Kalahari Namib Project National Baseline Assessment NAMIBIA

Home , Aminuis, Aminuis Constituency, Kalahari Basin, Omaheke Region, Witvlei

REPORT 1 – Situation Analysis

First Draft, 20 April 2012 Final Document, 25 June 2012

Prepared By: Integrated Environmental Consultants Namibia (IECN) cc P.O. Box 86634, Eros, Windhoek, Namibia Phone: +264 (0)61 249204 Fax: +264 (0)61 249205 http://www.iecn-namibia.com

Prepared For: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) South Africa Office, 3rd Floor, SAQA House, 1067 Arcadia Street Hatfield 0028, Pretoria, South Africa Tel: + 27 12 342 8304/5/6, Fax: + 27 12 342 8289 www.iucn.org

Ministry of Environment and Tourism Department of Environmental Affairs Country Pilot Partnership for Integrated Sustainable Land Management P/Bag 13306, Windhoek, Namibia Tel: + 264 61 284 2111/2701, Fax: + 264 61 240 339 www.met.gov.na

Table of Contents List of Acronyms ...... 5

List of Tables ...... 6

List of Figures ...... 7

PART 1: The context ...... 8

1.1 Background to the Kalahari Namib Project (KNP) and the national baseline assessment ...... 8

1.1.1 KNP background ...... 8

1.1.2 The national baseline assessment ...... 10

1.1.3 Structure of the Namibian baseline reports ...... 11

PART 2: Trends in land degradation in project sites ...... 12

2.1 The Molopo-Nossop basin in Namibia – a profile ...... 12

2.1.1 The Molopo-Nossop basin – Namibia site ...... 12

2.1.2 Zooming in on the communal farming area around Aminuis and Corridor Post 13...... 20

2.1.3 Profiles of the Pilot Community Sites ...... 21

2.2 A brief link to national and rural development planning ...... 27

2.3 Existing national and local methodologies and reporting frameworks for land degradation ...... 28

2.4 Extent and nature of land degradation in the project site ...... 29

2.4.1 Land degradation trends in the basin ...... 29

2.4.2. Extent and Causes of Land Degradation in the Kalahari Namib Project communal area ...... 32

2.4.3 Land degradation baseline at Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 ...... 33

2.4.4 Summary discussion ...... 44

2.5 Critique of perceptions and findings ...... 45

2.6 Additional and related concerns ...... 46

PART 3: Gaps and challenges in achieving sustainable land management in the Molopo-Nossop basin – Namibia ...... 47

3.1 Drivers of land degradation ...... 47 3.2 Root causes ...... 48

3.3 Capacity gaps, information gaps and constraints to implementation of known SLM approaches (barriers) ...... 51

3.4 Institutional relationships ...... 55

PART 4: Existing innovations and SLM good practice ...... 62

4.1 Catalogue of SLM best practices relevant to the KNP area from project area, Namibia at large and world wide ...... 62

PART 5: Recommendations for improved adaptation of SLM good practice and theories of change ...... 73

5.1 Recommendations for specific solutions to land degradation that could be piloted by the KNP and associated theories of change ...... 73

5.1.1 Proposed theory of change for the pilot sites ...... 74

5.1.2 Proposed theory of change for the basin ...... 77

5.2 Necessary steps to ensure longevity of SLM interventions ...... 79

Implementation mechanisms (links to associations, communities) ...... 79

Practical, technical and capacity support ...... 80

Making that link to strategic development planning ...... 80

A note on impact assessment ...... 80

References ...... 81

Annex 1: Terms of Reference ...... 83

Annex 2: Detailed maps for the Mopolo-Nossob basin – Namibia site ...... 84

Annex 3: Resource maps from PRA at pilot community sites...... 85

Annex 4: Catalogue of SLM good practices relevant to KNP and pilot community sites ...... 86

List of Acronyms AFA Aminuis Farmers Association CBNRM Community-based Natural Resource Management CHC Community Health Club CFC Community Forestry Committee CLB Communal Land Board CPP ISLM Country Pilot Partnership for Integrated Sustainable Land Management DEA Department of Environmental Affairs DEES Directorate of Engineering and Extension Services DRFN Desert Research Foundation of Namibia DRWSSC Department of Rural Water Supply, Sanitation and Coordination EMA No7 of 2007 Environmental Management Act No 7 of 2007 FIRM Forum for Integrated Resource Management FSREA Farming Systems Research and Extension Approach GEF Global Environmental Facility IECN Integrated Environmental Consultants Namibia IUCN-ESARO International Union for the Conservation of Nature Eastern and Southern Regional Office LUEB Land Use and Environmental Board M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MAWF Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry MET Ministry of Environment and Tourism MLR Ministry of Lands and Resettlement MoHSS Ministry of Health and Social Services MoE Ministry of Education MoWT Ministry of Works and Transport MRLGHRD Ministry of Regional, Local Government, Housing and Rural Development MYNSSC Ministry of Youth, National Service, Sport and Culture NAPCOD Namibia Programme to Combat Desertification NDPs National Development Plans NNFU Namibia National Farmers Union NPC National Planning Commission OFA Otjinene Farmers Association PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PSEILUP Promoting Environmental Sustainability through Improved Land Use Planning RC Regional Council SADC Southern African Development Community SARDEP Sustainable Animal and Rangeland Development Programme SGP Small Grants Programme SIP IR4 Strategic Investment Programme for sustainable land management in Sub-Saharan Africa – Intermediate Result 4 SLM Sustainable Land Management SME Small to Medium Enterprise TAs Traditional Authorities UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme VOC Vulnerable & Orphan Children WPC Water Point Committee

List of Tables

Table 1: A brief overview of the two pilot sites of the Kalahari Namib Project Namibia, Aminuis and Corridor Post 13. Table 2: A break-down of the sites selected for ‘expert’ land condition assessments for the baseline of the Kalahari Namib Project. Table 3: Data for the environmental parameters measured at Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 in March 2012. Table 4: Shows the composition of the grass species identified in the sites (quadrant) during field work in Aminuis (AA, AB, AC) and Corridor Post 13 (CA, CB, CC). Table 5: Depicts the species identified at the sites in Amuinuis and Corridor Post 13, Omahehe region. Table 6: Rainfall figures in Aminuis settlement, Omaheke region for the period October 2006 to March 2012. Table 7: Indicates the type and number of livestock found in the two pilot sites. Table 8. Summary of LD drivers, symptoms and some root causes as perceived by community members at Aminuis and Corridor Post 13. Table 9: Symptoms of land degradation and root cause at Aminuis. Table 10: Symptoms of land degradation and root cause at Corridor Post 13. Table 11: Shows the existing capacity, information and policy gaps for successful implementation of SLM approaches. Table 12: Highlights the barrier/challenges to the implementation of SLM projects. Table 13: Opportunities for SLM interventions identified at Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 consultations. Table 14: The local dynamics of governance with regards land management in the KNP area as per perceptions of communities; acquired through PRA exercises in community meetings for the KNP baseline. Table 15 A brief overview and analysis of previous SLM interventions relevant to the KNP area. Table 16: Proposed outcomes and outputs for the community level theories of change. Table 17: Theories of change for the KNP pilot communities. Table 18: Proposed outcomes and outputs for the basin level theories of change. Table 19: Theories of change for the basin.

List of Figures

Figure 1: The Molopo-Nossob River Basin is the target area for the Kalahari Namib Project and covers parts of Botswana, Namibia and South Africa; the specific target communities in Namibia are indicated Figure 2: Population density of the Nossob basin per km2 Figure 3: Land tenure and uses in the Nossob basin. Figure 4: Map shows the Average Annual rainfall of the Nossob basin. Figure 5: Minimum temperature of the Nossob Basin. Figure 6: Soil types found in the Nossob basin. Figure 7: Different vegetation type found in the Nossob basin. Figure 8: Overview of communal area. Figure 9: Aerial photograph of Aminuis. Figure 10: Aerial photograph of Corridor Post 13. Figure 11: Land degradation trends. Figure 13: Sites selected for ‘expert’ land condition assessments for the Kalahari Namib Project. Figure 14: Rainfall trends at Aminuis settlement, Omaheke region for the period October 2006 to March 2012. Figure 15: A representative sample of communal farmers in the Nossob basin area are asked to determine the extent of land degradation in the area. Figure 16: Graph showing the rate of degradation in the Aminuis and Corridor post. Figure 17: Sources of income of a representative sample of communal farmers in the KNP Namibia area. Figure 18: Level of knowledge of roles of farmers associations and organisations of a representative sample of communal farmers in the KNP Namibia area. Figure 19: Local perceptions on the drivers of land degradation of a representative sample of communal farmers in the KNP Namibia area. Figure 20: Summary synthesis of the land degradation context in the KNP communal area. Figure 21: Perceptions on the barriers and challenges to SLM in the KNP Namibia area. Figure 22: Frequency of agricultural extension support and visits; perceptions of a representative sample of communal farmers in the KNP Namibia area. Figure 23: Interaction between the drivers, pressure, state, impact and responses of land degradation in Aminuis and Corridor Post 13. Figure 24: The current structure of Farmers Associations in Namibia, using Omaheke region, and Aminuis District, as an example.

PART 1: The context

1.1 Background to the Kalahari Namib Project (KNP) and the national baseline assessment

1.1.1 KNP background The Kalahari Namib Project (KNP) is a transboundary sustainable land management intervention of the Governments of Botswana, Namibia and South Africa. Understanding that the sustainable management of natural resources in the Molopo-Nossop River Basin (Figure 1) is of great concern to livelihood opportunities for local communities living there, a full-sized project (FSP) was prepared and is being financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The transboundary project is supported by UNEP and implemented through the Eastern and Southern African Regional Office (ESARO) of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Figure 1: The Molopo-Nossob River Basin is the target area for the Kalahari Namib Project and covers parts of Botswana, Namibia and South Africa. The specific target communities that were proposed during the project preparatory phase for Namibia (MET 2009a) are indicated by a red star.

The Kalahari Namib area faces considerable challenges to sustainable land management. Continued land degradation, loss of biodiversity and primary productivity, and ultimately the functioning of the ecosystem in larger areas of the Kalahari-Namib region in three countries is a reflection of the

8 situation. This has been attributed to inappropriate land use practices such as livestock densities and related management practices, water point establishment and distribution, gaps in knowledge and knowledge sharing, weak governance and land tenure arrangements, limited access to markets in some areas, as well as policies which may not be applied properly or which are inappropriate for the changing conditions within the target areas (UNEP, 2010)

This transboundary project aims to find ways to overcome these challenges and move towards sustainable land management through interactive learning and sharing of best practice sustainable land management. The overall goal of the Kalahari-Namib project is to support communities and policy makers in Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to effectively implement and upscale sustainable land management (SLM) in the Molopo-Nossob basin area; this will improve the livelihoods and maintain the integrity and functioning of the whole Kalahari-Namib ecosystem. The project facilitates the sharing of information and knowledge, and aims to provide support to decision makers at all levels of natural resource management, including farmers and their institutions, local and national governments, as well as regional bodies such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

In order to achieve the overall goal, the project consists of five major components, namely:

Component 1: Baseline Assessment; Component 2: Community-based SLM (including pilot demonstration of best practices) and Transboundary Management of Molopo-Nossob River Basin; Component 3: Enhanced Regional Decision-Making and Exchange of Best Practices and Lessons Learnt; Component 4: Income Generating Activities Supported by Improved Services; Component 5: Monitoring and Evaluation; and Component 6: Project Management

The overall approach to the KNP is the application of an “Interactive Environmental Learning and Action Approach” (UNEP, 2010), which guides all interventions under the project. The approach is based on the premise that farmers have to learn from their mistakes and use their experiences to change their farming practice. In order to do so, they have to identify best practices in the area or the region and change their strategies to adapt and be suitable to their circumstances. It is an open and iterative process where new ideas are implemented, tested, reviewed, evaluated and adjusted to suit local circumstances. An ongoing monitoring, evaluation and learning (M&E&L) loop forms the basis for this approach (UNEP, 2010).

In Namibia, the KNP was officially launched at the inception workshop which took place in June 2011. The project is implemented through the Country Partner Pilot Partnership for Integrated Sustainable Land Management (CPP for ISLM), a national multi-partner approach towards addressing the land degradation and sustainable management challenge in Namibia in the long-term. A small programme unit at the Ministry of Environment and Tourism’s (MET) Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) coordinates the CCP for ISLM. The KNP is administered and supported by the programme unit.

1.1.2 The national baseline assessment As a first step in the implementation of the KNP, and as part of component 1 of the project, three national baseline studies have been commissioned, one in each partner country. They aim to collect detailed knowledge describing the existing situation at the study sides. As such, they establish the current land condition at selected sites in the project areas, as well as socio-economic contexts that determine land management and livelihood outcomes in the target areas. Foundation knowledge of potential sustainable land management interventions suitable to the existing land degradation threats and local circumstances is to be determined. Expected outcomes of the baseline assessment include an increased understanding of SLM issues by the project teams in the three countries, and by relevant policy makers, local communities and institutions. Targeted foundation knowledge is to be generated on the SLM context on site as well as scientific rigorous and well designed SLM and project monitoring and evaluation systems.

In Namibia, Integrated Environmental Consultants Namibia (IECN) was commissioned to undertake the national baseline assessment. In conjunction with the CPP team and IUCN, the approach to the assessment was developed and methodologies were designed. A regional workshop was held by IUCN in February 2012 in South Africa, bringing together the baseline teams from the three partner countries.

Taking up the leads from the project preparatory phase (Namibia Country Study; MET, 2009), it was decided to undertake the overall baseline assessment within the Namibian confines of the basin previously established. Out of three proposed project intervention sites chosen for detailed engagement, namely Aminuis, Corridor Post 13 and Vaalgras, it was decided by MET and IUCN to work with the first two.

Recognizing the “Interactive Environmental Learning and Action Approach”, emphasizing collective learning and the evaluation of decision-making, active participation of all decision-makers responsible for the joint management of natural resources from the community-level to the regional and national levels, have been engaged in the baseline assessment process.

In Namibia, the baseline assessment was carried out through a three-pronged approach: 1. Desk-top studies and expert consultations 2. Stakeholder consultations and awareness workshops 3. Field assessment (biophysical and socio-economic).

The MET, through the CPP, conducted two awareness workshops on the KNP and SLM issues on 26 March 2012 in Aminuis and on 27 March 2012 in Corridor Post 13. Representatives from various villages within Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 took part in the meetings. These meetings marked the continuation from the project preparation and inception phases into the project implementation phase. IECN further facilitated joint learning sessions on project relevant issues, feeding into the baseline.

1.1.3 Structure of the Namibian baseline reports The Namibian baseline assessment is presented in two stand alone reports: (1) the situation analysis and (2) the monitoring and evaluation and baseline information. There are clear linkages between the two reports. Following the Terms of Reference (TOR, Annex 1), there are six distinct sections covered in the two reports. In summary they contain the following information:

REPORT 1: Situation Analysis This report contains five parts, including an introduction (Part 1) that sets the context to the baseline assessment.

Part 2 of the situation analysis provides a technical and scientifically rigorous background to the larger project site in Namibia, depicting SLM relevant baseline information throughout the demarcated Molopo-Nossop River Basin. The information is mostly based on available national information that has been tailored to the basin, and is presented in the form of maps. There is little specific information on the current land condition and other SLM parameters available for the entire catchment area at this scale. Some available indicative information is linked to the existing land tenure and management arrangements that prevail in the project site. Through community consultations conducted as part of the baseline assessment, local perceptions of land condition and SLM parameters were documented for the communal areas in the project site, which form the target area for the KNP pilot interventions. Detailed assessment information for the two selected project sites in Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 was collected and profiled. The specific indicators used are described in detail in REPORT 2, and are cross-referenced. The data collected will serve as project M&E baseline to determine if the project intervention indeed led to an improvement of land condition and livelihood parameters during the project implementation phase.

Part 3 analyses gaps and challenges in achieving SLM in the larger project site and specifically in the communal farming area, including the two project sites. Based on existing literature, lessons learnt from previous projects and approaches tested in the area, as well as from newly conducted stakeholder conversations, the land degradation and SLM problematic is being sketched, providing relevant entry points for further KNP work on site. The stakeholder conversations formed part of the interactive environmental learning approach and were conducted as joint learning opportunities.

Part 4 reviews existing SLM innovations in the area, nationally and world-wide. It identifies possible pilot interventions that can be adopted by the pilot communities in response to specific pertaining land degradation challenges. A “catalogue” of best practices has been developed, reviewed for practicability and suitability on site. At this point these proposed possible interventions have not been discussed with the local communities as yet.

The last part of this report, Part 5, makes recommendations for improved adoption of SLM good practices integrated into a so-called “theory of change” for the project area and especially the two project sites. These “theories of change” have not yet been discussed with the stakeholders and the community visioning process, which forms part of other KNP interventions not part of the baseline assessment, should develop these frameworks further with the project site communities in particular.

REPORT 2: Monitoring and Evaluation and Baseline Information Report 2 focuses on setting out the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework through (i) underlying the baseline assessment, (ii) the interactive environmental learning approach, and (iii) the project M&E. It is divided into three parts, including the introduction/context (Part 1).

Part 2 gives the theoretical background to the establishment of the Namibian KNP indicators, and describes their rational. A proposed set of indicators that should be monitored if other intervention sites will be included into the project design in the future is included.

Part 3 describes in detail the sampling and processing methodologies for both the biophysical and socio-economic elements of the baseline assessment.

Part 4 includes the full set of baseline data collected for the two project sites (Aminuis and Corridor Post 13) laying the foundation for future M&E comparisons. It makes the cross-linkages to especially Part 2 of Report 1.

Part 5 focuses on formulating the section the part in Report 1 (Part 5) set out “theories of change” into the project delivery and management context. Initial recommendations on how progress towards these theories of change and the envisioned project impacts can be tracked through project M&E are made. Initial recommendations for setting out a local level community-based participatory M&E approach, which will be determined at a later stage in the project, are given.

PART 2: Trends in land degradation in project sites

2.1 The Molopo-Nossop basin in Namibia – a profile

In Namibia, a quite detailed country study was already undertaken during project preparation in 2009 by Southern Cross Consultants (MET 2009); this current baseline aims to build on that previous study without replicating the work done already. The country study and the project document (UNEP, 2010) should therefore be read in conjunction with this analysis.

2.1.1 The Molopo-Nossop basin – Namibia site To aid the better understanding of the geographical and resource base situation of the Molopo- Nossop River Basin, overview maps with the major characteristics of the basin have been generated from national data. The maps provide a basic geographical information baseline for the KNP area. Many land degradation related issues will be bound to the key characteristics depicted, e.g. rainfall patterns, underlying soil and vegetation types. Annex 2 includes the full-sized maps for the basin level images and national overview maps to be able to interpret the basin information in a larger context.

The extent of the basin is interpreted in a larger context than just using the extent of the Nossob Basin, in line with the demarcations given in the project document (UNEP, 2010), and indicated in Figure 1 .

Population density In Namibia, the Kalahari Namib Project area falls into four regions: Khomas, Omaheke, Hardap and Karas. The Namibian population is distributed by the availability of natural resources, and due to water scarcity, there is an average population density of 0.8 persons per km2 in Omaheke and 0.6 persons per km2 in Hardap (UNEP, 2010; Figure 2). The population density is lower than the national average of 2.2 persons per km2 (NPFS, 2007). Overall Figure 2 illustrates that most people are concentrated in few towns and in rural areas, divided into communal areas and freehold farming areas (see next section).

Figure 2: Population density of the Nossob basin per km2, see Annex 2 for a clearer, larger image

Land tenure and use Although Figure 3 depicts two, there are four distinct tenure forms and related land uses distinguished in the Molopo-Nossob basin in Namibia, although Figure 3 depicts only two.

Firstly, a large area is made up by freehold commercially-owned farms, where mostly cattle farming but also, to a lesser extent, game farming takes place. In addition, some farmers engage in production of veld plants such as Hoodia and engage in a diversification of production systems.

Secondly, a few commercial farms are owned by previously disadvantaged Namibians and have specifically been allocated to such farmers through the affirmative action programmes of the land reform process in Namibia. Thirdly, quite sizeable land areas situated in the basin are made up of communal areas, farming areas that are managed communally and no single free-hold titles are provided to residents in these areas. Within this communal area, Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 (the project sites) fall in the northern-central areas to the eastern boundary of the Namibian Nossob basin. This area is divided into two sections of varying land tenure history – which is important in terms of the background which ties together the land degradation story of the sites. The larger western part of the communal area has been an open access area since its set-up in 1962 under the Odendaal Commission. The Corridor area, however, used to be comprised of 22 demarcated commercial farming emergency “corridor” grazing camps (Figures 2 and 3). The farms were incorporated into the communal tenure setting in 1960 (Twyman et al. 2011) and farmers were resettled into the area.

Fourthly, there are a few group resettlement farms in the area; the farms were availed to groups of communal area farmers to settle on these farms and to develop and use them for own commercial farming purposes.

Overall, land in the KNP area is mostly being utilised for livestock production (small and large stock) and game farming.

Figure 3: Land tenure and uses in the Nossob basin, see Annex 2 for a clearer, larger image

Rainfall The Nossob basin receives on average a range of 200 to 450 mm of mean annual rain (Figure 4). The area is fully classified as arid to hyper-arid (Mendelsohn et al. 2002).

Surface water may be present in salt pans during and following high rainfall. However, most of the time livestock is highly dependent and associated with man-made water points in the form of deep pits or boreholes. Recharge rates are very low (1 mm/year) and the resource is considered non- renewable (UNEP, 2010). Finding groundwater is often complicated by supply salinities too high for consumption, even by livestock.

Zooming into the community pilot sites, Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 receives 300-350 mm of rainfall on long term average (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Map shows the Average Annual rainfall of the Nossob basin, see Annex 2 for a clearer, larger image

Minimum Temperature Generally Namibia is considered to be a hot country, but temperatures vary from area to area (Mendelsohn et al. 2002). In the Nossob basin, the average maximum temperatures during the hot seasons range from 30°C to 32°C. In the coldest months, the minimum average temperatures range from 0°C to 4°C in the eastern part of the Namibian Kalahari. In the central part of the Namibian Kalahari, minimum temperatures range from 2°C to 4°C. The Nossob basin area is characterised by lowest average minimum temperatures, which have an impact on the vegetation and associated production systems, and potentially land degradation. Only the minimum temperature map is depicted in this write-up (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Minimum temperature of the Nossob Basin, see Annex 2 for a clearer, larger image

Soils The dominant soil type in the entire Namibian Kalahari is ferralic Arenosol. This type of soil is a typical dryland soil and has a high content of combined oxides of iron and aluminium with a low relative soil fertility which makes it poor soil for crop production.

This sandy soil dominates both the east and north-eastern regions of Namibia in what is mostly referred to as the Kalahari basin. It is formed from wind-blown sand and usually extends to a depth of one metre (Mendelsohn et al. 2002). The sandy portion generally makes up more than 70% of the soil, and the rest of the soils consist of particles of clay and silt. Little run off and water erosion takes place on such soils.

In the narrower Nossob river basin a different soil type can be found, Arenic fluvisols. These are soil types found along the margins and valleys of larger river courses, mostly in the east of Namibia. This soil type provides nutrient rich soils required e.g. in crop cultivation. These soils do not extend into

17 the communal area in the eastern part of the basin. North-westerly of the Nossob basin, Lithic leptosols are mostly common. Around the basin, heplic calcius soils are most dominant.

Figure 6: Soil types found in the Nossob basin, see Annex 2 for a clearer, larger image

Vegetation There are six major vegetation types distinguished in the Namibian KNP area, namely southern Kalahari, central Kalahari, Karas dwarf shrubland, highland shrub, dwarf shrub/ southern Kalahari transition and dwarf shrub savannah vegetation types.

Large trees are common near river beds: primarily Acacia erioloba; smaller trees, Boscia albitrunca, Acacia heamatoxylon, A.mellifera; and smaller shrubs primarily Pentzia spp, Monechma spp. and Hermannia spp (UNEP, 2010). The dwarf shrub, Rhigozum trichototum is very common and associated with areas on shallow sands, and is indicative of overgrazing. The grass layer is dominated by Stipagrostis species. Stipagrostis amabillis is associated with dune crests and is considered a key stone species once removed from the system, dunes become mobile and recovery is almost impossible. S. cilliata and S. uniplumis are associated with deep sands and dune slopes while S. obtusa are found on shallow soils primarily in inter-dune areas and pan fringes (UNEP, 2010). The annual grass Schmiditia kalahariensis is common and is claimed as highly indicative of overgrazed areas – therefore often found in association with R. trichotomum. The perennial grasses that are

18 common in undisturbed veld are Asthenatherum glaucum, Anthephora argentea, Eragrostis lehmanniana, Stipagrostis uniplumis and S. ciliata.

Figure 7: Different vegetation type found in the Nossob basin, see Annex 2 for a clearer, larger image

2.1.2 Zooming in on the communal farming area around Aminuis and Corridor Post 13

Figure 8: Overview of communal area; with consulted villages indicated in blue. The two pilot sites at Aminuis and Corridor Post are depicted by a red triangle. The red stars indicate the location of the “E” plots (sampling technique used, please see Report 2, Part 3, Section 3.1) for the bio-physical land condition assessment, see Annex 2 for a clearer, larger image

Social Context A number of ethnic groups exist in the communal area: Hereros, Tswanas, San and Kalaharis. The San represent 2.9% of Namibia’s population and are subject to targeted NGO involvement aiming to address their social imbalances. The white, predominantly Afrikaans speaking farmers largely make up the commercial farming community (UNEP, 2010).

Subsistence livestock is the principal livelihood occupying the rural communities in the Nossob ecosystem. There are slight differences between Omaheke region, where cattle farming dominates, and the South region of Hardap, where goat and sheep farming dominate. In both areas farming is supported by a small number of donkeys, horses, and poultry.

The main environmental resource in the facilitation of small stock farming in the Nossob ecosystem is the presence of relatively abundant shrub vegetation, which forms the mainstay food for sheep and goats. However, the aridity of the region makes grazing sparse and variable. The dependence of communities on livestock farming in such an area is problematic and this pressure has, in turn, had an influence on the overall productive potential of livestock. As a result of limited farming capacity, many people seek alternative livelihood options, and unemployment is a major concern. Due to poor and unpredictable rainfall and infertile soils, crop production is limited to small scale in the Kalahari region. People have small backyard gardens to grow vegetables on a small-scale; gardens are not more than 1 ha in size.

A large number of households in both the Hardap and Omaheke regions rely heavily on monthly pensions, and often pensioners are the heads of households and sole breadwinners. Other sources of livelihoods comprise regular wages for farm work and short-term provision of labour to commercial farmers and local business people. Infrequently there are sales of animals done by rural communities for them to earn extra income for expenses such as school fees, funeral costs, illness, court debt etc (AFA pers. comm., March 2012). Currently, a number of activities exist in the Nossob basin (although in undeveloped form). These include harvesting and processing of Prosopis trees, harvesting of cocoons and production of silk products in Leonardville, and preparations for mushroom production in other areas of the Omaheke region. Some members of the communities living along the Nossob basin are employed by the commercial farmers in various jobs as livestock herders, domestic workers, farm laborers etc. These communities include Witvlei, Leonardville, Gobabis, Tsjaka and Aminuis in Omaheke, and Aranos, Stampriet and Bernafay in the settlement and other areas of Hardap.

2.1.3 Profiles of the Pilot Community Sites Aminuis In the southern part of the Kalahari is the settlement area called Aminuis (Figure 9). It is about 188 km south of Gobabis. Livestock farming is very important and forms the backbone of the settlement’s economy. Most people are working directly or indirectly with livestock. Tribes found in Aminuis are the Hereros, Tswana, San, and Kalahari community. Within the area, businesses found in Aminuis are small cooker shops, two service stations, and a small clinic. The Councillors office is also situated in Aminuis settlement, representing the whole Aminuis constituency. The small town is

21 quite spread out; this is mostly due to people settling around water points (either natural fountains, or man-made boreholes).

The area gets an average rainfall that ranges from 250-300 mm. Soils in Omaheke are dominated by sandy to loamy sandy soils, these soils have a clay content of about 6% with a very low water holding capacity of approximately 60mm/m (Kowalski, 1996). The soils of southern Omaheke (Aminius/Corridor, Ben Hur/Tsjaka) are sandy Arenosoils with calcareous (lime) soils. A large water body underlies much of this area and saltpans being a feature in the area. These pans are predominantly dry.

Figure 9: Aerial photograph of Aminuis (courtesy of the Surveyor General, Ministry of Lands and Resettlement).

Mostly due to limited land, grazing capacity and population increases, the majority of the rural population are no longer able to sustain themselves purely from agricultural production and must augment their incomes from a variety of different livelihoods. Pensions and remittances provide important supplements to cash wages for subsistence farming livelihoods. Opportunities for employment outside of subsistence agriculture are however extremely limited in this area, and the formal employment sector is small. As a result, unemployment is high. Poorer households have to diversify their livelihood base or face the risks of increased poverty and vulnerability.

Aminuis is known for its large salt pan situated close to the settlement area, and residents use the large pan to harvest their salt for their livestock. This is done in the dry months of September/ October. Some Aminuis community members tend to make an income out of this since some harvest the salt to sell to neighbouring towns like Gobabis. In the past, Aminuis area was known for

22 its large number of wildlife, consisting mostly of springbok and kudus which have now become virtually extinct in the area due to unsustainable hunting.

In Aminuis, open communal farming is practiced where very little in terms of rangeland management is put into consideration (and in no time has rangeland management been practiced effectively here). This is a result of the tenure system, a lack of capacity and lack of coordination among farmers among other reasons (this is described in more detail in Part 3, this report). There is usually a central water point and livestock roam freely around it without any form planned grazing or resting strategies, the end result is usually land degradation due to continuous overgrazing. There are “invisible fences” surrounding each homestead, in which other livestock is generally “not allowed” to access.

Aminuis falls within the central Kalahari biome. This biome consists of mixed trees and shrub savannas with lower acacias that are encroaching e.g. Acacia reficiens, A. mellifera, erioloba, and, to a lesser extent, Rhigozome brevispinosum. Most of the ground area is bare soil and some parts of the area are covered by Schmidtia kalahariensis as the dominating grass species, followed by Indigofera teixeirae. Harvesting natural resources in the form of woody vegetation for fuel is the primary resource harvested by all communities in the Nossob basin and in most instances people have to travel for several kilometers to collect it. Trees are cut down and sold as fencing poles or construction material and it is done regularly to sustain people's livelihoods in these areas. Upon consultations with communities during the baseline study, it seems that there is no system in place to prevent or control the cutting of trees in the area.

Increasing pressure by a growing population on the communal rangelands around Aminuis and the perceived threat of land and resource scarcity is leading to enclosure through illegal and uncontrolled private fencing by individuals and communities. Until now, people have been able to erect fences in communal areas with little fear of prosecution, and because of weaknesses in enforcement of laws, community leaders and other local institutions and organisations have been powerless to respond. Farmers are increasingly losing grazing land to such illegal privatisation. This has an impact on land availability and as a result on the sources of income (i.e. livestock farming) and thus livelihoods of farmers. The representative of the communal farmers in the entire Aminuis District is the Aminuis Farmers Association, of which there are two cooperatives (Aminuis Cooperative and PAMWE Cooperative); they assist in livestock marketing, registration and information dissemination. These farmers associations consist of local farmers, with a committee representing them. The associations have a purely supporting/facilitating role and do not have legal authority. The land tenure issue is of great concern, and the lack of rights of farmers in terms of land (and, as a result, insurance) is the core reason for illegal fencing, insecurities, lack of coordination in terms of farming management, among others.

Aminuis is classified as an open access communal area and a major source of livelihood is through cattle farming (Mendelosohn et al. 2002). The area falls within the Omaheke Region. Omaheke is known for some of the best best cattle breeders (although, to a large extent, these are associated with commercial farms) and the region is often referred to as the “cattle country”. Until today most of the community rely on their livestock. Livestock plays an important socio-economic role, it is a not only a source of cash income, but also a symbol of wealth, social status and pleasure in ownership,

23 as well a safeguard against crop failure. Cows usually provide milk for domestic consumption and to a lesser extent for local sale. Meat is sold at a large scale to commercial farmers and other meat processors. Local slaughter takes place largely within the areas although mostly for household consumption and local sale. Farmers also generate cash income from by-products such as horns and hides locally.

Very little infrastructure is found in the Aminuis area, and residents claim that the area is severely underdeveloped. Water is supplied by boreholes, most of which are found at widely separated points close to homesteads. For the past few years, there have apparently not been any water shortages and water levels have been constant up to now (Kavari pers. comm., March 2012). Based on community consultations focusing on farming management and resource use, it was derived that many community farmers do not have a good knowledge on SLM; and those who do are restricted by various challenges. These include the lack of community coordination (e.g. every farmer deals with their own livestock and livestock roam free on the same land). However, extension services are active in the area, and they are capacitated. Unfortunately they are overstretched and various challenges hinder their work (e.g. lack of petrol for transport, too large distances to cover). With the right support, the extension service officers could effectively channel SLM innovations. As for animal health care, many communal farmers acquired skills on how to keep their animals in good condition by practicing certain activities like castration, dehorning, vaccination against contagious diseases, salt block supplementation and mineral lick supplementation.

Corridor Post 13 East of Aminuis 22 farming areas forming the “Corridor area” are situated, each with a central water point and four camps. These farms were initially developed to serve as emergency grazing areas in the 1960’s but were later allocated mainly to the Setswana speaking farmers. Due to limited control and maintenance of infrastructure, these commercial farmers were gradually communalized with similar land degradation to Aminuis. The fact that there were fences enclosing the area increased overgrazing because livestock was restricted to move. In this area well established commercial farmers, have secure title deeds. This security, coupled with not having to share land and being responsible for the land they own, are reasons for management practices. Enhanced management practices result in enhanced productivity, which brings in higher profit earnings. These farmers apply rotational grazing and can easily increase the number of livestock depending on available fodder sources. Each corridor contains different communities, e.g. Corridor 17 has been set aside for mainly San communities, Corridor 21 and 22 consist mainly of Tswana communities (95%), Corridor 18 and 20 consist mainly of Kalahari communities (95%) (Figure 8).

Among the 22 farms, a well developed settlement area today which the baseline study zoomed in on is Corridor Post 13, a small settlement within communal corridors which acts as a service centre for the Corridor area (Figure 10). The settlement consists of a school, a clinic, a few supermarkets and cooker shops, and an auction area. It is situated close to Okonyoka, an area previously seen as an open rangeland with only limited seasonal water available in pans (Figure 8). With the sinking of a new borehole, a permanent settlement could be sustained and year round grazing and use of rangeland resources were established. Okonyoka is now a settlement of approximately 150 Herero people.

Corridor Post 13 was established by just a few Herero households in 1959. These families moved to Corridor from Aminuis communal area in search for water and grazing land. Effectively, they were ‘running from drought’. Today Corridor Post 13 represents a business area for all other 21 corridors (See Annex 1 for a resource map drawn by communal residents of Corridor Post 13). Tribes found in Corridor are the Herero (70%), Tswana (15%), San (8%) and Kalahari (7%). Cultural divides have apparently decreased substantially in the area over the past decades (Kavari pers. comm. March 2012).

Figure 10: Aerial photograph of Corridor Post 13 (courtesy of the Surveyor General, Ministry of Lands and Resettlement).

Camel thorn is supposed to dominate the area with regards tree species – it has been mostly used for building material and the pods are popular fodder. The area is also supposedly known for its palatable Bushman grass spp (sour grass) during rainy season; but has been out-competed by annual species. Corridor area’s perennial grasses have been replaced by annual grasses, mainly Schmidtia Kalahariensis, and encroached by Rhigozum trichotomum. Some areas near Corridor Post 13 are made up of completely bare ground with large trees; browsing lines are high and virtually all pods are eaten; no pods can be found under trees on the ground. In other areas annual grasses exist, and areas under stress are devoid of any grasses. Many natural resources are used up to sustain livestock. Invasive species are dominating with some parts of the ground consist of bare soil.

In every communal farm area there is a borehole which provides each household and livestock with water. Every water point has around eight committee members which are usually selected by the community that facilitate the operation and management of the boreholes (this is the same in the

25 entire Aminuis District). The DWSSC is the institution overseeing the entire process, and offers support and training in the form of extension officers. Like in Aminuis, livestock in the communal area are not restricted and continuously graze in areas. Due to the land degradation experienced in the area, some farmers provide their livestock with other supplements e.g. lick; this is to keep their body strong, healthy and prevent them from out breaking diseases. A small number of people make a living on backyard gardening, a SLM initiative by Komeho (an NGO), and MAWF; this project targeted mainly the San community in Corridor 17.

The main livelihood in the surrounding of corridor is livestock farming (cattle, goats and sheep). Goat and sheep farming are the main cash-generating activity in the community. However, most families in the village live here because of jobs or businesses and have moved their livestock to other villages. Hunting game used to be the main livelihood and source of income for the poor (NPC, 2004). This is no longer the case because most of the game were over-hunted in droughts. Unlike other settlements in the region, there are few agricultural workers residing in the settlement and most agricultural work is done by family members. Household income is supplemented by pensions, remittances, piece work, craft production and occasional sales of harvested and processed foods (e.g. wild berries, bread, cooked meat), for example to people attending livestock auctions at nearby service centres. Drought clearly plays an important role in determining both livelihood and rangeland management strategies in Corridor 13. Drought events have always been key junctures when livelihood patterns change and pastoral management strategies are tested to their fullest.

Table 1: A brief overview of the two pilot sites of the Kalahari Namib Project Namibia, Aminuis and Corridor Post 13. Aminuis Corridor Post 13 Location Omaheke region, Aminuis Omaheke region, Aminuis District/Constituency District/Constituency Population size Aminuis Constituency 2085 households making up 12,392 people (Female: 5890; Male: 6502) > 2000 ppl < 2000 ppl Settlers Herero (80%), Tswana (10%), Herero (70%), Tswana (15%), San (8%), San (8%), Kalahari (2%) Kalahari (7%)

Level of wealth Poor/medium Medium/poor Rainfall (mm) 250 – 400 mm 250 – 400 mm Land use and Extensive livestock farming, Communal Extensive livestock farming, Communal ownership area area Common method of Continuous grazing Continuous grazing grazing Source of forage for Free-roaming rangeland grazing Communal area grazing rangeland, some livestock supplements like summer and winter feed Conservancies No conservancy found in the area No conservancies, the area is fenced Water sources and Boreholes and ground water underground aquifers and boreholes resources Energy source Firewood, electricity and solar energy Mostly firewood, others are electricity and solar energy Livelihood and income Mostly derived from livestock sales and Mostly from livestock sales and pension others – pension funds, small funds, others - small businesses and businesses, salaries of family members salaries of family members working working elsewhere elsewhere

Aminuis Corridor Post 13 Farming practice Livestock, gardening at household level Livestock, maybe gardening Common  Land degradation due to  Land degradation due to environmental unsustainable management unsustainable management problems practices practices  Game virtually extinct  Game virtually extinct  Drought  Drought

Vegetation Bush species dominating is Acacia Camelthorn supposed to dominate, area Mellifera, large pan in area devoid of is known for its palatable bushman grass vegetation, a lot of Prosopis trees, bare species, Grewia bicolor also good source ground in many areas, most common of fodder; annual grasses have taken species Schmidtia kalahariensis over (e.g. dominant species now Schmidtia kalahariensis); a lot of areas of bare ground Source: NPC, 2004; Mendelsohn et al 2002; Twyman et al 2011

2.2 A brief link to national and rural development planning

The National Development Plan 3 (NDP3), which, in terms of rural development, focused mainly on food security and water supply (MAWF), resettlement (MLR), education and training (MoE), conservancies (MET) and promotion of renewable energy (MME), among others, is coming to an end this year (NPC, 2008). We are now going into the final development phase of NDP4 which unfortunately, at the time of writing this report, was not available to the public. The CPP-ISLM should have access to the development plan and should be able to relatively easily align the KNP activities within this framework in order to motivate links to long-term funding strategies. With the development of the NDP4 and the near-future development of line ministry five-year strategies as well as the Rural Development Strategy (which is in the process of being developed), the KNP project activities could align with these in terms of income generation activities, as well as employment creation – both of which will form strong components in Namibia’s efforts to alleviate poverty and address her high unemployment rate.

Last year, the National Planning Commission (NPC) released their Targeted Intervention Programme for Employment and Economic Growth (TIPEEG, NPC, 2011). This intervention programme specifically aims to reduce the unemployment rate in the country. The key investment areas will be (ranked in order of “importance”): public works, agriculture, transport, housing and sanitation, tourism. The successful implementation of the intervention programme will result in the creation and preservation of approximately 104,000 job opportunities, especially in the unskilled youth segment of society.

In terms of agriculture, there will be five distinct sub-programmes, namely crop production, livestock productivity, forest management, water resources infrastructure and “other”. The implementing ministry will be MAWF – and relevant focuses for the KNP would be activities such as “significant removal of invader bush” and “securing water supply” (NPC, 2011). The total investment in this sector will be 3.6 billion Namibian dollars all of which will be secured from the central government budget (NPC, 2011).

In terms of the transport sector, roads construction, rehabilitation and management of the road network will be implemented by the Ministry of Works and Transport (MoWT), with a investment requirement of 3.1 billion Namibian dollars. In terms of the tourism sector, it is noteworthy to note that for every 12 tourists who visit Namibia, a permanent job is created (NPC, 2011). Over the next two years, 649 million Namibian dollars will be the investment requirement into this sector (NPC, 2011).

The last relevant sector, public works, will be focusing primarily on education, public health, and the development of communal lands, among others. This sector will have an investment requirement of 5.5 billion Namibian dollars (NPC, 2011).

The Rural Development Strategy will be released to the Regional Councillors within the last week of June (pers. comm., Hon. Counc. Uangata, 25 June 2012), therefore not much could be said as it was not publically available at the time of writing this document. However, upon consultations, it was alluded to development priority interventions directly related to the project sites of the KNP area which include: talks around improving/tarring roads in the Aminuis Constituency; San Community Interventions; upgrading of boreholes (under water resources infrastructure).

2.3 Existing national and local methodologies and reporting frameworks for land degradation

In Namibia there are currently no effectively functional national and local methodologies and reporting frameworks for land degradation. Ongoing reporting obligations to the UNCCD usually contain a narrative description of the status of land degradation in Namibia, mostly drawing on local level experiences.

In the past, a dedicated effort for national State of the Environment Reporting (SOER) has taken place and has produced some important and relevant baseline and monitoring information. This has not been updated in some time. The First Integrated SOER “Vital Signs of Namibia” (MET, 2004) has set a good foundation summary of land degradation status as described by a Pressure-State- Response model. Similar to the “baseline” description approach of the basin profile in this report, input maps are used to provide a backdrop for decision making – but limited actual data on land degradation on site is available on a national scale. The ISOER has not been updated since 2004.

The CPP commissioned a national land degradation assessment in 2009. However, no final results have been written up and are available for review at this time. Consistent local level data inputs through a well designed monitoring approach are one of the major constraints to setting up a functional national system. Through the World Bank, a conceptualised “Promoting Environmental Sustainability through Improved Land Use Planning” (PSEILUP) project, which unfortunately never materialised, included a concept for a national land condition assessment and monitoring programme that would have informed local and regional land use planning and SLM action. A technical input paper is published in the MET DEA Research Discussion Paper Series No. 76 (MET & MLR, 2007), entitled Namibia: Land use planning and environmental sustainability – Contributions to an analytical framework for SLM.

There are numerous tracking systems of relevant natural resources in place, as well as of socio- economic indicators that relate to land degradation, however these are not brought together in one harmonised system to date. The National Planning Commission is housing the National Information System (NIS), however further work to making this database and information hub relevant to the land degradation problematic is needed.

Local extension services do monitor e.g. livestock and game numbers, rainfall, borehole quality and productivity and so forth as stipulated in various policies (e.g. Drought Policy, Water Management Act), and assist local farmers to undertake local level monitoring activities. However, the data is often not incorporated into high level data bases and not continuously being updated.

Under the previous National Programme to Combat Desertification (Napcod) local level monitoring tools for farmers looking at livestock condition and productivity as well as rainfall and grazing condition were developed (DRFN, 2004). It is not clear to which extent these tools are being implemented.

2.4 Extent and nature of land degradation in the project site

2.4.1 Land degradation trends in the basin No specific land degradation trends were recorded for the basin. However, based on attempts to identify the national desertification risk (Aharoni & Ward, 1997; Figure 11), much of the land area of the Molopo-Nossob basin is under high or at least medium risk. The key risk factors/variables included in the assessment are mean annual precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, soil water- holding capacity, vegetation cover, livestock population km and human population per km.

Figure 11: Modelled land degradation risk for Namibia (Aharoni & Ward, 1997)

Box 1: Case example: National Biomass Assessment

It is quite clear that there is annual biomass variability in the country (Figure 12). During the 12 growing seasons (from 1989/1990 to 2000/2001), the results (Figure 12) revealed that the 1999/2000 season was more productive as compared to all other seasons. The difference is indicated in the area where production was above average (in green) or below average (in red) (Ganzin et al., 2005). The productions covered the normal growing season in Namibia (from October to the end of May). This helps to accurately identify most vulnerable areas and devises ways for emergency assistance as well as grazing.

These annual variability in grass production are mainly attributed to the amount of rainfall in an area, rainfall patterns and variability in the country. In line with the rainfall range for the project site (Nossob), the production was really low during the season 1994/1995 and 1995/1996.

Figure 12: Results of biomass production estimation for 12 growing seasons (1989/1990 - 2000/2001) Source: Ganzin et al. 2005

2.4.2. Extent and Causes of Land Degradation in the Kalahari Namib Project communal area

Analysis shows clearly that communal life is not easy in the Nossob basin especially beacuse it depends on traditional livestock farming and natural resources such as wild fruit and root gathering which require big areas. In effect all the households in the region are forced to rely on purchases for their daily bread using small income from employment, pensions, and remittances. Many of the degradation processes are generated by poverty and food insecurity as desperate circumstances force communities to adopt unsustainable environmental practices such as the cutting down of trees and overgrazing through overstocking, amongst others (Economist, 2009).

Farming in the Nossob revolves around the availability of water, and homesteads and kraals are located at water sources which comprise of boreholes using windmills or diesel pumps to supply water to reservoirs and drinking troughs. The concentration of livestock around water point’s results in zones around sources of water being severely overgrazed and trampled and this situation has resulted in bush encroachment.

Land degradation in the Nossob area is caused by numerous factors in the area and this is such as the increased number of cattle which exceeds the grazing potential of the rangeland with several repercussions of vegetation being lost, and poorer quality cattle. Insufficient knowledge on Sustainable Land Management from the communities (in addition to possible reluctance to practice adaptive management because individual farmers are not coordinating farming practices) leads to inappropriate agricultural practices. This causes the loss of nutrients in the soil. In addition, the use of timber for purposes such as house building and energy source for cooking, the uneven spread of boreholes, which force cattle to overgraze certain parts while leaving other parts untouched, and over abstraction of water for certain purposes, compound the problem. For instance, the borehole diameter is recommended at BP6, although many boreholes use BP9 which releases more water faster and is conducive to unnecessary water loss.

Gaps in knowledge and knowledge sharing, weak governance and land tenure arrangements, limited access to markets, inappropriate and poorly implemented policies have been identified as some of the institutional and structured drivers of land degradation in the communal farming areas of the Nossob basin.

Deforestation is also of concern and is a result of land clearing for settlement purposes and fuel wood collection which with time has turned into land degradation. Wood is still the primary source of energy in the communal lands of Kalahari Namib. The increased demand for fuel wood for cooking as well as for construction of homesteads leave marginal lands permanently denuded of soil cover and subject to erosion, resulting in a loss of productivity in the resource base, which certainly reduces food supplies and increases food insecurity and nutritional stress areas particularly among vulnerable groups.

Species diversity is quite low in the Kalahari-Namib region and the species are well adapted to severe environments, especially to drought (Mendelsohn et al, 2002). The Kalahari Namib is situated in one of the most arid parts of southern Africa and variables such as climate change and fire often

32 play a greater role on vegetation dynamics; rainfall is highly variable and considered the main behind vegetation change. The occurrence of drought is common and people are generally adapted to such conditions.

In addition, the system of land tenure where farmers are not certain of their continuing rights of access to community land for food production caused a reluctance to invest cash and labour in long- term land improvement especially when effective measures to conserve soil and water and to increase productivity require considerable amounts purchased inputs. Increasing pressure on communal rangelands along with the perceived threat of land and resource scarcity is leading to enclosure through private fencing by individuals and communities. Regional livelihood patterns tend to reflect different land tenure regimes. In the so-called commercial farming sector, farmers hold land under freehold title (Bayer and Waters-Bayer, 1994).

2.4.3 Land degradation baseline at Aminuis and Corridor Post 13

A detailed biophysical land condition assessment was carried out at six sampling sites around Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 pilot communities as part of the baseline study. The detailed baseline results are presented in Report 2, Part 1. A relevant summary of the results is presented in the following.

“Expert” assessment: Biophysical site situation and trends in land degradation

Site selections At each of the two pilot communities (Aminuis and Corridor Post 13), two sampling areas were selected in consultation with the local agricultural extension officer. The sites were selected to represent a habitat type that is (i) representative of the area, and (ii) of importance to the range and agricultural practices in the area. The two sites were selected to be relatively “comparable” in terms of their natural resource characteristics. Perceived levels of degradation differed, however. A site perceived as “degraded” versus a site described as “not as degraded” was selected in each project site. Additionally, two sites were selected at the nearest commercial farms and with comparable habitat types, which were considered “well-managed”. These sites are included in the assessment as “benchmarks” to measure the two communal sites against (Table 2, Figure 13). The selection of the sites was set additionally in the context that SLM interventions in the two project sites might lead to a site condition improvement in the future, and consequently that the sites would be monitored throughout the project. A more detailed background to the site selection and description is included in Report 2 (Parts 3 and 4).

Table 2: A break-down of the sites selected for “expert” land condition assessments for the baseline of the Kalahari Namib Project. The classifications on “degraded”, “not as degraded”, and the assumption that the condition on the nearest commercial farm would be better have yet to be confirmed by the actual assessment data.

Aminuis Corridor Post 13 Degraded Aminuis Site A (AA) Corridor Site A (CA) “Not as degraded” Aminuis Site B (AB) Corridor Site B (CB) Nearest available commercial Aminuis Site C (AC) Corridor Site C (CC) farm

Figure 13: Sites selected for “expert” land condition assessments for the Kalahari Namib Project.

Parameters measured Report 2 sets out in more detail the monitoring and indicator framework developed for the assessment of land degradation in Namibia. In a nutshell, indicators of Bio-physical 1. Land productivity 2. Land cover 3. Water, rainfall and temperature Socio-economic, institutional 4. Livestock and natural resource incl. management 5. Livelihoods 6. Institutional support

34 are included in the framework and have been included in the assessment. The first three are the biophysical elements measured through field work, whilst the latter three were assessed through focal interviews, questionnaires and community meetings.

Additionally, community perceptions on the site situation were derived through the consultations, which are also included in the analysis and compared to the “expert” assessment.

Only the summary of the results and site descriptions are given in this report. The full background, including methods applied, as well as the full baseline data sets, is included in Report 2.

“Expert” assessment: Biophysical site situation and trends in land degradation

This section contains a summary of the findings, which are interpreted in the land degradation/land condition assessment context (The detailed results from the baseline assessment are included in Report 2).

Land productivity & cover For the purpose of this summary the parameters measured under the two indicator “cohorts”, namely land productivity and land cover are combined.

Land productivity is measured in terms of:  Grass composition  Herbaceous biomass  Woody composition  Alien invasive types and abundance  Bush encroachment derived from woody biomass Site specific results are available, which serve as a baseline for future follow-up measures.

Table 3 includes the results of three different measures under both indicator cohorts. In terms of overall tree density, it is apparent that the two habitat types selected for measure at Aminuis and Corridor Post 13, respectively, vary significantly, with the Aminuis sample clearly being situated in a more densely vegetated habitat type. This is also apparent from the fixed point photography (pgs 46-52, Report 2). There are significant differences in the number of trees per ha each site differs, and curiously it is the commercial farming area “controls” that indicate the comparatively lower tree densities.

Table 3: Data for the environmental parameters measured at Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 in March 2012 AA AB AC CA CB CC VEGETATION Grass dry mass (kg)/ha Mean 286.9 229.2 1427.9 87.4 513.9 891.1 Stdv 160.5 134.7 751.8 76.4 256.7 311.7 Woody vegetation 400 252 109 68 91 14 (trees/ha) SOILS Organic matter % Mean % 0.56 1.01 0.55 0.55 0.45 0.49 Stdv 0.11 0.33 0.07 0.25 0.17 0.15

In terms of tree species (Table 5) a wide range of species is represented on the various sites, with certain species associated with bush encroachment.

Grass species composition also varies strongly, and certain sites are made up of weeds and less palatable species.

Grass biomass – an indicator that can be expressed as both a land productivity and a land cover indicator – shows indicative trends. With a mean of under 300 kg per ha at the two sites around Aminuis and a biomass of almost 1,500 kg per ha at the nearest representative commercial farm, there is clear evidence of overgrazing. Combined with the grass species information a clear overutilization pattern emerges. This is also true for the Corridor Post sites, however, the magnitude of change differs, with the “less degraded” site of the visual assessment made for site selection reflecting this assessment directly the biophysical data. This is not apparent for the Aminuis sites, where both are very similar in terms of grazing available. Site CA is extremely overgrazed with most areas classified as “bare ground” (85%, Table 4).

Table 4: The below depicts the composition of the grass species identified in the sites (quadrant) during field work in Aminuis (AA, AB, AC) and Corridor Post 13 (CA, CB, CC). % representation of species and bare ground per plot Name of grass specie AA AB AC CA CB CC Schmidtia kalahariensis 56.5 74.5 15 78.5 61 Tragus racemosus 9.5 Aristida stipitata 1 29 5.5 Indigofera teixeirae Torre (weed) 34 23.5 Senna italica Mill. subsp. micrantha (weed) 6.5 5 6.5 Aristida pilgeri 4.5 15.5 Brachiaria nigropedata 0.5 Acrotome inflata Benth. (weed) 0.5 Eragrostis porosa 0.5 Eragrostis echinochloidea 12 Eragrostis trichophora 0.5 Tragus berteronianus 16

Andropogon chinensis 17.5 unidentified weed spp. 4.5 Bare ground 1 5 0 85 15 16

Analysing the land cover indicators (including on soil quality), it is clear that in dryland arenosols, much will be amiss. As such it was decided to only measure Organic Soil Carbon and no other nutrient at this time.

The results confirm that all soils are extremely low in soil organic matter (Table 3), which indicates a number of draw backs on soil fertility and processes. Only Site AB in Aminuis holds soil organic matter levels which can be identified as “medium” – all others are poor in soil organic matter. In the land degradation context this can relate to numerous disruption points, and soil formation and nutrient cycling as key ecosystem services in this drylands area may be disrupted. Other relevant indicators are covered in Report 2, but are not further included in this summary review.

Table 5: Depicts the species identified at the sites in Amuinuis and Corridor Post 13, Omaheke region. Site AA Site AB Site AC Site CA Site CB Site CC Grass (and  Schmidtia  Tragus racemosus  Schmidtia kalahariensis  Schmidtia  Schmidtia  Schmidtia weed) species kalahariensis  Aristida stipitata  Aristida stipitata kalahariensis kalahariensis kalahariensis  Indigofera teixeirae  Indigofera teixeirae  Brachiaria nigropedata  Senna italica Mill.  Aristida Torre Torre  Senna italica Mill. subsp. subsp. micrantha stipitata-  Senna italica Mill.  Aristida stipitata Micrantha spicata subsp. Micrantha  Tragus berteronianus  Eragrostis bicolour (outside  Eragrostis  Acrotome inflata  Senna italica Mill. E) stipitata-spicata Benth. subsp. Micrantha  Eragrostis chinensis (outside  grass spp (TBI)  Aristida stipitata  Eragrostis E)  Andropogon  Eragrostis Porosa echinochloidea  mellinis repense sub spp chinensis  Eragrostis trichophora glandiflora (outside E) Tree species  Prosopis  Acacia nebrownii  Acacia mellifera  Acacia  Acacia luederitzii  Acacia erioloba  Acacia erioloba  Acacia mellifera  Grewia flava luederitzii  Acacia mellifera  Grewia flava  Lycium bosciifolium  Boscia albitrunca  Acacia herbeclada  Acacia  Acacia Erioloba Schinz  Acacia luderitzii  Acacia erioloba erioloba  Boscia albitrunca  Acacia mellifera  Catophractes  Tree of the year 2006?  Acacia  Grewia flava alexandri  Ziziphus mucronata mellifera  Rhigozome  Acacia erioloba brevispinosum  Grewia flava  Acacia luderitzii  Ziziphus mucronata  Acacia erioloba

Water, rainfall & temperature This indicator cohort fully depended on the provision of information from technical line Ministries – which has proven to be difficult at times. Finally local level rainfall data was availed from the offices of the locally residing agricultural extension officer. The relatively short term rainfall data does show significant annual changes in rainfall amounts received in the basin. A map depicting annual average rainfall brackets for the Nossob basin can be found in Figure 4.

The rainfall data is a useful departure point for various lines of thought: the data gives relative information of rainfall magnitude and extent, and this data can be of relevance for the local decision makers. Overall, rainfall is a trigger for primary productivity, and as such there is a direct correlation between biomass and rainfall (see Box 1 on biomass trends nationwide).

Linkages to potential climate changes can be derived from long-term data and in Namibia’s Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (DRFN, 2008) projections for expected temperature and rainfall changes by 2050 are depicted.

Rainfall (mm) in the Aminuis Settlement, Omahehe Region from October 2006 - March 2012 180 170 160 150 140 130 2006

120 2007 110 100 2008 90 80 2009 70 Rainfall (mm) Rainfall 2010 60 50 2011 40 30 2012 20 10 0

months

Figure 14: Rainfall trends at Aminuis settlement, Omaheke region for the period October 2006 to March 2012.

Table 6: Rainfall figures in Aminuis settlement, Omaheke region for the period October 2006 to March 2012.

Year Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 40 88 40 2007 42 31 0 34 0 26 14 58 2008 107 58 38 1.5 27 58 32 2009 22 113.5 38 10 14.5 10 9 14 17.5 2010 147.5 37 50.5 8 34 7 44 42.5 2011 168 71.5 77 26 17 18 4 22 2012 32.5 137.5 18.8 Monthly mean 86.50 74.75 37.05 15.90 17.00 14.50 0.00 0.00 11.67 15.50 37.00 35.33 Stdv 62.99 42.59 26.40 13.55 17.00 NaN 5.69 10.12 32.37 14.79

“Community perception”: Biophysical site situation and trends in land degradation

Local perceptions of land degradation

Figure 15: A representative sample of communal farmers in the Nossob basin area are asked to determine the extent of land degradation in the area.

Participants were asked to rate the degradation of the land they are dependent on for their livelihoods. Of the total participants, 90 people answered the question and 2 people skipped the question, stating that they do not know the extent of degradation of their land (Figure 15). Of 89 people who answered the question, majority stated that the land is fairly degraded with a total score of 52.8%, followed by a total of 30.3% of highly degraded, 12% of the total participants responded that the land is less degraded and a total of 4.5% of the total participants stated that the land is not degraded at all. This could be

40 because respondents own commercial farms which they manage individually or perhaps own perceptions of land degradation. Given that the majority of the respondents pointed out that the highest change noticed in the area is the decline in grazing quality, it is understandable to refer the rate of degradation to fairly degraded because their livestock still depend on the few that is left on the ground and they are still surviving off some natural resources in the area.

Interestingly, when looking at the same data distinguished by responses from the Aminuis meeting versus the Corridor Post 13 meeting, there are clear indications that land degradation is perceived to be worse in the Corridor area (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Graph showing the rate of degradation in the Aminuis and Corridor post.

Socio-economic site situation and relation to trends in land degradation A detailed description of the socio-economic baseline is included in Report 2. A few snapshot points of information are included in this report to highlight some of the most pertinent observations from the area.

Livestock and natural resource management It is always a challenge to quite accurately identify livestock ownership amongst local farmers. Through the questionnaire survey it was established, that the ownership aspect in the KNP communal area is

41 clearly structured, with a majority of farmers owning relatively smaller herd sizes of large and small stock as well as draught animals (i.e. animals which pull loads, Table 7). A relatively smaller number of people own larger herds with more than 100 large stocks. There had been complaints during the consultations that numerous farmers using the communal areas own herds exceeding the 150 head of cattle and 800 head of small stock limits set out in i.e. the Communal Land Act of 2002 - such trends were not confirmed at this point of the baseline assessment. However, curiously, most of the large herd owners both of small and large stock come from the Corridor areas.

Table 7: The type and number of livestock found in the two pilot sites.

Aminuis Corridor Post 13

Cattle 10-25 22 17 25-50 6 6 50-100 4 6 more than 100 1 8 33 37 Goats 10-25 11 10 25-50 5 14 50-100 5 6 more than 100 2 5 23 35 Sheep 10-25 8 11 25-50 4 8 50-100 4 9 more than 100 2 5 18 33 Horses/Donkeys 10-25 6 18 25-50 0 2 50-100 0 0 more than 100 1 0 7 20

A good portion of the represented farmers engage in farm diversification practices and keep additional poultry and do backyard gardening. No formal indication of whether such practices are becoming more or less profitable was made in the questionnaire, but the narrative from the work sessions provides such indications. Many farmers (77% of respondents) use wild plants and hunt for game on a regular basis. A relatively diversified resource base is being used for “production”, although limited indications of actual management practices were made.

The survey corroborated that in the communal area most people do practice continuous grazing, with a very few undertaking rotational grazing (apparently in the Corridor areas where the initial fencing is still

42 intact). A majority of farmers’ use livestock feed supplements such as a variety of licks. 60% of farmers regularly consult with the veterinary services and inoculate their animals, whilst 40 % of respondents say that they never make use of veterinary services and animal health tools. Overall 87% of farmers will that their livestock currently are in good (83%) or excellent (4%) condition.

Livelihoods All representatives from the communities depend on livestock farming for their daily livelihoods. A breakdown of income for their livelihood revealed a more diverse background to that statistic (Figure 17). Whilst a major part of income is constituted through livestock sales, there are other household subsidies available. Almost half of all respondents considered themselves as poor (50%).

Livestock sales 6%

17% Commercial farm employment Household member in 6% town paying stipend Pension fund 2% 69%

other (please elaborate)

Figure 17: Sources of income of a representative sample of communal farmers in the KNP Namibia area.

Institutional support The institutional dimension indicator has been further analysed in Part 4, below. A brief overview of key institutions in the area is given in Figure 18.

Figure 18: Level of knowledge of roles of farmers associations and organisations of a representative sample of communal farmers in the KNP Namibia area.

2.4.4 Summary discussion The collected data from the baseline assessment provides a snapshot of land degradation (bio-physical and socio-economic) information for the KNP project sites in the communal areas surrounding Aminuis and Corridor Post 13. Some interpretation can be offered, comparing the situation at the sites, but mostly the baseline must be seen as a venture point to measure change throughout the project intervention period.

Similarly the results from the community consultations mostly provide initial insight into the local perceptions related to the land degradation problematic, and to a certain extent a baseline has been set with regards to measure which can be included into the long-term monitoring of the KNP.

2.5 Critique of perceptions and findings The biophysical assessment undertaken provides some useful baseline results. However, it is clear that it is localised and not a basin wide assessment of land degradation. A much more detailed and better resourced basin wide assessment would need to be undertaken to get a clearer overview of land condition. In Namibia, some remote sensed analysis of national dynamics of biomass has been undertaken in the past (Ganzin et al., 2005). Newly updated information should be produced and if possible downscaled to the basin. Although biomass is only one indicator, it may be useful for tracking overall trends, which might be partially rainfall but also land degradation triggered. During this assessment the team attempted to access relevant Landsat data through the Polytechnic of Namibia, but it is clear that a longer term and more concerted effort to obtain and interpret such data would need to be established through a long term KNP effort (see Report 2 for recommendations).

The indicators initially planned to be included in the baseline assessment were finally not all practically measured (e.g. on water). Difficulties in accessibility of data are a real constraint, and relevant actions should be taken in the long-term KNP to help overcome barriers related to information accessibility pointed out below. Data may often even be available, but just not accessible within the (baseline) project constraints (time, finances). Additionally, the data base should be furthered and improved throughout project implementation and be made available through practical knowledge management interventions.

The design of questionnaires is often a challenge – as is the collection of data. The baseline assessment used a questionnaire that was designed to be “practical”. However, by using multiple-choice options certain answers were guided and a bit pre-empted.

The information collected during the baseline assessment is very useful as an initial basis for further Interactive Environmental Learning and Action Approach; a suite of knowledge products especially of use for local level engagement can be developed based on this information e.g. as power points or flipchart type background info; learning and updating brochures / resource materials for local farmers, extension officers and regional decision-makers. Specifically developed and tailored community- interactive learning materials and activities should be designed.

It was very useful and interesting to capture “perceptions” and local knowledge views on the natural resources and land degradation contexts such as symptoms, drivers and root causes of land degradation in the specific area. A short-coming has been that the baseline project team was the first one to arrive at sites to introduce the communities to the project, and no “warming up” to the project had taken place – the limited time available for community interactions as per consultancy TOR and design was felt. It is however acknowledged that the baseline assessment is only just the entry point to the project and many long-term local level interactions are planned.

The local perceptions of land degradation at this point are partially still quite simplistic. It would be desirable to help to build the capacities of the local resource users and decision-makers in the area to reflect on the land degradation and sustainable land management challenges and options in a more diversified and informed manner in the future.

2.6 Additional and related concerns The following collection of additional and related concerns has been derived based on the overall analysis of findings:

 Ecosystem services only very peripherally touched on; would need a more sophisticated discussion with the local community members and technical personnel on site; could be build into the Interactive Environmental Learning Approach  Trans-boundary impacts and linkages have not been considered at all at this point  By focusing the work on the KNP communal area major land uses outside of these confines are not further included; a much larger assessment would be required to fully analyse and determine such elements, including on environmental flows related to the basin  If tourism should be exploited as a future area of livelihood option more focused support studies would be needed to fully explore opportunities, limitations and land and resource degradation linkages  Climate change impacts would need to be more fully analysed; a Kalahari basin study is being planned, which would potentially address the concerns of the Molopo-Nossob basin  The extent of land degradation impacts on livelihoods has only been peripherally identified and addressed in the baseline study; it is critical to further explore what the actual losses of secondary productivity (e.g. meat production, dairy production of livestock) are and how they are related to household impacts. Such household impacts could be in terms of reduced food security, nutrition, health impacts; reduced cash incomes and other; Part 3, Section 3.1 and 3.2 provide some indicative elements for further exploration.

PART 3: Gaps and challenges in achieving sustainable land management in the Molopo-Nossop basin – Namibia

3.1 Drivers of land degradation From the local level consultations a broad collection of divers of land degradation were reported.

The type of land degradation drivers identified in Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 are similar, and it seems that it is primarily the weighting of importance that differs slightly. Overall it became apparent that the discussion groups at both community meetings had difficulties to disentangle drivers of land degradation from the symptoms of land degradation and root causes, but interesting local perceptions could be derived from the discussions. In summary, various key land degradation observations and perceptions from the area were depicted (Table 8).

Table 8. Summary of LD drivers, symptoms and some root causes as perceived by community members at Aminuis and Corridor Post 13. Overgrazing Overstocking Overpopulation (of people) on limited land Low rainfall and climate change Poor land condition e.g. - Lack of vegetation, bare ground and rocks - Weeds - Poor bush to grass ratio with diminishing grass component - Bush encroachment - Poor quality grazing Deforestation and uncontrolled debushing Illegal fencing Poisonous insects (not specified which) Veld fires Land tenure arrangements Lack of management skills

In the survey community members were asked (1) what in their view the main drivers of land degradation and (2) what the land degradation symptoms are.

(1) Participants were asked to rank the changes they observed in their area over a period of more than ten years. Based on preliminary research on the main land degradation manifestations in the area, three choices were given as well as an option described as “other”. Respondents were asked to rank the highest change noticed with a one and the least change with a three. Out of 91 interviewees, 85 answered the question of which 15 responded “other” (17.6%). Decline in grazing quality was ranked 1 “the highest” 47 times (55.3%) and it was not ranked 3 “lowest” by any the respondents. The second largest change noticed was the declining of biodiversity which was ranked 1 “the highest” 33 times (38.8%) and increase in veld fire was ranked the third major

change in the area 10 times (11.8%). Under “other”, the key statements were as follows: increase in the population and the residents of the area, bush encroachment, alien invasive species, an increase in the crime rate (livestock theft) and desertification.

(2) The interviewees were asked to give their opinions on what they think is the main contributor to/driver of land degradation in their area, based on pre-given choices which were identified from previous reports of land degradation drivers in the area. Out of the total 89 people who answered this question, it was determined that the rainfall variability and drought is the main cause of land degradation (50.6%), followed by poor grazing management (37.1%), land tenure issues like illegal fencing within the communal areas and a small percentage of the total participants outlined that there is just not enough support from either government ministries or non-governmental institutions (Figure 19). No other drivers were mentioned in the survey.

Figure 19: Local perceptions on the drivers of land degradation of a representative sample of communal farmers in the KNP Namibia area.

3.2 Root causes The root causes of the various symptoms of land degradation were brainstormed and discussed by the various community representatives. The community perceptions are summarized in Tables 9 and 10.

Table 9: Symptoms of land degradation and related root causes – Aminuis. Symptoms of land degradation Root causes Overgrazing, causing loss of Lack of tenure preventing people from resting their grazing (if they do, productivity of rangelands someone else will simply use it) Sedentarization, fencing of rangelands Overstocking Cultural emphasis on livestock as wealth. Main contributor of income generation, poverty forces over stocking because there is little or no other alternatives to livestock farming. Deforestation Cultural values associated with methods of cooking and building, and having many children. Cutting trees as small business enterprises. Trampling Too many livestock dependent on one borehole Alien invasive Aliens replacing indigenous species due to the degradation of the land and depletion of the nutrient contents. Poor grazing management.

Table 10: Symptoms of land degradation and related root causes – Corridor Post 13. Symptoms of land degradation Root causes Overgrazing Unsustainable land use practices e.g. grazing management methods Unplanned establishment of water points. Livestock carrying capacity exceeded. Loss of productivity Loss of topsoil cover. Trampling at water points leading to soil degradation. Increased water stress due to Poorly planned boreholes, e.g. cattle boreholes have serious adverse depleting water quality impacts on groundwater quality. Too many livestock concentrated on a few water sources causing trampling etc. Competition between alien species Lack of appropriate grazing practices leading to less occurrence of and livestock feed palatable species for livestock feed.

Based on the reflections of the community on root causes and drivers and symptoms and expert observations and knowledge, a summary synthesis of the land degradation context in the KNP communal area has been attempted (Figure 20). A focus is on the two selected pilot communities at Aminuis and Corridor Post 13.

Symptoms Drivers Root causes

Decline in grazing/fodders: Overpopulation Increased pressure on resources: Less grass biomass Overstocking Increased population numbers in communal areas Poor species/less of highly palatable grasses Climate change and rainfall variability Increase expectation on NR performance (high Move from perennial grasses to weeds Poor land management, and tenure issues economic returns) More bare ground Unsustainable use of resources Increase in livestock numbers

Bush Encroachment: Increase in poor quality woody vegetation Enforcement of legal and policy instruments: Invasive species Poor implementation and enforcement of policies Competition with grasses and laws Possibly a lack of specifically needed policies Deforestation: Uncontrolled de-bushing Cutting down of trees for various uses e.g. fire wood Capacity/knowledge Limited knowledge on SLM options Limited support e.g. improving knowledge Others: Limited land use /management options in - More veld fires communal areas - Declining water quality and quantity - Declining soil fertility - Loss of biodiversity Lack of livelihood options: Poorer livestock production e.g. Prosopis, Hoodia, Devil Claws products, Livestock health CBNRM and tourism activities Secondary productivity (meat, Dairy) Diminishing food security and livelihood returns Climate and Climate change Less food from livestock Less food from veld Less income from livestock

Figure 20: Summary synthesis of the land degradation context in the KNP communal area, based on community identified symptoms, drivers and root causes.

3.3 Capacity gaps, information gaps and constraints to implementation of known SLM approaches (barriers)

Discussions at the community consultative meetings at Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 also revolved around identifying existing capacity, information and policy gaps for successful implementation of SLM approaches as well as exploring barriers to adapting existing SLM practices. The key points from the two communities are depicted in Table 11.

Table 11: Existing capacity, information, and policy gaps for successful implementation of SLM approaches. Aminuis Corridor Post 13 Capacity gaps  Extension services e.g. for  Reluctance to get rid of water and grazing issues, livestock when rangeland support to local communities, conditions are poor incentives for projects  Lack of alternatives in which to invest capital  Lack of capacity to make informed decisions  Lure of towns for making money has drawn people away from rural life, taking with them the capacity to deal with rural problems  Lack of funds to implement or join SLM projects Information gaps  Farmer to farmer knowledge,  Inaccessibility to information on lack of knowledge related to SLM by communities, only one SLM, number of households in extension officer in the area the basin, extent of land degradation e.g. most affected areas, standard of living Policy gaps  Entry point for up taking the  Insufficient power of Traditional adoption of SLM, communal by- Authorities to prevent illegal laws on resource management, fencing, or complicity by them local regulations for grazing in doing the illegal fencing, management regulations on grazing management  The gap between the rich and the poor results into the “tragedy of the common’s” exploiting the communal land by having flocks of livestock which overgraze pasture at the expense of both the environment and the poorer people depending mostly on livestock sales

Barriers/challenges of adoption of better SLM approaches The discussions on the existing barriers to implementing SLM approaches at the two communities indicate that a lack of access to information on SLM is of major importance.

Figure 21: A representative sample of communal farmers what their perceptions on the barriers and challenges to SLM in the KNP Namibia area of a representative sample of communal farmers.

However, the transcripts from the consultations indicate that the logical distinction of land degradation symptoms, drivers, root causes and barriers to the implementation of SLM practices is not yet very clear (Table 12). It would be useful to integrate a clarification of the concepts through the longterm Interactive Environmental Learning and Action Approach in the future.

Table 12: Indicates the barrier/challenges to the implementation of SLM projects Aminuis Corridor Post 13  Lack of funding  Insufficient funds  Level of know how; skill/ knowledge  No access to information requirements: medium to low access of  Insufficient land due to increasing populations information on SLM for land users (community  Lack of marketing opportunities for livestock members), extension services and technical staff in products: Business enterprises in an arid region are

the area is not adequate to provide the necessary challenging, lack of marketing infrastructures and advice and services needed low off take rate in the communal livestock areas  Land ownership and land use rights and its both result in overstocking and added pressure on resources: Lacks security of tenure renders land communal pasture resources. users averse to practice and invest into the shift of  High levels of poverty: poverty and land SLM, , illegal communal fencing degradation are closely linked therefore land  Poverty and the dependence of rural communities condition improvement cannot successfully happen on a marginal resource base: Over-exploitation of without fighting poverty. resources such as water and grazing, population  Climate and climate change: Climate change is a growth directly affects the demand for natural global threat that will also impact on the Kalahari- resources, increased completion for land use Namib ecosystem. Already observed changes with  Absence of cross-sectoral transboundary regional consequences for biota in ecosystems. institutional structures capable of planning for and Climate change aggravates drought, which responding to SLM needs (need for a common aggravates land degradation which in return, approach and collaborative efforts from the releases carbon stored in the soil, thus worsening different entities) global warming and climate change.  Inadequate capacity development to deal with  (Alien) invasive species: No solutions known to e.g. appropriate natural resource management Prosopis species. Invasion of the area by prosopis is  Inadequate information on the current biophysical believed to reduce the productivity of the land and and socio-economic status of the basin ecosystem water availability. Invasive species in the area have increased subsequently in their area reducing the availability of their grazing land thus the carrying capacity of their land. Indigenous invasive species like Acacia mellifera also occur in the area but not causing a problem of bush encroachment.

From the above community perception and the emerging SLM framework (Figure 20) a few obvious barriers can be summarised as:

(1) Lack of information and access to information: On site, a lack of accessibility to relevant information on land degradation and SLM options has been highlighted as a key barrier. Accessibility relates to information not available at the rural sites e.g. in form of manuals, reference booklets, or even through educational “courses” on radio or through the Farmers Associations and locally based extension services. From the background research conducted as part of the baseline, it is clear that some sound technical background information is generally available that can aide local level decision-making, but often such information is widely scattered and not been made available in manners in which the information could be absorbed easily by the stakeholders at different levels (see also next barrier). Some additional specific research would be useful to help build a better and site-suitable information base, for evidence based decision making at basin-wide, regional and local level.

(2) Lack of capacity (incl. financial) to transform the information to knowledge and SLM action: The key difficulty remains to transform information to knowledge, and more importantly, to relevant action. Barriers here are ingrained in learning patters by human kind in general and as such often result in non-response manners in terms of interacting and expecting change to take place. The Interactive Environmental Learning and Action Approach would form a well designed and grounded approach to dealing with building lasting and effective capacities. A key challenge

is, however, that project staff must be knowledgeable about this approach (or similar approaches) to be able to transfer the principles to the local stakeholder and project implementation. Overall it is observed that development practitioners and decision makers, including in regional government and throughout the extension services, in Namibia must keep abreast with such social learning and cutting edge community engagement approaches to ensure lasting SLM impacts.

Financial seed support is an often-mentioned barrier to testing and implementing SLM approaches in the pilot communities. This is generally a common problem, which should be overcome with the “theory of change” framework – identifying local outcomes and associated solutions which may not be dependent on financial inputs beyond the local communities’ means.

(3) Limited real alternative livelihood opportunities: Living in rural communities in Namibia can be bleak. Rural development has proven to be difficult and well meant aspirations of Government e.g. through the foci of the last National Development Plans (NDPs) have only achieved limited impacts. The economic realities around drylands (e.g. economies of scale, distances, and costs of investments) and difficulties of unlocking drylands’ opportunities are a major barrier to development as well as implementing SLM practices – even if just through a general apathy that may have developed. It is clear that many people including in rural areas have developed new and increased livelihood aspirations, which may not generally be easily attained.

(4) Difficult and possibly inappropriate tenure and management arrangements for modern demands: Increasing population numbers and increasing expectations on economic and even subsistence returns place enormous pressure onto the limited land area – and natural resources. Managing the existing resources better is of course one way of enlarging the cake, but there are clear barriers to growth and SLM stemming from constraints which may include the current tenure arrangements. The tenure arrangements are a major constraint and have resulted in many land degradation issues.

(5) Outdated traditional and government laws and support interventions, not aligned to modern needs: Many of the established policies and laws are either not implemented or often not updated and attuned to new and modern needs. This can create disincentives and barriers to SLM in various forms.

Self-identified opportunities for SLM interventions in KNP area Based on the discussions a number of possible SLM opportunities and activities were brainstormed by the community members (Table 13). The proposals are brought forward in Part 5 of this report in the proposed “theories of change”.

Table 13: Opportunities for SLM interventions identified at Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 consultations Local level Institutional level Policy Level

 Rehabilitation of degraded  Collaborations among  Decentralization and devolution areas institutions and setting out of resource use rights  Eradication of invasive species pilots on best practices  Land use rights and access to restore veld productivity  Extension services supported  Decision support for the local  Fire management knowledge and strengthened through and regional level on SLM and activities training and capacity building initiatives  Improved management of grazing land e.g. pasture species enrichment, regulate grazing pressure through rotation, temporal enclosure etc  Conservation and management of water  Adaptive resource management (e.g. migration, de-/re-stocking)  Soil improvement techniques  Promotion of local/traditional varieties and breeds esp. heat/water stress tolerant

3.4 Institutional relationships

The institutional relationships relevant to the basin on Namibian site and more specifically the KNP communal area including Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 were explored and discussed during the community meetings, additionally certain questions in the survey reflected on institutional matters. A detailed analysis of the institutional linkages and roles is presented in Table 13, indicating the quite diverse set of institutions which would have a role in addressing land degradation and SLM in the KNP area.

In reality, the involvement of these stakeholders in hands-on support of local communities varies. At Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 it is apparent that the local Farmers Associations play the most significant role, which is important for the KNP in terms of establishing strategic linkages. Few NGO interactions are reported from this area.

Reviewing the “visibility” and engagement of the responsible agricultural extension officer at the two project sites, gives a varied picture for Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 (Figure 22). While some farmers seem to have a very direct and immediate contact with their support officers – once a week or once a month (27%), many see them only “a few times a year” or “never” (73%). This might be related to the location where the respondents come from, as many of them did not stay at Aminuis or Corridor Post 13, with local of transport and outreach opportunities being a major constraint. This certainly also affects the level of access to SLM information and knowledge currently observed.

16% 12%

Once a week 15% Once a month A few times a year Never

57%

Figure 22: Frequency of agricultural extension support and visits; perceptions of a representative sample of communal farmers in the KNP Namibia area.

Table 14: The local dynamics of governance with regards land management in the KNP area as per perceptions of communities; acquired through PRA exercises in community meetings for the KNP baseline [*Group no represents the number of groups which chose and analysed the specific institution]. Institution Group Observed Role Functional? Reasons for non- Suggestions for improvement no* (Group No) functionality MAWF 4 Manage sustainable use Partly (1) Illegal fencing Increase in communication of natural resources, Yes (3) problems between MAWF and capacity building of communities on various issues; farmers, supply clean increase in enforcement water, mobilize and sensitize farmers DEES 7 Training and information Yes (6) Not enough distances Need to cover more distances; dissemination on land and No (1) covered, limitations to more frequent visits; need more animal management, petrol; budgetary extension officers; capacity diseases and constraints; limited/not building of new innovations and vaccinations, alternative enough staff; not SLM; increase in budget for livelihoods, crops and enough information vehicles and transport costs gardening projects dissemination Extension Officers 1 Technical support, brief Yes (1) See above See above communities on new diseases/any info related to farming, alternative livelihoods

Institution Group Observed Role Functional? Reasons for non- Suggestions for improvement no* (Group No) functionality DRWSSC 7 Responsible for borehole Yes (6) Some areas are not Increase budget for vehicles and development; Partly (1) covered; work not transport costs; increase staff establishment and support always completed of borehole management by community water point committees (WPCs); dispute settlements; capacity development of WPCs; borehole engine repairs; mobilize a sensitized community WPCs 4 Community committee Yes (1) Inadequate knowledge Capacity building; appropriate manage boreholes; Partly (3) and training; disputes selection of community members control specific boreholes over provisioning; to take committee office; (e.g. provisioning of water, limitation on vehicles increase in funding for vehicles livestock number, member and transport costs; increased payments for diesel); community involvement manage sustainably the water suppy CHC 1 Represent the MoHSS; Yes (1) More government incentives for link between clinics and CHC committee functions community, information dissemination on health MoSS 1 Patrolling and policing Yes (1) Patrolling not regular Increase in patrols and frequent enough Community Crime Prevention Unit 1 Prevent stock theft in the Yes (1) Shortage of funding Improve and increase distances Aminuis Constituency and visits, increase budget/funding

Institution Group Observed Role Functional? Reasons for non- Suggestions for improvement no* (Group No) functionality MLR 1 Resettlements No (1) No office in the Increase area of activity by constituency placing an office in the Aminuis Constituency MET 1 Protect land and wildlife No (1) No office in the Increase area of activity by constituency placing an office in the Aminuis Constituency MYNSSC 1 Environmental and climate Yes (1) [in Lack of funds; not Increase budget allocations to change awareness context of enough information capacity building and creating (especially to the youth) having had dissemination empowering opportunities to the a workshop youth; increase in information on cc) dissemination MRLGHRD Omaheke RC 4 Liasion between Yes (4) Not enough staff; not Have a website; increase staff government and TAs; enough resources; not and resources information dissemination; enough information dencentralisation; dissemination overseer of institutions and projects Aminuis Constituency Office 2 Bring development to the Yes (1) Information does not Improve and find new area; inform communities No (1) always reach communication channels outside of development issues in community; TAs often of dependence through TAs (e.g. area; use TAs as link to weak link; “all talk no through clinics, schools, shops); community action” development such as tar road between Aminuis and Gobabis

Institution Group Observed Role Functional? Reasons for non- Suggestions for improvement no* (Group No) functionality Traditional Authorities (TAs) 8 Government Yes (5) “Mostly involved in Effective leadership training; representation at No (1) political issues increase transparency community level; Partly (2) therefore not custodian of concerned with community/communal community problems”; land; monitoring of all lack of transparency; activities in Aminuis; link hierarchical attitudes; between government and some have lack in community passion; some leaders not recognized by government; weak link – info sometimes does not make it through NNFU OFA AFA 13 Control marketing issues Yes (10) Don’t inform farmers in Improved communication; in area; negotiating prices; Partly (3) advance of prices on capacity building; appoint represent farmers; market; not always mentors to visit per settlement for coordinate auctions; controlling prices; not training; increase links and facilitate marketing; enough information; support with DEES and DWSSC; coordination between lack of capacity and increase number of Auction farmers and grn; arrange knowledge/material; places; increase auctioneers for “farmers’ days” for training ignorance of small livestock and info dissemination; obligations and duties; capacity building of poor attendance of farmers; “voice of farmers” farmers at trainings; funding issues

Institution Group Observed Role Functional? Reasons for non- Suggestions for improvement no* (Group No) functionality AFA Co-op 5 Local level Yes (4) A lot of duplication of Re-structuring of mandates; representatives of AFA; No (1) AFA; meeting transport support to communities capacity building on ear attendance – lack of for attendance tagging; management and building of auction kraals; facilitate registration of land; dispute settlements PAMWE Co- 5 Local level Yes (4) A lot of duplication of Re-structuring of mandates; op representatives of AFA; No (1) AFA; lack of transport support to communities capacity building on ear attendance at for attendance tagging; management and meetings building of auction kraals; facilitate registration of land; dispute settlements Aminuis Crop Producers 1 Gardening projects Yes (1) Shortage of funds and Increase capacity, training (backyard gardening); [small-scale] capacity sessions for farmers; increase in encourage people to start funding garden marketing Association of Auctioneers 1 Bringing buyers of Yes (1) Not enough buyers Increase number of buyers to livestock to the community increase demand and thus increase prices for farmers Komeho 1 NGO providing support on Yes (1) Not enough Increase in communication and SLM; small-scale projects [slowly] information; small support (faster); increase in such as gardening and target groups project target groups/expansion providing goats VOC 1 Assisting Yes (1) vulnerable/orphaned children

PART 4: Existing innovations and SLM good practice

4.1 Catalogue of SLM best practices relevant to the KNP area from project area, Namibia at large and world wide

There is quite a number of existing sustainable land management projects some on site and others can be adapted to the area. Best practices from Namibia and relevant innovations from elsewhere in the world are presented in Annex 4 to draw attention to some of the work being done in the Kalahari Namib and elsewhere in Namibia and globally and which is feasible and can be replicated on site. The best practices collected here present only some of the work which being done for sustainable land management in Namibia.

A best practice is defined here as a project or activity that resulted in substantial achievements with regards to sustainable land management. It illustrates effective application of land degradation preventative measures which includes joint planning, financial management mechanisms, participatory processes, community empowerment and development as well as good governance. The chosen examples are not necessarily perfect; however the criterion is that they reached significant achievements and that they are feasible, can be replicated and can be an inspiration for project initiations in the project site.

Selected best practices from the catalogue are being included into the draft proposed theories of change in Part 5 of this report. During the community and stakeholder visioning processes additional application and adaptation from the cases documented in the catalogue should be discussed.

Previous SLM relevant interventions – what worked – what not and why? Including interventions in the project area There have been quite a few SLM related interventions conducted in the KNP area, and also in other regions which are relatable to the area. These are briefly analysed in Table 15.

Table 15: A brief overview and analysis of previous SLM interventions relevant to the KNP area.

Project Name Project Activity Leading Org Budget Successes Challenges Lessons learnt Local case studies The Kalahari Garden Food security project Komeho – NAD 2 mil 42 of 60 gardens were Garden sizes too small to meet Lack of interest Project targeting San community, funding from established; some household food needs; lack of possibly connected to establishment of household Global gardens fully functional commitment from beneficiaries conditioning of gardens in Corridors Foundation) and sustainable (preferred to have goats); many community of roles 2,4,15,17,18 gardens abandoned; once and obligations; what funding dried up beneficiaries is important – an not in the position to contribute improved study of diesel to water pumping and needs may have procuring seeds; additional enhanced value of funding proposal proved futile project: small scale agriculture can be used as a supplement to other forms of income generating activities. San Goats and 20 goats were donated to Ben Hur Rural Not known Initially, 20 goats given Water issues remains a Clear sense of Garden at Aminius San communities (with the Development to San communities but challenge at Aminius RC and ownership results in RC expectation that they are Centre there was a lack of clear that affects the garden Komeho more successes multiplied and then (Komeho) sense of ownership, the tried to get funds to drill a new returned to donator to be herd did not increase as borehole but did not succeed; donated to other farmers), expected. Komeho due to low rainfall, rainfed crop Centre established crop Namibia sub-divided production won't succeed

Project Name Project Activity Leading Org Budget Successes Challenges Lessons learnt production field there goats amongst demarcated to 5 beneficiaries and households numbers started to pick- up CBF Goats in Komeho Donated to goats Komeho Not known Some farmers were able Conversion of non-farmer to Giving of goats alone Otjombinde to 16 San households in to replicate to farmer, stereotypes by other was found not to be Constituency Omaheke Region to sustainable numbers tribes and jealousy. This sufficient - there is improve food security; requires Komeho Namibia to put need to add other goats are effectively “lent” in extra effort to monitor and sources of livelihoods to the farmer with the motivate the beneficiaries i.e. crop production, intention that they multiply craft production, etc. in numbers and the goats then given back once there are enough goats per farmer Leonardville Prosopis Removal of invasive Leonardville 50 000,00 Alternative funding Controlling the re-establishment Turning this project Project Prosopis trees around Development USD1 sources, turned into of the Prosopis after clearing into a job creation Leonardville, use for Community lucrative business remains to be one of the key opportunity was not charcoal, firewood and under SGP opportunity; Fifty-five challenges; dispute settlements easy and needed a furniture households are directly long time of benefiting from the participatory project through consultations employment and skills development.

1 http://sgp.undp.org/web/projects/10929/eradicating_of_prosopis_trees_in_the_nossob_river_area.html

Project Name Project Activity Leading Org Budget Successes Challenges Lessons learnt Selected best approaches and case studies on sustainable utilisation of resources and rangeland management in Namibia The FIRM approach2 Strategic planning by NAPCOD Not known Greater sense of Transition to complete self Improved community and how process lead by ownership by reliance was limited; not all communication is community; clearer service providers can DRFN (and the vision of future plans stakeholders attended needed; although the support to achieve DMP) and their meetings; lack of commitment FIRM is a community- community goals; implementation; within community; driven approach, the improved capacity in development plans- geographically restricted to pilot commitment from key identification of community take lead in development and sites (although it has expanded) players and indicating how they want to priorities; improved stakeholders is crucial implement to achieve capacity; mechanisms to for success monitor and assess agreed visions and goals process; less duplication of service providers; enhanced communication and information exchange Namibia: Combating Allows communities to use Not known Not known Ownership , resources Difficult at the onset Involvement of the Land Degradation simple but scientifically- management; informed community is critical; with Tools for Local- Level Decision based indicators to and timely decisions communities can Making3 measure changes in their taken; Relationship shape up the way they natural resources over a between Actors in the want to manage their period of time; Policy Arena resource; Mechanisms to Push Decisions Through Quickly; improvement of the relation between actors in the policy

2 DMP - http://www.dmpafrica.net/FIRMoverview.htm2; Akhtar-Schuster, Bigas and Thomas (eds) 2010 3 Matambo and Seely, undated

Project Name Project Activity Leading Org Budget Successes Challenges Lessons learnt SARDEP Enable communal farmers Not known Greater ownership over Livestock management applied Improved to stipulate their planning livestock in the country’s Southern and communication; needs requirements for the management Eastern areas were driven by community; sustainable natural incompatible with arid areas; effective leadership is resource management, to Lack of experience among key empower them to initiate government officials in dealing their own development with donors and orientation of solutions and to offer researchers and extension staff support to the farming towards working in communal communities’ with areas; initial programme idea conducive farming and was more commercial farming development plans to than communal farming ensure project oriented; priorities of farmers implementation were not rangeland management; local level implementation; land tenure issues and the relatively high costs involved.

Project Name Project Activity Leading Org Budget Successes Challenges Lessons learnt Outase Biogas Assisted three households Okondjatu 41 128,00 Community was The main challenge was Skills and knowledge Energy Project4 to build biogas digesters Farmers' USD5 sensitised on the transport issues; sourcing transfer important; which are connected to gas Association - negative impacts of over funds for up-scaling to other funds transferred to cooking stoves, using OKOFA utilisation of wood; self areas that has enough cattle to targeted community livestock dung as source of (Community running; income provide fodder for the plant; lack projects through energy instead of wood; Based generation; training was of financial sources for project reputable NGO or youth driven capacity Organization) – given on biogas digester manager’s salary; very difficult CBO better accounted building SGP; others construction; 3 local to be up-scaled to areas with for; Involvement of the technicians trained on less cattle to provide fodder for individual from the biogas units and are the plant beginning to the end; familiar with this development of particular model; trained awareness materials 10 community members such as poster, radio who became clips to educate and entrepreneurs; 12 more improved access to digesters have been information is critical built in the region as a result of the project and over US$ 20 000 was generated; vegetation has been under less pressure than before; women walk short distance to collect firewood than before.

4 http://sgp.undp.org/web/projects/6435/outase_biogas_energy_supply_project.html

5 http://sgp.undp.org/web/projects/6435/outase_biogas_energy_supply_project.html

Project Name Project Activity Leading Org Budget Successes Challenges Lessons learnt Okahao Quick Saving firewood through SGP Not known Expansion of project into Not unknown Ownership onto CBOs Cooking Wood Saving use of fuel-efficient tso-tso six other regions; creates long-term Stove Project stoves; training in improved community income opportunities construction of stoves; awareness of training in cooking with conservation of firewood stoves. resources; establishment of 5 stove producing SMEs; woman empowerment; reached 400 households; communities trained how to cook with the fuel efficient wood stoves; self employment; decreased firewood consumption in the seven regions Pilot SLM Capacity building project Komeho (UNDP, NAD800,000 No available information Not known Not known interventions at training beneficiaries how CPP ISLM) (UNDP) Vasdraai and Queen to manage their rangeland, NAD700,000 Sofia (resettlement develop management (CPP ISLM) farms) plans for farms, infrastructural maintenance Additional e.g. fencing and water NAD 800 infrastructure to enable 000 equitable utilization of rangeland, construction of benchmarks to show true potential of rangeland,

Project Name Project Activity Leading Org Budget Successes Challenges Lessons learnt training and piloting alternative ways of livelihoods; involved conservation agriculture practices, piloting cultivation of marama bean, agro-forestry; also , animal trampling, farmers exchange visits, vegetable production Case studies from Africa and the rest of the world Ngitili dry-season Conservation and Government Not known 300,000-500,000 ha of Damage to livestock and crops Absolute time up to 5 fodder reserves - rehabilitation of vegetation and local woodland restored 1986- by growing wildlife population in years is needed; ngiliti Tanzania – temporally demarcation community in 2001, mostly individual g the ngitili, increased local can be established at and closure of sites, the Shinyanga Ngitili, 800 villages; 60- inequality, scarcity of land and individual or

establishment of tree 70% of all households growing pressure, insecurity of community level; local nurseries, removal of large have Ngitilis. A lot of tenure hinder ngitili guards to protect the trees, controlled pruning ecological, economic establishment. system and by-laws and thinning (for fire-wood and socio-cultural are critical to the and poles) benefits; success. Ngitili alleviates dry season fodder shortages and prevents land degradation through reducing soil erosion and deforestation6;woodland

6 Gebremedhin, et al, 2011

Project Name Project Activity Leading Org Budget Successes Challenges Lessons learnt goods (timber, fodder, fuel wood, medicinal herbs, wild fruits and honey) produced; women’s labour reduced Crecy area, Addressing biological Not known Not known Vegetation managed in Cost of construction/initial Costs are very high, Springbokvlakte degradation: farm planning sustainable livestock implementation; veld fires and the can region, Limpopo – technical design and production; moderate damage fences and drinking discourage farmers Province, South Africa livestock watering; fencing; trend in adoption of the troughs. from using multi- establishment of stock technology paddock grazing watering system About 500 ha farm with system; the 8 paddocks were maintenance costs established in about 6 depend on the size of months time. the area and design of the camp including other variables. Rotational Grazing, Rotation scheme of days Not known Not known Soil fertility enhanced Unknown Cost nothing, but 7 Tajikistan to 10 days to 2 weeks; One (through the animal’s requires commitment

day of grazing is divided dug left during and dedication; easy into 4 hours in the early to implement the grazing);less trampling morning and a late in the method paths created; afternoon period economic befits –farmer price of selling animals increased than neighbours (who did not implemented the

7 http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrar/Publications/CSD_Benefits_of_Sustainable_Land_Management%20.pdf

Project Name Project Activity Leading Org Budget Successes Challenges Lessons learnt approach at a time) Akouboubou, Abalak, Information and Unknown Not known Overgrazing reduced by High initial cost and Establishment of the Tahoua region, Niger8 awareness campaign in the 30-40% as compared to maintenance management and

village; identification of the situation it was in managed by each well sites by the local committee; well users 1990 and pastoral areas communities; formation of contribute to were distributed; about committee members and maintenance (if training; diging of well, 50 wells were built in 12 needed) and per year; building the well walls years within the pastoral potential areas of 3000 km2.. trespassers/damagers are fined by the committee Grazing land Rehabilitation of degraded Government, Not known The forage cover had Not known Existence of development in Atsbi- hillside (development and NGOs, increased (number and communal land Womberta district, management of degraded Communities types of vegetation demarcated into Ethiopia9 lands and hillsides) – observed was low, but communal grazing planted of grasses species become more and within lands, rights to use around water points, about 2 years, 45 the land respected by enclosed bottomland grasses and legumes all users; lack of grazing land of about 69 ha were recorded. The experience in actor of land for use under cut- approaches of improved coordination increases and-carry system of animal forage management the time needed to feeding while in the heavily were up-scaled to other reach the common degraded grazing lands, areas while the ground; about 26 ha of land was intervention in the highly Practical gaps, enclosed for forage degraded grazing lands interventions need to development. expanded. be addressed;

8 Gebremedhin et al. 2010

9 ibid

Project Name Project Activity Leading Org Budget Successes Challenges Lessons learnt participatory appraisal of community resources and prioritization of interventions is critical to create a strong sense of ownership.

PART 5: Recommendations for improved adaptation of SLM good practice and theories of change

5.1 Recommendations for specific solutions to land degradation that could be piloted by the KNP and associated theories of change

Based on international best practice, the planning thinking and framework of project interventions is guided by “a theory of change”. When designing practical action, it is important for the project stakeholder to think about what their development aspirations are – and how they are planning to get to achieving them in the future (Organisational Research Services, 2004). We are looking at ways to move the status quo to a new and improved way of action (Goldstein et al., forthcoming).

The below developed “theories of change” for (i) the two pilot communities at Aminuis and Corridor Post and (ii) basing level regional stakeholders in SLM have been sketched based on the research and consultations undertaken as part of the baseline assessment. They should be used as a foundation for further discussion with the stakeholders during the local level “Visioning” process, which is a distinct and additional element of the project design. It is critical that the stakeholders own the visions and theories of change and that they are part of the solution from the onset of the project interventions.

The project document (UNEP, 2010) sets the foundation for such an approach. The innovative and cutting edge theory of approach developed by IUCN is a strong basis for creating lasting impacts for the local decision makers in the Molopo-Nossob basin.

5.1.1 Proposed theory of change for the pilot sites

Practical visions for local communities at Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 Based on the research and consultations undertaken as part of the baseline assessment, the framework of land degradation at Aminuis and Corridor Post 13 has been drawn up. The proposed outcomes of interventions are couched in the Interactive Environmental Learning and Action Approach, including local level monitoring activities that should be included to monitor achievement of outputs and outcomes (see Report 2, Part 5).

Drivers -Drought Responses -Poor grazing 1. Rehabilitation of degraded management areas and natural resources -Tenure issues e.g. 2. Conservation and illegal fencing and management of water restriction of grazing 3. Livestock health land 4. Livelihood diversification & improved food security

Impacts -Poor animal health Pressure -Decline water quality -Overstocking -Degraded grazing -Overgrazing land -Human population -Poor nutrition and density diets

State -Low productivity -Increased water stress -Poor regeneration of livestock feed and perennial grasses -Changes in weather patterns

Figure 23: Interaction between the drivers, pressure, state, impact and responses of land degradation in Aminuis and Corridor Post 13.

Table 16: Proposed outcomes and recommendations for the community level theories of change.

Interactive Environmental Learning Recommendations and Action (Outcome) 1. Rehabilitation of degraded areas 1.1. Create a resource inventory for all the villages in Aminuis and and natural resources Corridor Post 13

1.2. Establish a local level monitoring to assess changes in resource use and measure quality over time e.g. borehole abstraction rates, stock densities per borehole, concentration of livestock at boreholes (few at degraded water points, concentrated at active water points) 1.3 Conduct a consultation with local communities to identify the perceived resource use options, conflict of use and allocation. 1.4 Utilise the derived concept in learning sessions to train communities on the management of natural resources. 1.5 Develop natural resource management plans 2. Shifting grazing 2.1 Set out pilots to measure regrowth rate of overgrazed areas

2.2 Seeding materials for palatable species 2.3 Sampling methods to check the palatable species versus unpalatable species in the areas 2.4 Sustaining the grazing land capacity with the stock densities e.g. improve land productivity by practicing rotational grazing, which will allow heavily degraded areas to boost productivity by resting and moving animals from highly concentrated to areas with a lower stock density 2.5 Looking at possibly moving the animals from one camp to another camp for a period of 6 months to test the effectiveness of the rotational grazing regime 3. Improving water points 3.1 Joint plans with the Water point committee (WPC) and establish the livestock number suitable per borehole 3.2 Investigate options for sustainable abstraction rate per borehole 3.3 Fix leaks and look into cattle management at borehole 3.4 At household level, conserve water and encourage recycling for laundry and gardening where possible 4. Improving livestock health and 4.1 Improve livestock processing and marketing strategies for the productivity communal farmers, this can also be extended over time to address a wider range of community priorities 4.2 Implements pilot trials with local game breeds technologies that have proven successful in other areas 4.3 Explore opportunities for fodder production at a community level to enhance livestock health 5. Improve soil fertility 5.1 Participatory research to analyse the different soil conservation methods to reduce erosion and loss of soil nutrients

5.2 Provide training for local communities on how to effectively carry out the methods 5.3 Implements pilot trials for alternative gardening technologies that have proven successful in other areas 6. Diversification of livelihoods and 6.1 Increase efforts for communal area farmers to benefit from wildlife enhancing food security and woodlands e.g. commercial logging through the establishment of conservancies 6.2 Develops markets for non-timber forest products and other dryland products such as the Tsama seedling oils and other cosmetic products can be unlocked 6.3 Develop a craft centre for craft making products for local income

Table 17: Theories of change for the KNP project sites. Rehabilitation of degraded areas and natural resources

 Revamping broken and non-operational boreholes – In the communal areas bare patches of soil is visible especially around water points where a high stock density is concentrated. Creating a system of most of the non-operational boreholes and replacing/fixing them will reduce the pressure of the other boreholes and increase the changes of restoring the water sources. This may require resting the grazing area that is in the worst condition and relocate livestock to areas with most active boreholes, giving the grazing land a chance to recover. If drought persists in these areas, it may be necessary to destock and balance the carrying capacity of the grazing land with the number of livestock. Water point committees and the division of rural water supply from the MWAF need to be involved in this process.

 Improving grazing management – Regulating grazing pressure through rotational grazing practices could be an appropriate grazing management approach to improve veld condition. Most of the farmers in the communal areas indicated that perennial grasses have been severely replaced by weeds and bushes in the grazing land and the animals in turn browse on unpalatable vegetation species not suitable for livestock feed. Improved management of grazing land can also include pasture species richness especially in areas low in productivity. Although the Nossob basin is water restricted area, it is critical for farmers in the pilot sites to have supplementary fodder in the dry season. Setting up small camps to grow some lucerne and other livestock feeds may be another possible strategy under the SLM approach.

 Eradication of invasive species is necessary to restore veld productivity and unlock the potential of economic opportunities to manage problem species such as the gifblaar and prosopis in the Basin area. Using invader bush to produce charcoal, or biochar can be used to enhance soils and improve fertility. Refer to the catalogue on SLM best practices: Outase Biogas Energy Project & Leonardville Prosopis Project

 Improving soil conservation and reducing depletion of soil nutrients and top soil erosion. An area can be piloted at Corridor Post to improve soil fertility. Most of the soils in the Corridor post are poor and this is worsening by land degradation through the loss of top soil cover. Therefore, SLM strategies and practices can enable farmers and communities to restore its productivity.

Conservation and management of water – Careful management of water is needed, particularly for the Basin population which is dependent on groundwater for both human and livestock consumption. No overall pastoral strategy exists in the Basin. Options for management are extremely limited due to a variety of external and internal pressures such as the high human population density, high stock density, restricted water availability, and limited movement opportunities for livestock in drought periods. Water conservation measures must be strengthen at the

76 local and regional level and may require substantial investments in the long-term planning of their sustainable water supplies.

Livestock health – Promotion of local/traditional varieties and cattle breeds that are better adapted to arid condition. These can be tested and improved to increase production levels. It is critical that livestock are kept in better health conditions to ensure that the limited grazing and water resources are optimally used to enable the livestock to withstand periods of prolonged droughts or other pressures. Feed supplements may be necessary to maintain the herd around fewer boreholes if the grazing land around all the boreholes in the area is very poor. A strategy is needed to maintain livestock herds around fewer boreholes in the Aminuis and Corridor post area.

Livelihood diversification and improved food security – Although most of the area within the basin has little potential for tourism, local communities in the Nossob Basin can engage in conservation efforts and local tourism activities. Craft making is one such activity that provides cash income at a household level. Promoting vegetable gardens for improved household nutrition can be a power strategy because most of the people in the Aminius and Corridor post area dependent on meat and milk consumption for their daily nutritional needs. Green leafy vegetables and fruits are important for healthy diets and contribute essential minerals and vitamins to a largely meat-based diet. Refer to the catalogue on SLM best practices: The Kalahari Garden Project

5.1.2 Proposed theory of change for the basin Table 18: Proposed outcomes and outputs for the basin level theories of change.

Firm Approach (Outcome) Regional level monitoring (Output) 1. Strengthen resource governance to 1.1 Develop natural resource management plans for the basin benefit all users (optimal use of available e.g. for each district resources) 1.2 Look at options for sustainable groundwater use and

strengthen management and other similar priority projects 2. Determine current land degradation 2.1 Raise awareness about land degradation and importance of status in the basin SLM

2.2 Gather information on the status of land degradation through research and participatory consultations with communities 2.3 Map degraded areas by looking at: - Severely degraded areas, areas greatly at risk of future degradation, less vulnerable areas to land degradation - This can help to prioritise the locations and types of SLM actions needed 2.4 The drivers of land degradation in those sites will inform the type of SLM approach to be implemented. 2.5 Create a database of the identifying land degradation hot spots and that of good SLM practices replicable in the basin 2.6 This approach will likely inform all the stakeholders about degradation extent and status in the Basin and seek decisions on priority investments to SLM adoption

3. Improve existing SLM practices in the 3.1 Develop a community-based SLM capacity building training basin for the basin through exchange groups

3.2 Practical trainings can identified by using existing indicators for the Basin e.g. rainfall monitoring, veld condition, livestock health 3.3 Select capacity action priorities based on their identified SLM needs e.g. fire management 3.4 Facilitate the trainings with exchange groups from various sites to learn from each other 3.5 Identify challenges to implement SLM at the Basin level 3.6 This process will include adopting and learning practices and techniques outside the Basin

Table 19: Theories of change for the basin. Strengthen resource governance to benefit all users (optimal use of available resources) Tenure insecurity and land size were indicated as contributing drivers of land degradation in the Aminuis and Corridor area. Taking into consideration that a vast population of the basin is concentrated in the communal land areas – resources should be equally distributed to benefit all land users while maintaining their resource base at the same time. This will require a good knowledge of the key natural resources within the basin and their use and allocation. A shift of resources to new places may be required to restore some sites, e.g. seedling materials for vegetation species. Refer to 3.4 of the catalogue on SLM best practices

Determine current land degradation status in the basin An assessment to look into the status of land degradation within the basin should be prioritised. It is also necessary to establish the boundaries of the river basin that is to be monitored along with its stakeholders. Stakeholder analysis has to be done to select stakeholders for inclusion in participatory approach and SLM activities. Subsequent to stakeholder identification, degraded areas need to be identified and mapped to prioritise for SLM interventions for the basin. This should cover aspects such as the drivers, pressure, state, and impact and response options to inform the SLM methodology.

Improve existing SLM practices in the basin Identify, assess and prioritise possible SLM options through exchange groups and learning and adopting suitable best practices. Based on the identified land degradation drivers and suggested solutions for SLM interventions, pilot SLM options for the basin can be conducted to test the effectiveness of the selected activities. These pilots can be monitored using a range of biophysical and socio-economic indicators (many of these have been highlighted in the report).Up-scaling may be necessary to improve SLM for the overall Basin.

5.2 Necessary steps to ensure longevity of SLM interventions

Although there are other important principles that will contribute to the longevity of the SLM interventions the below mentioned priorities will go a long way in ensuring a sound start of the intervention and useful execution.

Implementation mechanisms (links to associations, communities)  It is critical that continuous engagement (and more importantly, empowerment) with the local stakeholders, both at the project sites, in the communal area and the basin per se on regional levels will take place. It is equally important that extension services officers and related people who played critical support roles during the baseline are used as community liaisons in the implementation of the project. These include Mr. Isando Kavari10 (Rural Water Extension Officer, DRWSSC, MAWF) and Ms. Bethel Kazapua (Agricultural Extension Officer, DEES, MAWF), and the constituency councillors.

 Of course it is possible to engage the Famers Associations, NGOs, expert institutions and consultants in the facilitation of the local level activities and the interactive environmental learning and action approach, but (i) such intermediaries must fully understand the rational of the project and the underlying innovative and cutting edge community development approaches, (ii) be willing to spent much time with the local communities in the field, and (iii) be engaged over a long-term with the project implementation. In terms of implementation on the ground at the project sites, the Aminuis Farmers Association would be a good channel to work through. The structure of the Namibia farmers Namibian associations is given in Figure 23. In terms of practical National Farmers Union (NNFU) implementation on the ground, AFA has approximately

1400 registered members (pers. comm., AFA meeting, Regional Farmers Unions (e.g. 22 March 2012) and thus in terms of practical contact it Omaheke Farmers may be worthwhile to align activities through them. Union) The Chairperson of AFA is Mr. Kakujaha. However, no District Farmers real capacity assessment of AFA was conducted during Associations (e.g. Aminuis Farmers the baseline assessment – this would be an important Association) component to conduct in terms of implementation, and Farmers should include other farmers associations of the basin. Cooperatives (e.g. Pamwe and Aminuis In addition, the National Agricultural Union has in its Cooperatives)

National Strategic Plan (NASP, 2006-2015) a project Figure 24: The current structure of Farmers which looks at commercial farmers providing support to Associations in Namibia, using Omaheke region, communal farmers – this is also a channel which can be and Aminuis District, as an example. practically pursued in terms of implementation and in terms of partnerships with various actors (NGOs, consultants, unions and farmers assocations, could

10 Mr Kavari formed part of the team and assisted in every land condition assessment, facilitated all the community meetings and interviews and was intimately involved in the baseline process.

be strategically pursued), especially during the grazing management pilots recommended under the theory of change.

Practical, technical and capacity support  Looking at the structures of the CPP of the Namibian Government, it is clear that project support is required, either by hiring specific field staff or by appointing IUCN support on site.  The CPP, although a long-term national mechanism, is winding down the project support unit. Existing staff of MET, MAWF and other CPP partners will need dedicated technical support to implement the envisioned activities; additionally financial resources must be availed to this implementation level – which can potentially be done through the local ministerial structures.  IUCN, as the implementing agency for the KNP, must take a technical support or even lead function – it is clear that less administrative than practical implementation support is required to make the KNP a success.  Ensuring capacity support at the implementation level for the existing structures including those of the Farmers Associations and extension services of various important line ministries is important; financial resources must directly find their way to this level to make a difference.

Making that link to strategic development planning  Linking to Section 2.2, Part 2 of this report, it will be important to align activities with the Rural Development Strategy, the NDP4 and activities prioritised under these (including TIPEEG). These were not publically available at the time of conducting the baseline. However, strategic focuses in the agriculture, transport, public works sectors are very relevant when it comes to KNP visions of income generation and employment opportunities (in terms of recommendations made under this baseline). These include, inter alia, the possible construction of a tar road between Gobabis and Aminuis (works employment, increasing accessibility – and thus markets – into the area), the upgrading of boreholes in the area, up-scaling of agriculture projects such as the goat projects. We recommend that continued discussions with NPC and the RC (and Constituency Offices) are done throughout implementation to guide these “co”-projects, avoid duplicity and generate co-funding for long-term projects (including capacity building towards greater employment in the area).

A note on impact assessment  A suggestion is made to establish a small grant mechanism in terms of support identified land degradation projects. Both CPP-ISLM and the Small Grants Project (SGP) have lessons learnt on various innovations, but no detailed impact assessments of these innovations have been conducted. If such a small grant mechanism is established for the project, it should be linked to a strong capacity support component. A recommendation for an impact evaluation for such a mechanism is made here, criteria (or indicators) for which the consultants were not able to construct in such a short timeframe.

References

Aharoni, B., & Ward, D. (1997). “A new predictive tool for identifying areas dofdesertification: a case study from Namibia.” Desertification Control Bulletin 31: 12-18

Akhtar-Schuster,M., Bigas, H., & Thomas, R. (eds). (2010). Monitoring and Assessment of Desertification and Land Degradation: Knowledge Management, Institutions and Economics. The United Nations University.

Bayer, W., & Waters-Bayer, A. (1994). Planning with pastoralists: PRA and more – a review of methods focused on Africa. Eschborn: GTZ.

DRFN. (2004). Namibia's Third National Report on the implementation of the UNCCD. Bonn: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.

DRFN. (2008). Climate change vulnerability and adaptation assessment. Windhoek: Ministry of Environment and Tourism.

Economist. (2009, June 22). Land Degradation a Major Problem in Namibia, Economist. Economist. Retrieved March 05, 2012, from http://www.economist.com.na/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17088:land- degradation-a-major-problem&catid=539:general-news&Itemid=60

Ganzin, N., Coetzee, M.,Rothauge, A., & Fotsing, J. (2005). Rangeland Resources Assessment with Satellite Imagery: An Operational Tool for National Planning in Namibia. Geocarto International, 20 (3), 33-42.

Gebremedhin,B., Woldewahid,G., Dessalegn,Y., Gebey, T., & Teka, W. (2010). Sustainable land management through market-oriented commodity development: Case studies from Ethiopia. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 21.Nairobi: ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute).

Goldstein, W., Hesselink, F., Rientjes, S., Phillips, C., Zeidler, J., Braby J., Colleton, N., & Wheeler, K. (forthcoming). Creating Pathways for Positive Change.

Matambo, S., & Seely, M. (undated). “World Resources Report Case Study. Namibia: Combating Desertification with Tools for Local-Level Decision Making.” Washington DC: World Resources Report.

Mendelsohn, J., Jarvis, A., Roberts, C., & Robertson, T. (2002). Atlas of Namibia. A portrait of the land and its people. Cape Town: David Philip Publishers. Cape Town, South Africa.

MET. (2004). Vital Signs of Namibia 2004: An Integrated State of the Environment Report. Windhoek: Ministry of Environment and Tourism.

MET. (2009). Kalahari Namib Project: Baseline report. Windhoek: Ministry of Environment and Tourism.

MET & MLR (2007). Namibia: Land use planning and environmental sustainability Contributions to an analytical framework for sustainable land management. DEA Research Discussion Paper, 70. Windhoek: Ministry of Environment and Tourism.

NPC. (2004). Omaheke regional poverty profile: based on village-level participatory poverty assessments in the Omaheke Region. Windhoek: national Planning Commission.

NPFS. (2007).National Programme for Food Security: Programme Preparation Report. Republic of Namibia.

NPC. (2008). The National Development Plan No 3. Republic of Namibia.

NPC. (2011). Targeted Intervention Program for Employment and Economic Growth. Republic of Namibia.

Organisational Research Services. (2004). Theory of change: a practical tool for action, results and learning. Retrieved April 03, 2012, from www.organizationalresearch.com

Twyman, C., Dougill, A., Sporton, D., & Thomas, D. (2001). Community Fencing in Open Rangelands: A Case Study of Community Self-Empowerment in Eastern Namibia. Retrieved April 03, 2012, from http://panrusa.group.shef.ac.uk/pdfs/WP7.pdf

UNEP. (2010). Kalahari Namib Project: enhancing decision-making through interactive environmental learning and action in the Molopo-Nossob River basin in Botswana, Namibia and South Africa. UNEP Project Document, Project No GFL/2328-2770-4B81.

Annex 1: Terms of Reference

Annex 2: Detailed maps for the Mopolo-Nossob basin – Namibia site

Annex 3: Resource maps from PRA at pilot community sites

Annex 4: Catalogue of SLM good practices relevant to KNP and pilot community sites