common solution which worked well is where a bank acts as a ‘whole-

sale’ agency that make aggregate loans available to approved village-level ‘retail’

institutions such as NGOs that further lend on to individuals pastoralists or organized

groups of local cooperatives. This approach could be viable in Namibia where excellently

performing NGOs exist in local communities, and such NGOs could be incentivized by giving

them a performance bonus if a certain percentage of success in terms of loan repayment is

achieved. A repayment of less than the value of the purchased asset (in case of in-kind loan)

can also be applied for vulnerable and marginalized groups in the community; and a grace

period until the asset starts to generate an income similarly to the Affirmative Action Loans

(AALS) of the Agricultural Bank on Namibia for full time farmers. The use of livestock as

collateral could also be considered.

Furthermore, several savings and credit schemes have been set up in the Northern Commu-

nal Areas through for instance RISE Namibia. The scheme is aimed at assisting rural farmers

who are unable to secure financial support from commercial banking institutions due to lack

of collateral (RISE, 2009).

2.7 Microfinance / credit extension

19


3 Survey Methods

The study covered five regions making up the northern communal areas (NCAs) of Namibia,

namely Ohangwena, Kavango, Kunene North, Oshikoto and Omusati. Although Oshana was

not covered, local conditions in terms of culture, farming practices and landscape of the

Oshikoto and the south eastern Omusati regions are similar to that of Oshana.

A semi-structured questionnaire was used obtain the required data relating to the socio-

economic, cultural issues of livestock husbandry and rangeland management. Focus discus-

sions were held with constituency councilors and MAWF staff in Ohangwena and Kavango

regions; the councillor of Okahao in Sheya Shuushona village; in Kunene North discussion

were held with the Ehi rovipuka Conservancy Committee and councilor of the constituency.

In communities were informants where many, the respondents were divided into two to

three groups and then they were interviewed as a group. Efforts were made to solicit re-

sponse from all members. The sample size of the respondents interviewed was large enough

to provide sufficient reliable regional sample estimates (Table 6).

Table 6: Number of respondents


MAWF (DEES, DVS, Forestry) 5 5 3 2 3

Constituency Councilors 1 2 1 0 1

Community Forest/ Conservancy members 8 9 10 3 9

Community Development Committee 0 28 0 0 0

Community members: Old men 8 5 7 3 4

3.1 Study area

3.2 Data collection

20



Community members: Young men 5 8 13 4 3

Community members: Old women 2 9 8 5 4

Community members: Young women 4 7 12 3 4

Total 33 73 54 20 28

21


4 Findings from the fieldwork

The land is communal, but there exists unequal open access to all rangeland. Men in general

and traditional authorities in particular were singled out as decisions makers with regards to

the use of rangeland. Considering this unequal access, previous interventions did not

benefit women and vulnerable groups as it has been intended.

The continued benefits accrued in terms of land use are dependent on assured sustainable

access to land. Although every citizen has a right to own land which is easily accessible for

different uses as contained in the land board regulations there are serious land use conflicts

within the community forestries and conservancies. Inconsistencies in land allocation and

management, coupled with the incidents of informal ‘farm’ establishments or private

fencing of huge track of land, double land allocation and lack of record keeping by the

headman are overwhelming everywhere.

Exemptions could be made for Ehirovipuka and Sheya Shuushona, but most of the existing

land use related problems are exacerbated by lack of an integrated land use plan and the

absence of surveyed to facilitate land allocations by traditional/tribal authorities. There is

currently no clear separation of land uses particularly for homesteads, grazing areas and

arable fields. The land registration process that is underway (supported by MCA) will facili-

tate better land allocations and management of rangelands.

Livestock in the study area comprises of cattle, goats, sheep, donkeys, horses, chicken, do-

mesticated guinea fowls and pigs. Cattle, goats and chicken are prominent in all areas while

pigs are less popular. Donkeys are used for draft power and seem to be less valued, and no

specific consideration is given to management issues. Chicken are owned and controlled by

women, while domesticated guinea fowls attract involvement from both women and men.

Cattle are culturally, socially and monetary highly valued and prioritised.

4.1 Land use

4.2 Livestock farming

22


4.2.1 Number of households owning cattle

Five hundred households across the NCAs were sampled to determine distribution of live-

stock per household with consideration for female headed households. The five hundred

households owning cattle were divided into three categories (small, medium and large)

according to the cattle herd sizes (Fig. 1, Table 7). Ehirovipuka conservancy had the highest

number of households with cattle numbering from 1 to 50. The majority of households in

Omufitu Wekuta (Ohangwena), Katope (Kavango), Onkumbula (Oshikoto) and Sheya

Shuushona (Omusati) had cattle numbering from 51 to 100. In all regions big herd owners are

few. There are also individual farmers who have well over 350 herds of cattle. These figures

only consider households with cattle and are generally higher than those reported in the

literature review.

Figure 1. Number of cattle distributed among household in sample settlements in the NCAs

23


Table 7: Number of households in selected villages, number of households and livestock per

households

Region Area

No. of

traditional

villages

No. of

people

in

villages

No. of

households

(HHs)

Women

headed

HHs

No. of

cattle

in

villages

No. of

cattle

per HH

N0 of

cattle per

women

headed

HH

Ohangwena

Omufitu wekuta

Community Forest

8 1,920 384 10 10,300 27 10

Kavango

Katope community

forest

8 990 110 5 4000 36 10

Kunene

Ehirovipuka Conser-

vancy

14 9300 1330 50 15000 11 4

Oshikoto Onkumbula 25 2585 517 200 12,200 24 4

Omusati

Sheya shuushona

Conservancy

19 3000 530 300 13,100 25 14

4.2.2 Reasons for keeping livestock

Keeping livestock is a traditional way of banking, while allowing the herd to increase yearly

is a means of accumulating interest on the investment. Therefore it won’t be easy for most

traditional livestock producers to understand that they are overstocking. The uses of live-

stock are summarized as bellow in terms of priorities (Table 8).

24


Table 8: Livestock types and their uses

Livestock type Uses

Social uses: marriage dowries, weddings, religious rituals.

Consumptive uses: meat, milk, fat.

Cultural uses: hides / skins for garments; meat at funeral and religious

rituals; horns for grave sites decoration (only practiced in Kunene North).

Cattle

Investment and financial uses: general household cost, savings, cash for

payment of school fees; hospital bills; fines. There exists a set of defined

payment structure for various offences that may take place within

communities of NCA. Farming operating cost is also covered by selling of

livestock.

Other uses: manure for soil nutrient enrichment for crop production;

dung for temporary dwellings (only in Kunene North).

Goats

Consumption of meat and milk; for cash income. Goats are sold more

frequently then cattle.

Other uses: manure for soil nutrient enrichment for crop production

Consumptive uses: meat and eggs.

Chicken and

guinea fowls

Cash income: domesticated guinea fowls are now common in Ohang-

wena, Oshikoto, Oshana and Omusati regions and they are bred mainly

for selling. A matured live guinea fowl can easily fetch N$300 as compare

to N$70 for a rooster of the same size.

Don-

keys/horses

Used for draft power and transportation

25


4.2.3 Potential Areas of Expansion or value addition in livestock by-products

Respondents identified potential opportunities for the expansion or value addition in cur-

rently under-utilised livestock by-products that could be viable if markets are developed for

these products. These by-products include: hides and skins, hoofs, bones, horns, blood and

manure. Other identified needs are the development of skills to process biltong, sausages

and milk into yoghurts, cheese and butter.

4.2.4 Socio-cultural challenges of livestock management and husbandry

Decision-making institutions

Mobility of pastoral nomads or pastoral transhumance requires often decisions about

directions and time of movement, places of encampment, who does what and ways of

maintaining group solidarity. Clear systems of authority have emerged; therefore this is the

domain of men head of households. In all region covered by the study, men in general decide

when and where to take animals for grazing.

In a pastoral sedentary, decision for grazing is done by men in consultation with their wives.

Young men mostly take care of livestock in Ohangwena, Kavango, Oshikoto and Omusati,

while in Kunene North, particularly amongst the Ovaherero, it is mainly women and girls

who take care of livestock at household level, responsible for herding, milking and some

husbandry practices such as controlling external parasites. In general, decision making

power on livestock (cattle and goats/sheep) at household level is invested in men, while

traditional authorities decide on land allocation and rangeland management. Decisions in

conservancy areas are made by relevant authorities and conservancy management commit-

tee members who comprise of men and women.

Dehorning

Dehorning of cattle is not an accepted norm in all NCA regions except in Kunene North.

However, for some clans in Kunene North rearing dehorned cattle is a taboo to the extent

that such clans do not consume milk or meat from dehorned cattle.

Castration, selection of bulls and breeding

Skills of local farmers should be built to apply proper castration practices for male animals

and selection of bulls. An inhumane way of castration has been recorded in Kunene

whereby the testicles of the animal were crushed with a stone. Although selection of bulls is

practiced it is done from animals from the same kraal. This increases inbreeding and the

breeding of poorly performing herds. Introduction of bulls from elsewhere will enhance

fertility rates, body condition and general health of herds. The current use ratio of one bull

per 100 cows in the NCAs needs to be reduced if calving rate is to be improved.

26


Branding

Branding is compulsory and done by all as a means of identifying cattle. Almost all cattle

owners received certificate of registration of their brand. Unbranded animals are not permit-

ted at auctions. Currently animals in the NCAs are not tagged with the FANMeat eartags.

Herding

Herding is conducted throughout the year, especially in the north central regions of the

NCAs. In Ohangwena and Oshikoto, livestock are taken by young men to Angola about 90-

100 km afar where they stay for nine months or more and then brought back during rainy

season. Taking livestock to Angola involves three to four days walking, which make it

difficult for women to be involved. Some herding of livestock from Oshikoto and Ohang-

wena is done in the Kavango region during the day and then animals are brought back for

kraaling at night.

Availability of extension services

The agricultural extension services in Kunene North is more advanced and technicians are

more responsive in advising livestock producers on the type of drugs to buy and assist them

in vaccinations, while in other regions the technicians concentrate on crop farming. There-

fore, there is a need to improve extension services in livestock husbandry in the NCAs.

4.2.5 Rangeland constraints in livestock production

Bush encroachment

Bush encroachment is a problem in Ohangwena, Oshikoto and in some areas of Kavango

region. The Councilor of Okongo constituency in Ohangwena recalled how demonstration

plots for NOLIDEP and SARDEP in controlling bush encroachment were successful in increas-

ing grass production. This, unfortunately is no longer used and no rolling-out of these

lessons are taking place. According to the respondents lack of burning is also leading to bush

encroachment. Unwanted grass and poisonous bush such as okambango (Gifblaar), are on

the increase especially in Ohangwena region.

Livestock diseases and nutrition deficiency

The main problems identified are lack of drugs and know-how to identify diseases and

administer drugs. The common diseases are: Lung sickness, Botulism, lumpy skin diseases,

measles (tape worm), scab on small stock, internal and external parasites and lumps. Sup-

plementary feeding is limited to salt blocks in all regions. Lack of supplementary feeding,

drugs and lack of animal Husbandry skills and technical know-how in all regions are the

major concern hampering livestock development hence skills training is required.

27


Drought mitigation

Inhabitants cope with drought by migrating to areas with better grazing. In recent years the

number of farmers migrating to southern Angola has increased.

Water availability and management of water points

The main water sources are boreholes equipped with hand pumps and traditional wells.

Several challenges were highlighted related to water supply for both livestock and human

consumption. These include: water quality and quantity, maintenance of water infrastruc-

ture, payments for fuels, repair, and lack of skills to operate the water point.

Livestock marketing decisions are made jointly by husband and wife. Women headed

households made marketing decisions with their elder sons or other elder relatives in the

household. Decisions regarding management and marketing of chicken is confined to

women and it is regarded as a taboo in all regions if a man is seen or heard interfering in

women’s -chicken sphere.

The respondents complain that they lose out when selling cattle on hoofs to Meatco because

they cannot make use of hides, heads, hoofs and internal organs. Meatco does not grade the

skin and livestock producers are also not paid for the head and the off-falls.

The closure of the Rundu abattoir was singled out as a major marketing obstacle in Kavango,

which if opened can also supply hides to the Ondangwa Tannery. The Ondangwa Tannery is

currently also closed. The 21 days quarantine of cattle was another marketing problem

identified in Kunene North. Considering the availability of market in Angola, the respon-

dents in Kavango proposed that a slaughter house be built at Nkurenkuru.

4.3.1 Opportunities for women involvement in livestock production and marketing/trade

Women’s role in livestock and rangeland management can be increased in small stock and

chicken production, sales and marketing. Women’s involvement can also be strengthened

through assisting them in income generation activities and in value addition to by-products

such horns and bones to produce numerous valued products, sales of meat products, and

participate in negotiating livestock prices at point of sale. Therefore women can be empow-

ered through training and include them in various livestock and rangeland committees and

business opportunities. Further women can be encouraged in joining farmers union, which

can better advocates for their practical and strategic needs in relation to livestock and

rangeland management.

4.3 Livestock marketing

28


5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Land use and tenure

The options of moving livestock to unused areas to relieve grazing pressure in existing

villages during dry years is becoming increasingly limited in arid environments due to high

human population growth. Therefore the future of sustainable rangelands lies with the

combined management of stocking rates and rotational grazing and perhaps the creation of

small rangeland enclosures for the conservation of forage resources.

The capacity of local institutions in land allocation, management of livestock, water points

and rangelands should also be strengthened.

Rangeland condition

Unless appropriate rangeland management practices are introduced, the confinement of

animals in small camps and along corridors particularly in the north central communal

areas will continue to degrade rangeland resources. This will increase the prevalence of

unpalatable invasive species, reduce perennial pastures and increase drought vulnerability

of livestock production.

The increased use of Angolan rangelands by Namibian farmers cannot continue forever. The

formalization of cattle sales and export will require tight control of livestock movement

across the border to prevent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease.

Livestock husbandry and production constraints

The will be an increasing need to keep livestock numbers within the limits of the variable

carrying capacity of the northern communal areas of Namibia. Thus the opportunistic

stocking rates should be practiced.

Livestock production and marketing intervention should take cognizance of the multiple

socio-cultural and economic uses of livestock in the NCAs.

The formulation of a comprehensive rangeland and livestock management capacity build-

ing strategy and action plan is needed to address constraints posed by livestock diseases,

rangeland degradation, low calving rates and poor livestock nutrition. Furthermore water

infrastructure needs to be provided to open up new grazing areas where that exist for

instance in the southern Kavango region.

29


More emphasis should be placed on productive animals with required body weight, calving

rates, than on quantity of stock.

Diversification of cash incomes should be further encouraged in the NCAs because the

available land cannot support the many potential livestock producers. Therefore, efforts

should be placed on income generating activities derived from livestock production along

the producer-consumer chain.

Livestock marketing and marketing constraints

Local small and medium enterprises should be encouraged to provide transport services for

livestock to marketing centers. An incentive system to promote such enterprises should be

considered to subsidize transport costs when a certain number of animals transported.

The establishment of veterinary offices will facilitate the issuing of animal movement

permits, and that will reduce livestock theft and spread of animal diseases.

Development programs should put more emphasis on increasing the profitability of small

stock production as opposed to cattle production. This is an area that has received low

attention in Namibia, especially in the northern communal areas.

It may be a possibility that owners of marketing centers / slaughtering place provide grass

bales for sale for feeding of animals waiting to be slaughtered. Entrepreneurs may also

consider providing cooling facilities at slaughtering places and marketing centers.

Microfinance / credit extension

Credit extension to farming communities, women and vulnerable groups should be consid-

ered the format of using banks as a ‘wholesale’ agency that make aggregate loans available

to approved village-level ‘retail’ institutions such as NGOs that further lend on to individuals

pastoralists or organized groups of local cooperatives. This approach could be viable in

Namibia where excellently performing NGOs exist in local communities, and such NGOs

could be incentivized by giving them a performance bonus if a certain percentage of success,

in terms of loan repayment, is achieved.

30


6 References

Abel, N.O.J. (1993). Reducing cattle numbers on Southern African communal range: Is

it worth it? In: Behnke, R. H., Scoones, I. & Kerven, C. (1993). Range ecology at disequi-

librium: new models of natural variability and pastoral adaptation in African

savannas. Pp. 173 – 195. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Abule, E., Snyman, H.A., and Smit, G.N. 2005. Comparisons of pastoralists’ perceptions

about rangeland resource utilization in the Middle Awash Valley of Ethiopia. Journal

of Environmental Management 75: 21-35.

Admasu, T., Abule, E., and Tessema, Z. (2010). Livestock-rangeland management

practices and community perceptions towards rangeland degradation in South Omo

zone of Southern Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Vol. 22, article

no. 5. Retrieved on 01 June 2010, on http://www.Lrrd.org/Lrrd22/1/tere/22005.htm

Ainslie A 1998. When ‘community’ is not enough: managing common property

natural resources in rural South Africa. Development Southern Africa 16: 375–401.

Baldwin, K.L., DeVeau, V., Foster, K. and Marshall, M. 2008. Traits Affecting House-

hold Livestock Marketing Decisions in Rural Kenya. Paper prepared for presentation

at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL,

July 27-29, 2008.

Benjaminsen, A., Cousins, B. and Thompson, L. 2002. Contested resources: challenges

to the governance of natural resources in Southern Africa. Programme for Land and

Agrarian Studies (PLAAS). School of Governance, University of Western Cape.

Beruk, Y. 2003. Drought and famine in the pastoral areas of Ethiopia. Proceedings of

Conference on Pastoral Development in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pastoral Fo-

rum Ethiopia, pp: 156-189.

De Klerk, J.N. 2004. Bush encroachment in Namibia: report on Phase 1 of the Bush

Encroachment Research, Monitoring and Management Project. Ministry of Environ-

ment and Tourism, Government of the Republic of Namibia. John Meinert Printing,

Windhoek, Namibia.

Ellis, J.E., and D.M. Swift. 1988. Stability of African pastoral ecosystems: alternate

paradigms and implications for development. Journal of Range Management 41:450-

459.

31


Hoffman, M.T. and Todd, S. 2000. A national review of land degradation in South

Africa: the influence of biophysical and socio-economic factors. Journal of Southern

African Studies 26: 743–758.

Illius, A.W., and T.G. O’Connor. 1999. On the relevance of nonequilibrium concepts to

arid and semiarid grazing systems. Ecological Applications 9:798-813.

Kirsten, J.P. et al. 2000. Livestock marketing in the Northern Communal Areas of

Namibia: Livestock producer marketing strategies as informal trade in live animals,

meat, hides and skins. Final report. Northern Regions Livestock Development Project

(NOLIDEP). Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development. Government of

the Republic of Namibia. Windhoek.

Katjiua, M. and Ward, D. 2007. Pastoralists’ perceptions and realities of vegetation

change and browse consumption in the northern Kalahari, Namibia. Journal of Arid

Environments 69: 716–730.

Kaurivi, J. Z. U. Katjiua, M., Thomas, B., Maharero, T. and Tjiho, G. 2010. Sustainable

Alternative Livelihood Diversification Survey: Ohangwena, Omusati, Oshana and

Oshikoto. CPP NAM CALLC Programme , Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry.

Government of the Republic of Namibia. Windhoek.

Niamir, M. 1994. Traditional African range management techniques: Implications for

rangeland development. In: Community Forestry: Herders’ Decision-making in Natu-

ral Resources Management in Arid and Semi-Arid Africa, Community Forestry Unit,

FODP, FAO, 00100 Via delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome, Italy.

Nott, C and Goldberg, K. 2010. Inspiring initiative: Development of sustainable range-

land management practices in the communal lands of Namibia. January 2010.

Mendelsohn, J., A. Jarvis, C. Roberts, and T. Robertson. 2002. Atlas of Namibia: a

portrait of the land and its people. David Publishers, Cape Town, South Africa.

Mendelsohn, J., el Obeid, S. and Roberts, C. 2000. A profile of North-central Namibia.

Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Government of the Republic of Namibia.

Windhoek.

Moyo, B., Dube, S., Lesoli, M., and Masika, P.J. 2008. Communal area grazing strategies:

institutions and traditional practices. African Journal of Range and Forage Science

25(2): 47–54.

Ndikumana J., Stuth, J.W., Kamadi, R., Kamadi, S., Ossiya, R., Marambii, and Hamlett, P.

2001. Coping mechanisms and their efficacy in disaster-prone pastoral systems of the

32


greater horn of Africa: effects of the 1995-97 droughts and the 1997-98 El-nino and the

responses of pastoralists and livestock.

Oba, G. 1998. Assessment of indigenous range management knowledge of the Borana

pastoralists of Southern Ethiopia. Borana Low Land Pastoral Development Pro-

gramme/GTZ Consultancy paper, Negele/Borana, May 1998.

RISE, 2009. Saving and Credit Schemes for Communal farmers and rural Entrepre-

neurs (Oshana, Ohangwena, Omusati and Oshikoto Regions). Retrieved on 24 June, on

http://risenamibia.org/services.html

Sweet, J. 1998. Livestock – coping with drought: Namibia – a case study. Northern

Regions Livestock Development Project. Tsumeb. December, 1998.

Vigne, P. 2005. Reconsidering policies to encourage formal livestock marketing in the

Northern Communal Areas: Policy analysis and recommendations. National Agricul-

tural Support Services Programme (NASSP). Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural

Development. Namibia. Windhoek.

Ward, D., B.T. Ngairorue, J. Kathena, R. Samuels and Y. Ofran. 1998. Land degradation

is not a necessary outcome of communal pastoralism in arid Namibia. Journal of Arid

Environments 40:357-371.

Quan, J., Barton, D. and Conroy, C. 1994. The Economic Impact of Desertification in

Northern Communal Areas Uukwaluudhi: A Preliminary Assessment of the economic

Impact of Desertification in Namibia.