Università degli Studi di Milano – Bicocca Facoltà di Scienze Matematiche, Fisiche e Naturali

Academic year 2015 - 2016

Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Ambiente e del Territorio e di Scienze della Terra

Master in “Water resources management in international development aid”

ECOLOGICAL MONITORING: PILOTING A TOOL TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTS ON RANGELAND OF

CLIMATE CHANGE AND POOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Supervisor: Giorgio Cancelliere Student: Francesca Colombi

Tutors: Giorgio Colombo NGO: Istituto OIKOS

Silvia Ceppi

1

Table of contents

1. Introduction 2

2. General information 3

2.1 Tanzania 3

2.2 Project area 4

2.2.1 Climate 5

2.2.2 Geology 7

2.2.3 Soil, land use and vegetation 9

3. ECO BOMA project 13

4. Rangeland 15

4.1 Rangeland definition 15

4.2 Carbon sequestration in rangeland and its importance 16

4.3 Key issues in rangelands 18

4.3.1 Constrains in project area 20

4.4 Steps to be taken 24

5. Participatory mapping 25

6. Rangeland ecological monitoring 26

6.1 Alien plants 27

6.2 Charcoal production 34

6.3 Livestock 35

6.3.1 Road transect 35

6.3.2 Livestock follow 36

6.4 Set aside 37

6.5 Land cover and grass cover 38

6.6 Market survey 40

6.7 Rainfall and temperature 41

7. Monitoring database in QGIS 42

8. Conclusion 46

9. References 47

10. Annexes 50

10.1 Participatory maps 50

2

1. Introduction

In recent times, pastoral communities in Eastern Africa have faced unprecedented variation in

climate and degradation of forage resources, leading to losses of livestock, reduced market

prices, food insecurity, and limited management options. Indeed, livestock production is the

economical backbone of Maasai community in semi-arid lands of Tanzania, but breeders are

now facing conditions where traditional drought coping strategies are being undermined by

increased population pressure, erratic climatic patterns with higher frequency of drought,

limited marketing opportunities, changing in land tenure patterns and in key production areas

with conversion of grazing areas to small-scale farming, rising social conflict, limited water

supply and greater incidences of diseases. One of the primary manifestations of these

combined forces is the degradation of the rangeland resources that, instead, should provide

crucial ecosystem services to the population and are also very important for the global system,

for example for their potential role in mitigating the effects of climate change through the

carbon sequestration process.

Rangelands are hence very important and their sustainable, efficient and effective management

is the key to mitigate climate and human impact on the ecosystem and to promote adaptive

land use practices. The involvement and commitment of communities, authorities and

scientists is crucial as they should work together for better understanding and addressing

constraints, challenges and opportunities.

Istituto Oikos is implementing the project “ECO BOMA: a

climate resilient model for Maasai steppe pastoralists” in

three wards of Arusha region with the aim of supporting

Maasai pastoralists and local authorities to increase their

capacity to adapt and to mitigate to effects of climate

change through the application of a low cost, culturally

acceptable and replicable model of holistic solutions.

In the framework of this project, an important role will be

played by the ecological monitoring, a tool developed to

assess the quality of pasture, the pressure of livestock on

rangeland, the encroachment of alien plants and other

indicators useful to create vulnerability maps identifying

critical areas where protective actions are more urgent.

Purpose of my internship was to test in the field this

multi-analysis tool and its methodology, and to set up a

database in QGIS with the initial information, so that it can

be a tool of investigation and information.

3

2. General information 2.1 Tanzania

At 947,303 square kilometers, Tanzania is the 13th largest country in Africa. It borders Kenya

and Uganda to the north; Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the

west; and Zambia, Malawi, and Mozambique to the south. It also incorporates several offshore

islands, including Unguja (Zanzibar), Pemba, and Mafia.

Tanzania is located on the eastern coast of

Africa, in an area between three of Africa's

Great Lakes and the Indian Ocean.

To the north and west lie Lake Victoria,

Africa's largest lake, and Lake Tanganyika,

the continent's deepest lake, both in

correspondence of the western side of Rift

Valley; to the southwest lies Lake Nyasa.

To the East, the coastline is approximately

800 kilometers, the only area of low plains

of the country.

Central Tanzania is instead occupied by a

vast plateau, with heights between 900 and

1800 m, with plains and arable land, while

to the south and northeast there are

mountainous and densely forested areas,

home to the mountains Meru and

Kilimanjaro (the highest mountain in Africa,

Figure 1 – Tanzania Geographical map 5895 m), both active volcanoes, and the

Eastern Arc mountains. The main rivers are born in this plateau: Gombe river enters in Lake

Tanganyika, while Pangani river in the north, Wami river in the center and Rufiji river to the

south (along about 600 km of which 100 navigable) flow into the Indian Ocean.

Population (2014) 51.820.00

Population in rural areas (% on the total) 70%

Total extension 947,303 km2

Percentage of land for agriculture 46%

Capital Dodoma

Region Eastern Africa

Rural popupaltion with access to safe water sources 44%

Urban popupaltion with access to safe water sources 78%

4

2.2 Project area

Arusha region is found in northern Tanzania. Arusha shares its northern border with the

Republic of Kenya, the Kilimanjaro region to the east, the Manyara and Singida regions to the

south, and the Mara and Simiyu regions to the west.

The major ethnic groups include the Maasai, the Arusha, the Meru, the Iraqw, and the Barbaig

who all have unique cultural heritages.

Arusha region is divided into districts, which in turn are subdivided into district councils and

wards. Each ward is further subdivided into villages and sub-villages. The project’s area of

intervention belongs to Arumeru district, Arusha and Meru district councils, in Arusha Region

located at the northwest slopes of the Mt. Meru. The actions targets 4 villages and 1 sub-

village: Losinoni Juu, Losinoni and Engutukoiti villages in Oldonyowasi ward, Lemanda village in

Oldonyosambu ward and the sub-village of Mkuru in Uwiro ward. This territory overlaps with a

very particular ecosystem, called Maasai steppe, due also to the presence of three important

massifs, namely Mount Kilimanjaro (5895 m), Mount Meru (4567 m) and Mount Longido (2629

m) that affects, directly or indirectly, its climate, soils and vegetation.

The peculiar characteristic of the area of intervention will be briefly detailed in the following

sessions, while a more comprehensive overview about dryland and rangeland will be presented

in chapter 4.

Figure 2 – Area of intervention

5

2.2.1 Climate

Tanzania lies just south of the equator, at 1‐11°S and has a tropical climate with regional

variations due to topography. With the exception of a narrow coastal strip, most of Tanzania is

highland. The coastal regions of Tanzania are warm and humid, with temperatures 25 to 17°C

through most of the year, dipping just below 25°C in the coolest months (JJAS). The highland

regions are more temperate, with temperatures around 20‐23°C throughout the year, dropping

by only a degree or so in JJAS.

Seasonal rainfall in Tanzania is driven mainly by the migration of the Inter‐Tropical Convergence

Zone (ITCZ), relatively narrow belt of very low pressure and heavy precipitation that forms near

the earth’s equator. The exact position of the ITCZ changes over the course of the year. This

causes the north and east of Tanzania experiences two distinct wet periods – the ‘short’ rains in

October to December and the ‘long’ rains in March to May, whilst the southern, western and

central parts of the country experience one wet season that continues October through to April

or May. The amount of rainfall falling in these seasons is usually 50‐200mm per month but

varies greatly between regions. ITCZ IS sensitive to variations in Indian Ocean sea‐surface

temperatures and one of the most well documented ocean influences on rainfall in this region

is El Niño that usually cause greater than average rainfalls in the short rainfall season, whilst

cold phases (La Niña) brings a drier than average season (McSweeney & Lizcano, 2009).

Figure 3 – Tanzania climate according to Köppen classification

Arusha Region has moderate, salubrious temperatures. The average annual temperature is 21°C

in the highlands and 24°C in the lowlands. However, because of its geomorphology, the

presence of important massifs that with their presence influence the overall climate of the

region, and the general synoptic scale circulation greatly influenced by meso scale systems

induced by regional factors (great lakes or topographic features) (Casati et al., 2010), the

climatic characteristics of the region varies greatly between west to east, highlands to lowlands.

Af Tropical rainforest climate

Am

Tropical monsoon

climate

Aw Tropical savanna climate

BSh Hot semi-arid climate

BWh Arid climate

Cfa Humid temperate climate with uniform rainfall

Cfb Oceanic climate

Csa Dry-summer subtropical climate

Csb Dry-summer temperate

Cwa Humid subtropical climate with a dry winter

Cwb Highland climate

6

While in fact mountainous locations, like Arusha town, are characterized by Oceanic Subtropical

Highland Climate (according to Köppen Climate Classification, “Cwb”) and the regions south and

west to Arusha town as Tropical Savannah (Aw), the area of intervention is defined as semi-arid

with a bimodal rainfall pattern. Hot semi-arid climate (or steppe climate) is typical of regions

that receive precipitation below the potential evapotranspiration, but not extremely. Rains

occur in two separate times: a longer rainy season between February and May, and a short one

between November and December, in the middle of periods with no rains or scattered storms

and a long dry season from June to October. Moreover, rainfall patterns are quite variable and

change consistently over short distances; while long rains are mostly regular, the short rains

differ from one year to another, and the beginning of the rainy season is itself sometimes

unpredictable. In general, annual precipitation varies from 300-600 to 700-800 millimeters,

with summer rains, and from 200-250 to 450-500 millimeters with winter rains (from 250 mm

to 1200 mm per annum). Temperatures typically range between 5 and 30 degrees Celsius with

an average annual high temperature around 25 degrees.

Figures 4 and 5 – Average annual rainfall and temperature in Arusha region

7

2.2.2 Geology

The geological framework of Tanzania reflects the geologic history of the African continent as a

whole. Its present appearance is a result of a series of events that began with evolution of

Archean shield, followed by its modification through metamorphic reworking and accretion of

other continental rocks, in turn covered by continentally derived sediments. Pre-rift magmatism

followed by active rifting has also left a major mark upon the Tanzanian landscape. In particular,

a period of rift-related intrusive and extrusive activity concentrated in the Arusha area – to the

northeast and Mbeya area – to the southwest, is responsible for mountain-sized volcanoes such

as Mt. Meru and Mt. Kilimanjaro. Finally, across the country are also found a wide variety of

recent and largely semi- to un-consolidated wind, water, and weathering-derived recent

formations (Howard, 2011).

Figure 6 – Tanzania geology map

8

In the area of intervention, the volcano-sedimentary sequences are Cenozoic; older ones date

back to the Miocene-Pliocene, while the last recorded eruption occurred in the early 20th

century. The lithology is dominated by volcanic rocks with some alluvial deposits. No crystalline

basement outcrops occur in the area, but they are present at shallow depths to the north.

The topography is dominated by the Mount Meru, a young volcano of Pleistocene origin. The

Meru crater was formed by a vast explosion and further activities increased its size, as the

series of violent explosions that 6000 years ago caused the collapse of the whole eastern crater

wall. This resulted in a landslide and in a consequent extensive mudflow which travelled

eastward to the base of Mount Kilimanjaro and caused the formation of many lakes, ponds and

swamps. About 1800 years ago the caldera wall further collapsed. The flood this time laid down

a sand/ash layer (Istituto Oikos, 2011). It is clear the strict relation between geology and

morphology of the area: large lahars of different age superimposed to the original relieve

having buried or flooded elder volcanic mounts producing an undulated landscape. Ash

deposition and its re-distribution by superficial erosional dinamycs tended to smooth relieve

forming colluvial gentle connecting surfaces (Casati et al., 2010).

Figure 7 – Project area geology

9

2.2.3 Soil, land use and vegetation

Tanzania has adopted the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (WRB) as the system for soil

nomenclature and correlation and according to the WRB, Tanzania has 19 dominant soil types.

The soils of Tanzania are very varied, reflecting the complex interaction of climate, topography

and geology. Volcanic activity associated with the East African Rift System typically gives rise to

Andosols, while erosion of weathered basic volcanic rocks typically produces Vertisols.

Widespread Cambisols, young soils that generally lack distinct horizons and show limited

evidence of soil forming processes, reflect continuous uplift of the area surrounding the East

African Rift System. Moreover, acidic Acrisols and clay-rich Luvisols represent soil development

in areas with significant relief (British Geological survey, 2016).

With regard to land use, agriculture is limited to the areas with suitable soil, often of volcanic

origin. These areas, brown colored in the map below, are primarily located around Lake

Victoria, to the north east part along the border with Kenya, and around Lake Nyasa. Most of

Tanzania territory is in fact covered by forests, limiting the development of farming areas, also

because of conservative policies in place to protect different ecosystems that host important

wildlife and natural parks.

Figure 8 – Tanzania soils map

Map code Major soil group Sq. km Percent

AC Acrisols 81642.50 8.63

AN Andosols 15904.46 1.68

AR Arenosols 21926.33 2.32

CM Cambisols 337353.69 35.64

CH Chernozems 4734.96 0.50

FR Ferralsols 59852.62 6.32

FL Fluvisols 26223.13 2.77

GL Gleysols 1486.19 0.16

HS Histosols 3791.45 0.40

LP Leptosols 76738.02 8.11

LX Lixisols 46888.61 4.95

LV Luvisols 68706.15 7.26

NT Nitisols 21001.11 2.22

PH Phaeozems 22190.10 2.34

PL Planosols 28197.84 2.98

RG Regosols 1196.15 0.13

SC Solonchaks 2750.92 0.29

SN Solonetz 19626.46 2.07

VR Vertisols 47497.85 5.02

Water Bodies 58836.73 6.22

10

Figure 9 – Tanzania land cover classification

1 Terreno coltivabile irrigato

2 Terreno coltivabile alimentato da pioggia

3 Mosaico di terreno coltivabile (50-70%) / vegetazione (20% - 50%)

4 Mosaico vegetazione (50-70%) / terreno coltivabile (20% - 50%)

5 Foresta chiusa a aperta (>15%) di sempreverdi o semi-sempreverdi con foglia ampia

6 Foresta chiusa (>40%) di semi-sempreverdi con foglia ampia

7 Foresta aperta (15-40%) di semi-sempreverdi con foglia ampia / bosco

8 Foresta chiusa (>40%) di sempreverdi con foglie ad ago

9 Foresta aperta (15-40%) di sempreverdi o semi-sempreverdi con foglie ad ago

10 Foresta chiusa a aperta (>15%) di foglie ampie e ad ago

11 Mosaico di foresta o arbusteto (50-70%) / prateria (20-50%)

12 Mosaico di prateria (20-50%) / foresta o arbusteto (50-70%)

13 Arbusteto chiuso a aperto (> 15%) (foglie ampie o aghi, sempreverdi o semi-sempreverdi)

14 Vegetazione erbacea chiuso a aperto (> 15%) (prateria, savana o muschi/licheni)

15 Vegetazione rada (< 15%)

16 Foresta chiusa a aperta (>15%) di foglie ampie regolarmente inondata

17 Foresta chiusa (> 40%) di foglie ampie o arbusteto permanentemente inondati - acqua salina o salmastra

18 Prateria chiusa a aperta (> 15%) o o vegetazione boscosa su suolo regolarmente inondato o allagato

19 Superfici artificiali (aree urbane > 50%)

20 Aree nude

21 Corpi idrici

22 Neve permanente o ghiaccio

11

As commented above, in the project area of intervention soils derived from volcanic rocks and

deposits of ashes created during the Mt. Meru and Mt. Kilimanjaro eruptions. They are very

deep and rich in ashes in the upper area while they become more shallow and rocky moving

away from the volcanoes. Most of the soil of the region is recent and scarcely weathered

especially in arid or eroded areas. In swamps and depressions, soils are alkaline in nature,

dominated by leached soluble materials being transported from higher slopes. These areas

have very high pH values, reaching more than 10, are poorly drained and inadequate for

agriculture. In conclusion, due to its volcanic origin, the soil has a high fertility potential, but is

very fragile. Its weak structure, associated with the declivity of the slopes and the scarce

vegetation coverage in non-forested land, are causing high erosion rates (Istituto Oikos, 2011).

The project area is located within one of the most important biodiversity areas of Tanzania, the

Maasai Steppe, which encompasses over 8 districts in Arusha and Manyara regions

corresponding to approximately 40,000 square kilometers. The natural environment is semi-

arid with poor cover dominated by grassland, shrub-land, thickets and open woodlands. More

in detail, the landscape is described as follows (Istituto Oikos, 2011):

Savannah with trees or shrubs covers flat lands and is characterized by a perennial

herbaceous coverage with sparse trees and shrubs. It is a typical sign of poor rangeland

conditions. The dominant species are graminoid grasses such as Panicum sp., Cynodon

dactylon, Cynodon plechtostachys. The dominant species of trees and shrubs are Acacia

tortilis, Acacia nubica, Balanites aegyptiaca, Commiphora sp., Maerua triphylla,

Euphorbia cuneata, Euphorbia candelabrum;

Shrub-land usually covers hills, flat lands or rocky slopes and is dominated by open

deciduous shrubs 0.5 to 3 m high. Tree coverage is sparse or absent. The dominant

species are Acacia tortilis, Acacia mellifera, Acacia etbaica, Commiphora sp., Maerua

triphylla, Euphorbia cuneata, Euphorbia candelabrum, Balanites aegyptiaca;

Thicket often occurs in escarpment or steep hilly slopes. It is dominated by closed

deciduous shrubs or woody vegetation and tree coverage is sparse or absent. The

dominant species are Acacia mellifera, Acacia etbaica, Commiphora sp., Maerua

triphylla, Grewia sp.;

Woodlands are most frequently found on hilly landscapes. They are dominated by an

open coverage of broad-leaved deciduous trees often lower than 7 m and are usually

characterized by sparse or open shrubs and herbaceous cover. The dominant species are

Acacia drepanolobium, A. tortilis, A. mellifera, A. etbaica, A. senegal, Commiphora sp.,

Euphorbia candelabrum, Euphorbia boussei.

Nearly 92% of this critical ecosystem is designated Maasai village lands where livestock

husbandry (cows, goats and sheep) represents the primary livelihood though subsistence rain-

fed farming of maize and beans is becoming a more common practice. This fragile ecosystem is

12

also home to important wildlife population, such as elephant, lion, wildebeest, zebra, giraffe,

buffalo, oryx, and a host of other species that are a major tourist attraction.

A more extended definition based on the type of vegetation and its use identifies the area of

intervention as “rangeland”, lands on which the native vegetation predominantly like grasses,

grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs are suitable for grazing or browsing by both domestic

livestock and wild animals (see chapter 4 for more detailed information).

Figure 10 – Africa land cover

Figure 11 and 12 – Rangeland vegetation in the project area

13

3. ECO BOMA project

In 2007 the European Union established the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) with the

aim of putting in place and strengthening an effective dialogue and cooperation with

developing countries on climate change. It started its work in just four pilot countries, but today

it has a budget of more than €300 million and it is one of the most significant climate initiatives,

supporting 51 programmes around the world. The Alliance helps the poor developing countries

that are the most vulnerable to climate change to increase their capacity to adapt and/or to

mitigate to effects of climate change and to participate in the global climate change mitigation

effort.

The GCCA focuses its technical support on three main priorities areas:

1. Climate change mainstreaming and poverty reduction;

2. Increasing resilience to climate-related stresses and shocks;

3. Sector-based climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies.

In the framework of GCCA initiative, the project “ECO BOMA: a climate resilient model for

Maasai steppe pastoralists” was launched in April 2015 (with ending date March 2019)

implemented by Istituto Oikos, and Italian NGO active in Tanzania since 1996 and committed to

safeguard biodiversity and to assist local communities in using their own resources in the most

efficient and sustainable way (Istituto Oikos website).

Co-applicants of the action are the Arusha and Meru districts, while affiliated entities are Oikos

East Africa and the Nelson Mandela African Institute of Science and Technology (NM-AIST).

The overall objective of the project is “to increase vulnerable Tanzanian communities' capacity

to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change and contribute to poverty reduction in rural

areas”, while the specific objective is “to improve livelihoods and resilience of the Maasai

communities of Northern Tanzania through the application of the Eco-Boma” model: a low cost,

culturally acceptable replicable model of holistic solutions to the vulnerability of the pastoral

systems”.

Four results have been identified with their related activities:

R1: Access to ecosystem services protected and improved

Rehabilitation and construction of sustainable water storage infrastructures for

Livestock and human consumption;

Introduction of eco-friendly innovations in the boma huts (Solar Bottle Lamps -litre of

light- , biogas digesters, efficient charcoal kilns and live Commiphora fencing);

Grazelands conservation: participatory assessment, ecological research, vulnerability

maps, networking between village and district level.

14

R2: Economic asset of pastoralist communities developed

Creation of a cooperative (women and young males) able to apply appropriate

slaughtering, meat preservation (drying and salting) and introduction of vegetable

leather tanning technique;

Introduction of improved livestock breeds and livestock management practices;

Introduction of small scale farming of drought resistant cereals.

R3: Local government capacity to cope with CC increased

Field training of District technical staff and information sharing with “GCCA Phase I”;

Training on monitoring of CC hazards, and installation of a meteorological station;

Revision of Village Land Use Plans to integrate climate-related issues;

Establish District Climate Change Unit.

R4: Knowledge about climate-related vulnerabilities and impacts and CC adaptation

solutions increased

Set up of a Climate Change centre of knowledge;

Workshops on CC effects lead by experts of NM-AIST;

Development of communication and awareness raising plan and products targeting

journalists, general public and school children (drama group, radio program, press

release, publications, website and blog).

The overall project targets the following beneficiaries:

2000 families of pastoralists and agro-pastoralist (about 250 boma);

About 500 women and young;

6000 children attending the 8 primary schools of the target area;

Local authorities at village (3) and sub-village (7) level, and traditional leaders;

Scientific Journalists of national and local media.

During the four months internship with Istituto Oikos, I was involved in several activities in the

framework of ECO-BOMA project. More in detail, I participated to the following:

Assessment for dams and submersible dams rehabilitation;

Installation of solar bottle lamps;

Commiphora live fencing;

Rangeland ecological monitoring;

Implementation of ecological monitoring database with QGIS. The thesis focuses on the last two activities mentioned as contribution to the Result 1 of the

project. In particular, by the end of the project, the ecological monitoring will be the basis for

the elaboration of a vulnerability land map and relative mitigation measures to be shared with

communities and local authorities, and to be put in place promoting and strengthening the

adaptive capacity and resilience of the population.

15

4. Rangeland

4.1 Rangeland definition

According to the Society for Range Management (SRM), rangeland is defined as any extensive

area of land on which the native vegetation (climax or natural potential plant community)

predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs is grazed or browsed by domestic or

wild herbivores. Rangeland, also called Range, is an extensive tract of arid/semi-arid lands that

are essentially unsuited to rain-fed cultivation, industrial forestry, protected forests or

urbanization (World Research Institute). The typical vegetation includes natural grasslands (tall-

grass prairies), Savannah, steppes (short-grass prairies), shrublands, shrub woodlands, most

deserts, tundras, alpine communities, coastal marshes and meadows. Temperate and tropical

forests that are used for grazing as well as timber production can also be considered rangeland.

Rangelands thus occupy about 40–50% of the land area of the Earth.

Rangelands must be distinguished from pasturelands, as pastures are lands that are primarily

used for the production of adapted, domesticated forage plants for livestock, and by their

management that is principally through the control of the number of animals grazing on

rangeland, as opposed to the more intensive agricultural practices of seeding, irrigation, and

the use of fertilizers typical in pastureland.

The major differences between rangelands and pastures are the kind of vegetation and level of

management that each land area receives:

o Rangeland supports native vegetation;

o Rangeland includes areas that have been seeded to introduced species, but

which are extensively managed like native range;

while

o Pastures have been seeded, usually to introduced species or in some cases to

native plants;

o Are intensively managed using agronomy practices and control of livestock (US

Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

Figure 13 and 14 – Effects of sustainable land management and poor land management practices on rangeland

16

Environmental values of these lands are extensive and provide many essential ecosystem

services on which people depend, and this is one of the reason why any effort must be put in

place to conserve rangeland (and dryland) biodiversity: for its own sake and for the life support

it provides.

Ecosystem services are in fact defined as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These

benefits are the numerous commodities that are supplied by ecosystems as a result of their

structure and function; they are the conditions and processes through which nature sustains

human life. According to the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, these services may be classified

from a functional point of view into four categories:

provisioning, such as the production of food and water;

regulating, such as the control of climate and disease;

supporting, such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination;

cultural, such as spiritual and recreational benefits.

Ecosystem services can also be classified according to their geographical scale (local, regional,

global), value to society (direct and indirect), or the type of natural ecosystems providing the

service, such as forest, coral reef or wetlands (WRI 2009).

On this regards, rangeland-dominating semi-arid areas are essential to the subsistence of

pastoralists and agropastoralists, as they provide primary products, such as grasses, legumes

and shrubs, which are converted into animal proteins. Use of the resources for other purposes,

for example fuel, farming and building material, intensified lately with the increase in human

population and with sedenterization of communities. Primary economic outputs include hence

livestock production, but wildlife values are also a major economic consideration.

It is important to underline that rangelands are commonly and erroneously considered marginal

territories, suitable only for livestock and hunting. In reality, dryland species and ecosystems

have developed extraordinary mechanisms to cope with low and sporadic rainfall. They are

highly resilient and recover quickly from shocks (fire, drought, overgrazing), of course if their

equilibrium is not deeply compromised by pastoralists land use practices and/or other threats.

These attributes have great importance for the global system, especially in relation with climate

change. Rangelands are in fact storing up to 30% (estimated) of the world’s soil carbon in

addition to substantial amount of above-ground carbon store in trees, bushes, shrubs and

grasses.

4.2 Carbon sequestration in rangelands and its importance

A strategy to mitigate the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is through sequestration of this

additional carbon via storage in plant biomass and soil organic matter in a process termed

terrestrial C sequestration. Through the process of photosynthesis, plants take in atmospheric

carbon dioxide (CO2) and store the carbon in their living tissue—both above and below the

ground. Some of this organic carbon becomes part of the soil as plant parts die and decompose,

17

and some is lost back to the atmosphere as gaseous carbon emissions through plant respiration

and decomposition (UCCE 2010).

It is possible to describe different processes:

- Herbaceous grassland plants contribute to rangeland carbon stores primarily by the

growth and sloughing of roots, a cyclical process in the case of perennial species and

especially when grazed. In fact, when perennial plant are pruned back, a roughly

equivalent amount of roots dies off (adding carbon to the soil) because the remaining

top-growth can no longer photosynthesize enough food to feed the plant’s entire root

system. If given adequate rest from grazing, both roots and top-growth recover and the

cycle begins again;

- Woody plants, particularly trees, sequester relatively more carbon in aboveground

growth but also add to the topsoil via downed wood and litter and to much deeper soils

via roots;

- Carbon from plant matter consumed by grazing animals is redeposited as waste; some

carbon is lost back to the air but much is incorporated into the soil by hoof action (poop

and stomp) and dung beetles for a net gain.

Based on this processes, good grazing management allows perennial plants to live and

reproduce for many years, adding more and more carbon to the soil, as well as browsing woody

plants helps sequester carbon by stimulating new growth.

Figure 15 – Carbon sequestration cycle

18

This important role of rangelands must be taken into consideration as CO2 is the primary

greenhouse gas contributing to rapid global climate change. Rangelands have a large potential

to sequester carbon because they occupy about half of the world’s land area and store greater

than 10% of terrestrial biomass carbon and 10 to 30% of global soil organic carbon (SOC).

Sequestering carbon in plants and soil and limiting its release back into the atmosphere will

help offset greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., methane [CH₄+ and nitrous oxide *N₂O] from

livestock production and CO2 from feedstock and crop production) and slow down climate

change. Sequestering carbon in rangelands promises to be cost-effective for climate change

mitigation in part because the additional benefits, such as improved soil quality, structure and

water-holding capacity, better nutrient cycling, and less erosion, can improve net income

potential for grazing operations. Moreover, managing grazing intensity, timing, and distribution

can lead to better plant productivity (increasing carbon storage in the soil), higher quality mixed

forage (reducing methane emissions per animal), less use of feed stocks (reduced emissions

from crop production and transportation), and better operational productivity (efficiency and

profit), more efficient digestion, with a higher proportion of material being used for animal

maintenance and growth, less waste (and gas emissions therefrom), and lower gas emissions

from digestion (healthier animals emit less carbon in the form of methane, a green-house gas

many times more potent than CO2, and are more profitable) (UCCE, 2010).

In conclusion, while climate change is projected to exacerbate, more focus should be geared

toward improving the naturally available carbon sinks. Considering in fact that reduction in

anthropogenic greenhouse emission may not accomplish enough on its own, the need to

sequester carbon already emitted in the atmosphere into more stable forms is becoming a

main topic of discussion and field trial: rangelands are one of the most widely distributed

landscapes in the world and they can hence provide one of the most viable, ready to implement

and environmental friendly carbon sink (McDermot, C., Elavarthi, S., 2014).

4.3 Key issues in rangelands

Africa continent is considered among the most susceptible to climate change impacts because

of the large proportion of people living in the sub-tropics and that will be among the most

affected by increased temperature and reduced rainfall; the population is highly dependent on

natural resources, livestock and agriculture; extreme poverty of most of the population making

them less capable of responding to increased incidence of floods and droughts; and, finally,

because Africa’s natural resources are already degraded and hence less resilient to the impact

of climate change.

Future climate projections about how and to which extent Africa’s rangelands will be affected

in 21st century indicate as likely (probability of occurrence >66%) or very likely (probability of

occurrence of >90%) the following scenarios, among others:

19

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 may increase from the current 380 ppm to about

520 ppm by 2100;

Temperature will increase by between 2-6°C by the end of the 21st century depending

on the region and SRES emission scenario used;

Annual rainfall increased or decreased depending on the region;

Changes in variability of frequency and magnitude of droughts, with shortened periods

between the events, extended periods of wet spells, pattern of rainfall including number

of rainy days, etc.;

Increased risk of land degradation and changes in biodiversity richness, if not

biodiversity loss;

High confidence that many semi-arid regions will see decreases in water resource

availability;

Changes in the length of growing seasons, and crop and livestock yields, with hence

increased risk of food shortages, insecurity, and pest and disease incidence.

Although these projections are formulated with a considerable level of uncertainty associated

depending on the scenario and model applied, and on the poor data and monitoring sources

available, they are anyway informative and provide valuable insights into important potential

changes and their effects on ecosystem behavior.

While it is undeniable that climate change and variability will have serious implications,

impacting on ecosystems goods and services upon which poor people and livestock keepers

depend, thus exacerbating current development challenges, it is nevertheless important to

underline the inter-playing role and interrelation between climate change and land use

practices. The biological composition and functioning of rangeland are in fact influenced not

only by climate, but also an important and determinant role is played by rangeland

management such as heavy grazing, cultivation and resource extraction.

Human impact in general and livestock over grazing particularly must be considered as one of

the factor affecting rangeland ecosystems, coupled with introduction of alien species, fuelwood

harvesting and deforestation, altered fire frequency (in savannas, fire is often used to improve

the quality of the grass cover through stimulating new shoots, a short-term gain that reduces

woody cover and leads to land degradation if livestock numbers are too high, Nelly et al., 2009),

wildlife degradation and conversion of rangelands to croplands or human settlements

(Sidahmed, 1996).

From a socio-economic point of view, livestock are central to the livelihoods of more than 200

million Africans who rely on them for income from sales of milk, meat and skins, for protein

consumption, draught power, ritual and spiritual needs, amongst other uses. Owning livestock

is one way in which many people are able to diversify their risk, increase their assets and

improve their resilience to sudden changes in climate, disease outbreaks and unfavorable

market fluctuations (Thornton et al., 2006a).

20

Livestock is hence the major user of primary production and the main economic activity in the

semi-arid and arid regions, but poor management practices, such overgrazing, are not only

affecting the productive sector itself, but are also causing degradation of land and depletion of

rangeland biodiversity and ecosystem services.

In this regard, important concepts are “carrying capacity” (CC) and “stocking rate”. The carrying

or grazing capacity of a rangeland is defined as the amount of grazing land which should be

made available to a Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) so that it can be maintained without

deterioration of the natural resources of the area over long term; it is the maximum possible

stocking of herbivores that rangeland can support on a sustainable basis (FAO, 1988). The

estimation is based on the assumption that livestock require a daily dry matter intake (DM)

equivalent to 2.5% to 3.0% of their body weight. The overall purpose of calculating rangeland

CC is to have an appropriate balance between forage supply and demand. Stocking rate is

instead defined as the amount of grazing land actually available to a TLU and it may vary

considerably between years due to fluctuating forage conditions. The main issue, which is not

really taken into consideration in many management plans of rangeland, is that if the grass

production is below potential grass production, then the stocking rate must be below the

carrying capacity of the land to allow its recovery: the correct stocking rate should always and

anyhow be less than the carrying capacity.

4.3.1 Constrains in project area

For decades Tanzanian pastoral communities used rangelands in a sustainable way through

transhumances. With low density of human and livestock populations, migrations were possible

along large distances (Raikes, 1981). Transhumance is an environmental adaptation that has

allowed the sustainable development of pastoralism in arid lands, where rainfall determines

routes and movements, mobility avoids over grazing and guarantees the effective

management of ecosystems despite, and especially, during periods of high climate variability.

However, during the last decades, pastoralists in the area of intervention had to cope with

severe ecological stress. Repeated droughts, the expansion of small-scale farming, the creation

of protected areas and game reserves, the large-scale agriculture, fencing of rangelands, poor

water point management, boundaries (national and international), and a dramatically increased

number of cattle have contracted the lands available to transhumance, causing the transition to

a more settled lifestyle and the impossibility to rely on traditional survival strategies. The

immediate consequence is overgrazing practices causing the partial or total removal of

vegetation cover and roots that is permanently damaging the structure of grasslands; reduction

in the production of forage; exposes the soil to sealing, baking, and erosion; reduces the

infiltration of water into the soil; increases water runoff and flooding; and induces unfavorable

changes in the botanical composition of the vegetation.

21

This situation is worsened by the erratic rainfall patterns, with higher amount of rain falling in

shorter period of times and higher evapotranspiration due to higher temperatures, with

consequent loss of livestock and conflicts for accessing to rangeland and water sources. In fact,

despite the number of livestock per capita is often insufficient to guarantee the food and

economical security of Maasai pastoralists, in the last twenty years the number of cattle, sheep

and goats has increased consistently, and this trend is quite exaggerated in the project area.

According to the assessment conducted by Oikos, data collected report an unsustainable

ecological pressure over the ecosystem: total livestock population in Oldonyosambu may reach

90.000 cows and 335.000 shoat on a 235,6 km2 surface, i.e. 4 cows and 14 shoat/Ha, a value

twenty times more than the suggested number for arid areas of 6 Ha/TLU (Tessema e Emojong,

1984a).

Droughts, anthropic pressure and unsupportive policy environment that restricts mobility of

pastoralists due to land fragmentation, are reducing the availability of rangeland and have

forced the population to unsustainable practices: Maasai are adapting to these changes but in a

manner that weakens rather than sustains their resilience. Indeed, in order to meet food

security needs and to reduce their dependence on livestock-based livelihoods, Maasai are not

only choosing for more permanent settlements and agriculture, but also some of them are

completely abandoning pastoralism to work in town, other are producing charcoal to reduce in

the short term their economic insecurity as well as, and many are selling the cattle, in times of

severe economic stress, at a price below the market, thus aggravating even more their

economic instability and their vulnerability to food insecurity.

Moreover, over the last 25 years, Maasai have rapidly converted semi-arid grazing areas to

agricultural croplands, a practice they were totally avoiding in the past. Part of their motivation

has been to protect their land from encroachment by other ethnic groups, as farmers have

more secure land tenure than livestock keepers. In addition, the government has wanted to

settle pastoralists for generations. Finally, the adoption of crop growing has also allowed them

to capitalize on the cash market for grain, diversifying their income by growing maize and

beans, while at the same time expanding the livestock herds (Conroy, 2003). However, given

the constraints of soil fertility and water, rain-fed farming in semi-arid areas is risky at best,

with data showing good production only every 5/6 years, and unimproved cropping practices

are destroying the soils as well as pastoralist livelihoods and wildlife corridors. Environmental

degradations at a varying degrees observed in the project area include desertification, soil

erosion, destruction of wildlife habitats, loss of biodiversity, salinization and soil compaction.

Finally, it must be taken into consideration the level of knowledge and understanding of these

phenomena, in particular climate change, by the local authorities whose support and

commitment as policy makers are is critical in rangeland and pastoral development. Oikos

carried out an exercise to evaluate the level of knowledge of local district technical staff in

Arusha and Meru District Councils about climate change, in particular with representatives

22

working in specific departments such as livestock, land management, agriculture, water,

planning, health, forests, and education. Questionnaires included general and more technical

questions and the results can be summarized as follow:

- Their understanding about climate and climate change is quite variable, with 35% of the

interviewed not informed about and the remaining 65% with a generic knowledge of the

topics;

- They identified as most relevant consequences of climate change food insecurity, health

risks, increased number of natural hazards such as extreme drought, fires and floods;

- Deforestation, irregular rainfall, overgrazing and changes in economic activities are

identified as the major causes for climate change impacts.

Despite a general understanding of the issue, it is clear that more efforts must be done to

improve their level of understanding and to translate their knowledge into facts, policies and

proper planning, to be achieved in closed coordination with the communities, as their direct

empowerment and involvement is crucial for the effective and sustainable range management.

Figure 16 – Crop failure and invasion of alien plant (Datura stramonium)

23

Figure 17 – Soil erosion

Figure 18 – Overgrazing

24

Figure 19 – Trees cut for production of charcoal

4.4 Steps to be taken

As underlined several times in the previous paragraphs, a sustainable, efficient and effective

management of rangelands is the way to promote the adaptation of these important

ecosystems to climate change, as well as to make the population and the environment more

resilient to shocks and variations. A sustainable land management should increase land

productivity and maintain ecological resilience, be cost efficient with short payback (economic

viability), easy to learn, accepted, effectively adopted and taken up (socially and culturally

accepted), and should be environmentally sustainable (contributing to the improvement of

soils, water, and flora and fauna (biodiversity) (TerrAfrica, 2009).

Range management must hence focus in sustained yield of rangeland products while protecting

and improving the basic range resources of soil, water, plant and animal life, in particular

livestock as main source of income and food security of the population living in semi-arid lands.

Adaptability, resilience and mitigation are crucial concepts that rangeland management must

aim for. Adaptive capacity is defined as the ability of a system to adjust to climate change by

reducing the impacts of those changes, taking advantage of opportunities, and coping with the

consequences. Resilience is the ability of a community to resist, absorb and recover from the

25

effects of hazards, timely and efficiently. Mitigation refers to how rangelands can be managed

to reduce the effects of human activity on climate through carbon sequestration.

A project aiming to contribute to these goals must hence:

- Promote climate-resilient livelihoods strategies in combination with income

diversification and capacity building for planning and natural resource management;

- Disaster risk reduction strategies to reduce the impact of hazards;

- Capacity development for local civil society and governmental institutions;

- Advocacy and social mobilization to address the underlying causes of vulnerability, such

as poor governance.

Through its holistic approach, the ECO BOMA project is contemplating all the points detailed

above and it is additionally undertaking a mayor effort to implement an in deep ecological

monitoring in the area of intervention, both of climate and of ecosystem response, gathering

information that will be lately useful for information and awareness purposes, complex analysis

on climate change and human activities effects on rangeland, and promotion of best practices

in land and range management.

5. Participatory mapping

Participatory mapping is a well-known, robust tool for understanding land use, sources of

conflict and prioritized interventions.

During the first year of the project, Oikos implemented an important exercise of participatory

mapping with the communities targeted by the project. The activity was relevant, and it is here

reported, because the outcomes give an initial understanding of land use system at each

community, natural resources available and rangeland resources, landscape characteristics and

settlements. The draft version of the maps (see annex 1 for more details) will be further

improved by new participatory consultations with the beneficiaries and by complementing the

information with data collected through the ecological monitoring, such as grazing routes and

areas, set asides at each village, water sources built/rehabilitated during the project, etc.

Vulnerability maps to be drawn after the analysis of ecological monitoring should be a

complementary and important part of this activity with the aim of deepening communities

understanding of ongoing land use practices and promoting commitments to manage natural

resources better.

Indeed, among the different uses of resource mapping with beneficiaries, the outcomes can be

used for climate change adaptation/planning. As climate change is still a relatively new issue for

communities in terms of understanding challenges and opportunities, resource maps can be

combined with climate vulnerability analysis, also assessing before and after impacts of climatic

variations such as increased temperature and/or changes in rainfall, and the subsequent impact

on vegetation growth patterns (Irwin et al, 2015).

26

At the time being, the maps developed during the exercise gives initial information about

rangeland areas within the community, and which of them are used during the dry/wet

seasons, additionally to more general information about other different land uses.

6. Rangeland ecological monitoring

Rangeland ecological monitoring is observing or measuring changes in the health of the land

over space and time. Traditionally, local communities have monitored their land using

traditional indicators, to inform their own management decisions. However, traditional

knowledge systems are increasingly being eroded and disrupted, while changing environmental

conditions are presenting pastoralists communities new ecological and management challenges

(Riginos and Herrick, 2010). Several studies confirm that the Indigenous Ecological Knowledge

(IEK) of landscape classification of the Maasai is useful for evaluating impacts of land use on

rangeland biodiversity and it should be incorporated into surveys done by ecologists

(Mapinduzi et al., 2003); however, quantitative information has additional advantages such as

enabling comparison from one year to another and among different collectors, if present; the

information is more easily shared among informants, as well as with other stakeholders and

policy makers not necessarily familiar with the situation; and finally it can be used for

understanding changes and causes over larger scale, if data are collected in multiple sites. By

implementing simple monitoring methods, it is possible to generate quantitative data that can

complement and add to traditional monitoring systems.

Indeed, monitoring rangeland health can be useful for many different reasons:

1. It helps in verifying if the current management is affecting or not the land in the way we

were expecting;

2. It allows comparisons between areas that are being managed in different ways;

3. It enables testing new management approaches and notice their benefits (or not) to

promote sustainable rangeland management through ecologically-sound strategies;

4. It makes possible to notice early warning signs of rangeland degradation;

5. It provides scientific evidences on the determinants for rangeland quality (e.g.

vegetation cover and biomass & diversity) and the main drivers of rangeland

degradation (e.g. livestock pressure, deforestation);

6. It provides consistent and reliable data that can be shared with key players (policy

makers, local government and final users), thus making possible the development of

coping strategies.

Rangeland ecological monitoring is hence a powerful tool to inform policy makers,

conservationists and communities of critical degradation patterns to prioritize strategies for

ecological recovery and mitigate severe depletion of local resources or, on the opposite, to

promote best management practices that have been identified as successful during the

monitoring.

27

In general, the ecological monitoring uses data from three general categories:

i. Environmental - including data on climate soils, topography, hydrology and floristic

dynamics;

ii. Faunal - including data on wildlife and livestock numbers, distribution, population

dynamics and habitat utilization;

iii. Economical/political - including data on current land-use forms, projected land

demands and national development goals.

Moreover, the decision about what to monitor, hence which data to collect, must be completed

by selecting the places where to implement the monitoring, the periodicity of surveys and in

which period of the year to carry out the exercise (before and/or after the rains, during the dry

season, etc.).

Each of these decisions must be made taking into account the objectives of the monitoring that

in the ECO BOMA project can be summarized as follows:

- Identify rangeland areas (location, extension, route of transhumance, set aside, etc.)

and their use, including practices of overgrazing;

- Rangeland status in the different periods of the year, under different management, and

according to the estimated number of livestock grazing and browsing;

- Changing in biodiversity richness (and loss) and invasion of alien species (extension,

encroachment velocity, etc.);

- Socio-economic effects of climate change and land degradation (reduced market price

for livestock, charcoal production, etc.);

- Monitoring changes in specific, target areas and in the landscape as a whole;

- Collect data about rainfall and temperature to start an initial analysis about climate

change in the area.

Based on these considerations, a pool of low cost, easy to monitor indicators was identified and

will be monitored for 36 months with a frequency varying between once a month and once a

year and with a specific methodology for data collecting. During the internship a piloting

exercise was conducted to test them in the field. Nevertheless, it must be underlined that this

initial structure of the ecological monitoring may be further improved and modified in the

coming months, with the contribution of experts and new funds to which Oikos is applying.

Moreover, although the specific objectives of the monitoring are at the moment clear, thanks

to the information gathered meanwhile, more questions may arise leading to the need of

making adjustments to what put in place so far.

6.1 Alien plants

There is a growing concern about the distribution and the ecological effects of alien plants in

rangelands, in particular of non-palatable ones. Alien vegetation refers to plants that are not

native in a country and have been brought into a country from another. In general, there is

28

scarcity of data about alien plants, mostly collected in protected areas, while less information is

available on their distribution in rangeland areas where the project is being implemented.

According to this, a number of 6 alien plants have been identified as particularly risky for

rangeland ecology, livestock and, in some cases, for the human population.

The methodology applied was to identify three separate transects, one in Lemanda, one in

Engutukoiti and one crossing both Losinoni and Mkuru villages, and to walk along them marking

GPS points where these plants were found. Moreover, whenever plants of these species were

found out of the identified transects, their presence was recorded in a 3x3 m geo-referenced

grid that allows for larger species such as colonies of Opuntia sp. or denser colonies such as

Parthenium hysterophorus to be monitored in terms of land cover: a sequence of closed GPS

points clearly indicates a more severe and risky invasion compared with scattered points.

Data will be collected every two months, in particular to evaluate the rate of expansion for each

species within the selected areas. It must be underlined that some of the plants to be

monitored were not in their germination or growing season, hence it was not possible to detect

their presence.

Monitoring presence and distribution of alien species aims not only to identify the areas

affected by the invasion of alien plants, it also informs communities and local authorities about

the risks of their presence and dissemination, and favors control actions such as eradication.

The alien plants to be monitored and their ecological impact will be briefly detailed in the

following paragraphs.

Cylindropuntia exaltata

Figures 20, 21 and 22 – Cylindropuntia exaltata

29

Cylindropunta exaltata (also Austrocylindropuntia exaltata or Opuntia subulata) is originally

from South America, and it is invasive in parts of Kenya and Tanzania, where large infestations

are found. It is cultivated as an ornamental plant, but in most of the cases encountered in

Tanzania, it was used as live fence to exclude livestock from farms or houses. However, these

uses cannot compensate for its overall negative impacts. It is a potential ecosystem transformer

species. The spines and glochids can irritate the skin. The plant lowers the value of pastures

since it cannot be browsed and it also curtails movement of grazing animals. The spines can also

injure livestock and wild herbivores, especially when normal pasture is reduced by the invading

cactus and these animals are forced to feed on C. exaltata. It displaces native species and

prevents the free movement of wildlife and livestock.

Opuntia stricta

Figures 23, 24 and 25 – Opuntia stricta

30

Opuntia stricta is originally from the Carribean region. It was introduced to East Africa in the

1950s and it is now invasive in parts of Kenya and is present in Uganda and Tanzania. In Kenya,

for example, the species has become increasingly problematic in recent years with

deterioration in rangeland, creating a perfect opportunity for invasion by O. stricta. The species

is known to invade rocky slopes and river banks as well as degraded area in grasslands and

woodlands. This plant reproduces by seed and also vegetatively via its fleshy cladodes which

become dislodged from the plant and produce roots. Cladodes are spread by becoming

attached to animals, footwear and vehicles. They may also be dispersed by floodwaters and in

dumped garden waste. The fruit are eaten by various animals (e.g. birds and rodents) and the

seeds then spread in their droppings.

Opuntia stricta is used as a barrier fence and in some parts of the world as livestock fodder, but

is a very serious problem in arid and semi-arid lands. It is an irritant due to its spines and

glochids (barbed hairs or bristles). People have abandoned homes/villages as a result of this

weed. It prevents access, displaces native species and causes injuries to people, livestock and to

wild animals. Pastoralists claim that excessive consumption of fruit by livestock causes death -

some pastoralists reckon they have lost all of their livestock. It has been nominated as among

100 of the "World's Worst" invaders by the IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group and it has

been listed as a noxious weed in South Africa and in most Australian states.

Ipomoea hildebrandtii

Figures 26, 27 and 28 – Ipomoea hildebrandtii

31

Ipomoea hildebrandtii is an invasive species both in natural and established pastures and it has

been described as one of the most undesirable forage species for grazing livestock. Ipomoea

spp. is a creeping annual herb, widespread in semi-arid districts, which colonizes and spreads

rapidly immediately after the onset of the rainy season. The species is mainly found in

disturbed or degraded sites. The plant exhibits most characteristics common to invasive

species, which include capacity for rapid growth and so expansion, capacity to disperse and

reproduce widely or by nurturing fewer progeny but with great efficiency. The species is also

capable of effective competition with local species for food, space, light and water.

It has been reported to depress native grass biomass production of 47% in absence of grazing

and 28% in the presence of grazing. In addition it causes changes in site hydrologic and nutrient

dynamics patterns.

Datura stramonium

Figures 29, 30 and 31 – Datura stramonium

The native range of Datura stramonium is unclear but is probably from the tropical regions of

Central and South America; it is now invasive in parts of Kenya and Uganda, and in Tanzania. It

may be grown as ornamental plant; it has also medicinal properties and is used as a narcotic.

However, its negative effects are quite more dangerous. In fact it is one of the world's most

32

widespread weeds and has been recorded from over 100 countries. It is a poisonous weed that

competes aggressively with crops in the field and pasture. All parts of Datura plants contain

dangerous levels of poison and may be fatal if ingested by humans and other animals, including

livestock and pets. D. stramonium has been listed as a noxious weed in South Africa (prohibited

plants that must be controlled. They serve no economic purpose and possess characteristics

that are harmful to humans, animals or the environment) and several Australian states. In some

countries of the world, it is also prohibited to buy, sell or cultivate Datura plants.

Parthenium hysterophorus

Figures 32, 33 and 34 – Parthenium hysterophorus

Parthenium hysterophorus is a noxious invasive weed from the American tropics that has

entered Tanzania from the north and is spreading very quickly. It is an annual or short-lived

perennial that produces large numbers of seeds (as much as 100,000 per plant). With the heavy

grazing pressure on rangelands in N. Tanzania, the environment is ripe for rapid colonization. It

33

is toxic to livestock and its pollen can cause asthma, bronchitis, and hayfever in humans.

Contact with any part of the plant often causes dermatitis with pronounced skin lesions in

human beings and domestic animals. Other than the health effects to humans and livestock,

the potential economic loss on both the livestock and wildlife related economy are huge due to

pasture deterioration. In fact Parthenium is highly allelopathic, suppressing the growth of

adjacent plants. Chemicals released from its leaves and roots inhibit the germination of pasture

grass seeds. By displacing plant diversity in an area, it forms large monoculture stands. It has

caused 40% losses in sorghum in Ethiopia. It competes with preferred pasture species, reducing

pasture-carrying capacity by up to 90%. Mutton, milk and beef are contaminated when sheep

and cows eat Parthenium-contaminated feed.

Pistia stratiotes

Figures 35, 36 and 37 – Pistia stratiotes

It is originally from South America, but it is now naturalized throughout the tropics and sub-

tropics. In Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania is classified as an invasive plant. Also known as water

lettuce, it is is a floating herb in rosettes of grey-green leaves. It is a major weed of lakes, dams,

34

ponds, irrigation channels and slow-moving waterways in tropical, subtropical and warmer

temperate regions. It can completely cover water bodies, disrupting all life on the water. It

clogs waterways preventing river to flow, blocks irrigation canals, destroys rice paddies and

ruins fishing grounds. It has been included in the Global Invasive Species Database (GISD 2005).

6.2 Charcoal production

Charcoal production has largely been responsible for the degradation of woodlands and it

contributes to deforestation in many areas of Tanzania. Additional to be the cause for depletion

of local forests and woodlands, it is also responsible for health problems of producers

associated with air pollution and for greenhouse gas emissions.

The continued use of natural forests for charcoal production represents a threat to the future

of the resource, especially in situations where there is high demand and lack of sustainable

forest management, considering that producers are not planting trees to replace those cut. In

low-rainfall areas, where regenerative capacity is relatively low, unplanned and unmanaged

charcoal production can accelerate desertification processes.

The purpose of this activity is to verify the level of distribution within the area of intervention of

charcoal production along three main road transects, one in Lemanda, one in Engutukoiti and

one in Mkuru, considering that the production sites are usually located close to access roads as

this simplify transportation and sale. While driving along the transect, a GPS point must be

marked whenever it is noticed one or more of the following events that must be also recorded

in the format:

- trees that have been cut recently (freshly cut);

- someone is producing charcoal, so there is smoke;

- there are charcoal sacks for sale.

Figures 38 and 39 – Smoke for charcoal production

35

Data must be collected on a monthly base for each transect. Once analyzed, the information

will provide clear evidence about, among others, where charcoal production is more

extensively done and as consequence which areas are more at risk and vulnerable, in which

period of the year is more common, if there is any correlation with low market prices for

livestock, etc.

6.3 Livestock

Livestock production is the most important human activity in rangeland ecosystems and the

effects of grazing on rangeland biodiversity include the removal of vegetation cover and roots,

trampling and competition with wild herbivores. In the area of intervention there is not a clear

picture about the real number of livestock, furthermore Maasai are known to under report the

size of their herds. Calculating the stocking capacity of a certain area of rangeland to compare

with the estimated carrying capacity of the land is a very important step for management

purposes, and the growth of livestock population is a key determinant of rangeland over-

utilization and consequent degradation. Additionally, by counting the livestock and following

their movements, more information will be available about land uses practices, i.e. which areas

are dedicated to grazing, which are exclusively used during the rainy season or the dry season

(or if there is no difference), differences of livestock numbers along same transect during

different seasons, how the single boma manages grazing routes along the year, etc.

The ecological monitoring includes two different type of activity to collect such information.

6.3.1 Road transect

Livestock counts provide information on the pressure that the rangelands stand and on the

numeric and density trends. This information is crucial for both conservation and pastoralist

communities.

Road transects were used to measure livestock presence and abundance.

For the counting of livestock along road transect, three routes have been identified as the most

suitable for the exercise. After field investigation during which five different transects were

tested, it was taken the decision of selecting these three as they cross vast grazing areas open

to the use of the whole community and for that at risk of overgrazing, located not too close to

water points, in some cases also used by wild animals (zebras, dik dik, impala, gazelles), located

both along main access roads and more isolated, and accessible by cars.

According to the methodology, the assessor must drive along the transect established and stop

every time notices on the right hand side or left hand side of the road a herd of cows, goats,

sheep, donkeys within a buffer of 300 meters. The position must be recorded by GPS point

(indicating if the herd is at the right or left side of the transect) and the number of animals

counted and reported in the format. The exercise must be carried out once per month for each

transect.

36

Figures 40 and 41 – Livestock counting

6.3.2 Livestock follow

For this exercise, three control boma were selected, one in Lemanda, one in Engutukoiti and

one in Mkuru. On a monthly base the assessor must accompany the herds during all day to map

the route they travel to bring the livestock to graze, meanwhile recording every 30 minutes the

GPS coordinates. When marking the point it must be recorder if the livestock is grazing or

drinking, and if any wild animal was seen. At the beginning of the day, the assessor must count

the animals at the boma gate and register it. If the herd splits (e.g. goats and sheep go

somewhere different from cows), the herd of cows is the one to follow.

The expected output is to understand the management of livestock from a more closed

perspective, and in particular if the single boma is using common grazing areas, private or

community set aside, comparing and crossing this information with the one collected during

the road transects, identify specific management patterns according to the seasons (short rains,

long rains, dry season), etc.

Figures 42 and 43 – Boma follow in Mkuru

37

6.4 Set aside

Pastoralists in sub Saharan Africa have for centuries adopted good management practices to

allow for grass reserves needed in times of scarcity. Different names for these practices are

used in different cultures. For the purpose of this research we adopted the general term of ‘set

aside’.

A set aside is a portion of pasture protected from grazing and browsing, i.e. none or minimum

grazing/browsing is allowed. Land and key resources are set aside so that communities can

conserve them and regulate their use. In other countries, specific laws promote the creation

and protection of set asides with the aim of restoring degradation and biodiversity loss in

rangelands. In developing countries where such law enforcement is lacking, development

projects are funding piloting experiences and, for example in Jordan, after one year of activities

and protecting their areas from herders, biodiversity benefits could be observed through the

increase of biomass and restoration of indigenous floral species.

In Maasai communities targeted by the project instead set aside’s creation has a less ecological

motivation, and they are basically established to keep some secured areas of pasture for the

dry season, meanwhile other rangelands have been completely exhausted by over grazing. So,

even if the practice of set aside in these communities is somehow an example of good

rangeland management, nevertheless it must be further enhanced and disseminated in a

broader extent, in particular for ecosystem preservation and conservation purposes.

An initial mapping exercise has been carried out leading to preliminary understanding of this

practice.

Two main types of set asides were observed: communal and private. The diversification

between communal set asides and private set asides depended on the community and it is

probably influenced by leadership. Communal set aside are usually larger extensions of

rangelands that are closed after common agreement between the inhabitants; these remain

completely closed for the decided period, ranging normally between 5 to 6 months and

coinciding with the period between the end of the short rains and the dry season. ‘

The “private set aside” usually belong to one or more boma and are of smaller size compared to

the communal, these are usually located in proximity to the boma. Grazing is not allowed for a

similar period of time and only calves, young sheep and goats or sick animals are allowed to

graze.

No other management actions such as reseeding or reforestation practices were observed.

The ecological monitoring of set asides is recommended and very important for different

reasons:

- to allow observation of succession on depleted rangeland without grazing;

- to illustrate or typify conditions of range growth to be compared with grazed conditions;

38

- to serve as a baseline or standard (as biological and physical processes can occur

unconstrained) against which the effects of human intervention and livestock use can be

studied and evaluated in other parts;

- to provide ecological basis for range resource management by defining range sites,

determining range conditions and range trend under grazing, no-grazing, etc.;

- to be the essential genetic reservoirs of native fauna and flora.

This and more information will be gathered by implementing the land cover and grass cover

exercise in set asides, to compare with overgrazed rangeland and lands.

Figures 44 and 45 – Set asides (community and private respectively)

6.5 Land cover and grass cover

Land cover focuses on a set of core indicators that together contribute to measure the health

status of the rangelands, and each indicator measures one specific aspect of health that can be

identified through:

- the capacity to sustain the soil, i.e. the ongoing utilization and management of the

allows for retaining the soil and its nutrients. This depends on how resistant the soil is to

wind and water erosion, and how well the soil surface is protected from wind,

raindrops, and flowing water;

- the capacity to sustain the water availability to plants through high infiltration rates and

sufficient time for water to soak in;

- the capacity to sustain the plant community, i.e. plant growth and reproduction and

species composition.

The core indicators are seven and not necessarily all of them must be monitored, but only those

that are relevant with the purposes of the monitoring and the potential management

objectives that we want to achieve and promote. The indicators are:

39

1. amount of bare ground

2. plant basal cover

3. perennial grass cover

4. three and shrub cover

5. three and shrub density

6. gaps between plants

7. plant height.

Data for each indicator are collected through four different methods that were applied in two

test plots and that will be later measured in other selected plots. For this exercise it was used a

digital application downloaded on a tablet; the application is under construction and still need

improvement, but it is a first tentative of collecting this type of information in different

countries around the world and of sharing the data on a webpage. The two applications are

available for free on the portal landpotential.org and they consist of two datasheets (Landinfo

and Landcover) to be used on the field during the exercise.

The first step was to select the plots where to perform the monitoring: two plots have been

already tested, but more monitoring sites must be identified in the future for assessing

combination of type of land vs. management system, comparing same type of land/different

management and different type of land/same management.

Once the spot was selected, it was divided into 4 transect of 25 meters each, located in

direction of the four cardinal points. Using a stick of 1 meter long, with 5 marks each one 20 cm

apart, the assessor walk along the transects, put down the stick every five meters and record

the information. Data are collected conforming to the four methods detailed below.

Figures 46, 47 and 48 – Land cover monitoring

40

Plant and ground cover data indicate what percentage of the ground is covered by different

types of plants, litter, lichen, rock or not covered at all (bared ground). It is possible to collect

data separately for “good” and “bad” species of plants.

Gaps ˃1 meter between plants indicates what percentage of the landscape falls in large gaps

between plant bases and between plant canopies.

Plant height monitors changes in vegetation structure, i.e. what percentage of the landscape is

covered by tall versus medium versus short plants.

Plant density measures changes in the abundance of trees, shrubs and succulents when there is

need to have more sensitive measurement than plant cover data or when plant cover is very

low (Riginos & Herrick, 2010).

Interpretation of data is automatically done by the applications and provides quantitative

information easily sharable and comparable along the time.

It is recommended that set asides may be a perfect type of plots in order to:

1) measure rangeland’s recovery capacity;

2) compare the set aside status versus grazing areas;

3) compare the potential recovery between set asides closed for six months and those closed

for one year, etc.

Grass cover is a more sensitive exercise that focuses on percentage of grazed grass/herbs

compared to % of non-grazed, specifying also the status of the grass through the color (green

vs. brown) and if the pin is touched by stem or leaf. The methodology is similar to plant cover,

but at each spot the transects are 20 and the monitoring stick has 10 pins. The grass cover is

calculated by counting the number of pins touching the base of a plant, divided by 10. E.g.

100% cover: all pins touch the base of a grass; 80% cover: 8 out of 10 pins touch the base of the

grass.

This exercise was not carried out during the internship and it will start the coming months,

targeting in particular set asides.

6.6 Market survey

Every Saturday in the village of Oldonyosambu a market is taking place serving the communities

targeted by the project that are at the same time buyers and sellers. At the market it is possible

to find basic products, livestock, meat, charcoal, fruits and vegetables. Changes in prices of

some items of normal consumption and of the market value of livestock provide a more

comprehensive overview about possible economic difficulties that can motivate inadequate

practices such as engaging in charcoal production to recover economic losses. The price of

livestock itself can provide guidance on the difficulties herders are coping with when, for

example, they must sell at a lower price their animals for droughts, lack of pasture, etc.

41

For this reason, on a monthly base prices of selected products are monitored and recorded, and

this activity is part of the ecological monitoring.

The following are the products to be monitored, with precise quantity and unit:

Commodity Unit

COW - FEMALE ADULT 1

COW - MALE ADULT 1

GOAT - CASTRATED 1

GOAT - FEMALE 1

SHEEP- CASTRATED 1

SHEEP- FEMALE 1

MAIZE 20 L BUCKET

BEANS, KIDNEY 4 L CONTAINER

SUGAR KG

OIL SUNFLOWER 20 L CONTAINER

SOAP BAR OF 30 CM

CHARCOAL SACK OF APP. 100 L

Figures 49, 50 and 51 –

Oldonyosambu market

6.7 Rainfall and temperature

Lack of climatic data was an important constraint observed during the project design phase, the

need for meteorological stations was in fact included in the ECO BOMA project budget and two

weather stations were purchased in 2015.

Measurement of rainfall and temperature are ongoing since the beginning of 2016 through two

new weather stations installed respectively in Mkuru village and Oldonyosambu village.

Additionally, thanks to the partnership with the Nelson Mandela African Institute of Science

and Technology (NM-AIST), the data from two more stations are available, one installed in the

42

eastern boundary of Arusha, in Tengeru village at the University campus and another installed

by Oikos in 2012 under the EU funded Food Facility project (2010-2012) in Ngarenanyuki village.

The four locations will allow for interesting comparative analyses and will contribute to address

the ‘rain shadow’ effect of the Mount Meru and Mount Kilimanjaro. Although the data

collection started only few months ago in Mkuru, and only few years ago in the other localities,

it is extremely useful to have fresh and regular information about these two indicators that can

be further analyzed, compared and cross-checked with the others monitored. Additional to rain

and temperature, the weather station is recording every thirty minutes data on humidity, wind

direction and speed, dew, and barometric pressure.

7. Monitoring database in QGIS

The ecological monitoring in the field started after few weeks of consultation of available

documents, manuals and bibliography on rangeland, participatory mapping and monitoring,

and after several visits to the area of intervention to get familiar with the landscape and its

particular ecosystem. Soon after, the different activities started to test the ecological

monitoring methodology, indicators, tool and recording formats.

Data collected day by day were cross-checked and organized in a simple Excel data base

including all the information of monitoring formats.

GPS points (in Decimal Degrees) were uploaded to Google Earth Pro for confirmation.

Finally, the Excel data base sheets were singularly imported to QGIS with the plug-in

“Spreadsheet layer” and re-projected to UTM coordinates (CRS – WGS84 37S).

The following layers were created:

- Alien plants

- Livestock follow data_points

- Livestock follow data_route (even if referring to the same activity, the last two were

separated)

- Charcoal data

- Road transect livestock

- Set aside

- Transects.

The following additional layers were also elaborated:

- Arusha region (study area)

- Arusha administrative units, i.e. Districts according to 2014 political borders

- DEM Arusha region

43

- Water points rehabilitated (or planned) during ECO BOMA project

- Land and lithology formation in Arusha region (clipped from AFRICOVER)

- Land cover in Arusha region (clipped from AFRICOVER)

- Grassland cover in Arusha region (clipped from AFRICOVER)

- Woodland cover in Arusha region (clipped from AFRICOVER)

- Agriculture in Arusha region (clipped from AFRICOVER)

- River in Arusha region (clipped from AFRICOVER)

- Human induced soil degradation in Arusha region (clipped from GLASOD layer).

In order to easy consultation and sharing processes, the layers have been uploaded to Data

Base Manager (DB Manager plug-in), a stable system in Spatialite-SQlite language. Data Base

Manager creates a single file in .sqlite extension that includes all layers linked to the same file,

allowing a more practical use than the QGIS project format, which instead must be always

shared with the pool of files included in the project.

The database creation was easily carried out through the following steps:

- Browse panel, right click on Spatialite, create a new database (called ecological

monitoring);

- Vector layers imported and linked through DB manager;

- To update the information, the single layer was added to canvas, worked and then

automatically updated in the database itself.

Figure 52 - Screenshot of DB manager

44

Figure 53 – Layer Alien plants

Figure 54 – Layer Livestock boma follow

45

Figure 55 – Layer Road transect

Figure 56 – Layer Set aside

46

8. Conclusion

Based on the analysis developed so far, it clearly emerges the importance of rangeland

ecosystems not only locally, but also globally. Maasai population depends on the services

provided by this ecosystem, but it proves unprepared to face the new challenges as

consequence of climate change and the unsustainable development of recent years. The

traditional rangeland management must be more and more supported and combined with new

strategies and knowledge, and in this process the international community has an important

and complementary role because of the economic resources and scientific expertise available,

and that can be put at the service of these vulnerable populations. Istituto Oikos works in the

area since several years and it has shown to be sensitive to the problem by launching ECO

BOMA pilot project that works on these issues. In the framework of this initiative, the ecological

monitoring plays a central and innovative role. During the internship, the methodology of

ecological monitoring proposed by Oikos has been tested and validated for its regular use in

partnerships with the community. It is a best practice that in the coming months will be further

improved and enhanced, so that the collected and analyzed data can be shared at different

levels and with all stakeholders involved in environmental issues. It should be emphasized that

the ultimate goal of ecological monitoring is not simply to describe from a quantitative and

qualitative point of view the status of local rangelands and the risks to which they are daily

exposed. It should in fact become a tool not only for in-deep analysis and knowledge, but also

and above all a tool for information and awareness, so that the scientific data can be

transformed into action and promote practices of protection and sustainable use of natural

resources.

Efficient and effective management of rangelands is an achievable goal, although not easily and

shortly. It is for this reason that in the coming period the greatest efforts should be dedicated

to: 1) the systematic and regular collection of field data to gather a consistent, complete, and

reliable understanding of climate and human impacts on local rangeland; 2) information

sessions for sharing the outputs of the ecological monitoring with the population and capacity

building activities to promote local adaptability and resilience; 3) advocacy and social

mobilization involving communities, local authorities, other stakeholders in concrete actions

such as participatory land use planning; 4) mainstreaming climate change adaptation and

sustainable use of natural resources in all ongoing and future projects.

47

9. References

➔ AU-IBAR, (2012), Rational Use of Rangelands and Fodder Crop Development in

Africa, African Union – Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources, Monographic

Series No. 1

➔ Avrom E. Howard, (2011), A brief introduction to the geology and mining industry of

Tanzania, Sika Resources Inc, Toronto, Ontario

➔ British Geological Survey, (2016), Africa Groundwater Atlas,

<http://earthwise.bgs.ac.uk/index.php/Africa_Groundwater_Atlas_Home>

➔ By Joel R. Brown J.R., & Thorpe, J., (2008), Climate change and rangelands:

rationally to uncertainty, Society for Range Management, USA

➔ Conroy, A., (2003), Maasai agriculture and land use change, University of New

Hampshire, USA

➔ European digital archive of soil maps – EuDASM (2016), The soils maps of Africa-

<http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdb_archive/EuDASM/africa/lists/ctz.htm>

➔ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2016), FAO Country

profiles, <http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index/en/?iso3=TZA>

➔ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, (1988) Guidelines: land

evaluation for extensive grazing’ FAO Soil, Bulletin No 58, Rome

➔ Ghiglieri, G., Balia, R., Oggiano, G., & Pittalis, D., (2010), Prospecting for safe (low

fluoride) groundwater in the Eastern African Rift: the Arumeru District (Northern

Tanzania), Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 1081–1091

➔ Irwin, B., Cullis, A., & Flintan, F., (2015), Mapping Guidelines for Participatory

Rangeland Management in Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral Areas, USAID, CARE &

Mercy Corps

➔ Istituto Oikos, (2011), The Mount Meru challenge – Integrating conservation and

development in Northern Tanzania, Ancora libri, Milan, Italy

➔ Istituto Oikos, (2016), Need assessment – Comunita’ pastorali della Regione di

Arusha, Tanzania, Arusha, Tanzania

➔ Jones, A., Breuning-Madsen, H., Brossard, M., Dampha, A., Deckers, et all. (2013),

Soil Atlas of Africa, European Commission, Publications Office of the European

Union, Luxembourg

➔ Kaitho, R., Angerer, J., & Wu, J., (2008), A new toolkit for monitoring and

forecasting forage supply in the grazing lands of Eastern Africa, Department of

Rangeland Ecology and Management, Texas A&M University

➔ Mapinduzi, A.L., Oba, G., Weladji, R.B., & Colman, J.E., (2003), Use of indigenous

ecological knowledge of the Maasai pastoralists for assessing Rangeland

biodiversity in Tanzania, African Journal of Ecology, 41

48

➔ McDermot, C., & Elavarthi, S., (2014), Rangelands as Carbon Sinks to Mitigate

Climate Change: A Review, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources,

Delaware State University, Dover, DE, USA

➔ McSweeney, C., New, M., & Lizcano, G., (2009), Tanzania - UNDP Climate Change

Country Profiles, <http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/climate/projects/undp-cp/>

➔ Mlingano Agricultural Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture Food Security and

Co-Operatives (2006), Soils of Tanzania and their potential for agriculture

development, Tanga, Tanzania

➔ Neely, C., Bunning, S., & Wilkes, A., (2009), Review of evidence on drylands pastoral

systems and climate change - Implications and opportunities for mitigation and

adaptation, FAO, Rome, Italy

➔ Raikes, P.L., (1981), Livestock Development and Policy in East Africa, Scandinavian

Institute of African Studies, Uppsala

➔ Riginos, C. & Herrick, J., (2010), Monitoring Rangeland Health – A guide for

pastoralist communities and other land managers in East Africa, Version II, Nairobi,

Kenya: ELMT-USAID/East Africa

➔ Sidahmed, A. E., (1996), The rangelands of the arid/semi-arid areas: challenges and

hopes for the 2000s, Symposium D: Range Management. The International

Conference on Desert Development in the Arab Gulf Countries. KISR, Kuwait

➔ Thornton, P., Herrero, M., Freeman, A., Mwai, O., Rege, E., Jones, P. & McDermott,

J., (2006a), Vulnerability, climate change and livestock – research opportunities and

challenges for poverty alleviation, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI),

Kenya

➔ TerrAfrica. (2009), SLM in Practice: Promoting Knowledge on Sustainable Land

Management for Action in Sub-Saharan Africa, Guidelines and Case Studies (Draft),

Prepared by WOCAT in collaboration with FAO

➔ Tessema, S., Emojong, E. E., (1984), Utilization of maize and sorghum stover by

sheep and goats after feed quality improvement by various treatments and

supplement, E. Afr. Agric. For. J., 44 (Suppl.)

➔ UCCE, (2010), Carbon Storage in Rangeland, University of California Cooperative

Extension

➔ UN Environment Management Group, (2011), Global drylands: a UN system wide

response, USA

➔ WRI, (2009), Banking on Nature’s Assets. How multilateral development banks can

strengthen development by using ecosystem services, World Resources Institute,

Washington DC, USA

➔ <www.worldweatheronline.com>, aggiornato 2016

➔ <weather-and-climate.com>, aggiornato 2016

49

➔ <http://www.glcn.org/databases/lc_gc-africa_en.jsp>

➔ <www.rangelands.org>

➔ <www.millenniumassessment.org>

➔ http://keys.lucidcentral.org/keys/v3/eafrinet/index.htm

50

10. Annexes

10.1 Participatory maps

Participatory mapping Lemanda

Participatory mapping Losinoni

51

Participatory mapping Mkuru