Kalahari Namib Project National Baseline Assessment

NAMIBIA

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

http://www.iecn-namibia.com/http://www.iucn.org/http://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.

8

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

9

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.

10

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.

11

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.

12

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 .

13

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 km

2, 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.

14

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.

15

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).

16

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).

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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,

24

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.

25

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

26

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 District/Constituency

Omaheke region, Aminuis 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%), San (8%), Kalahari (2%)

Herero (70%), Tswana (15%), San (8%), Kalahari (7%)

Level of wealth Poor/medium Medium/poor

Rainfall (mm) 250 – 400 mm 250 – 400 mm

Land use and ownership

Extensive livestock farming, Communal area

Extensive livestock farming, Communal area

Common method of grazing

Continuous grazing Continuous grazing

Source of forage for livestock

Free-roaming rangeland grazing Communal area grazing rangeland, some supplements like summer and winter feed

Conservancies No conservancy found in the area No conservancies, the area is fenced

Water sources and resources

Boreholes and ground water underground aquifers and boreholes

Energy source Firewood, electricity and solar energy Mostly firewood, others are electricity and solar energy

Livelihood and income Mostly derived from livestock sales and others – pension funds, small businesses, salaries of family members working elsewhere

Mostly from livestock sales and pension funds, others - small businesses and salaries of family members working elsewhere

27

Aminuis Corridor Post 13

Farming practice Livestock, gardening at household level Livestock, maybe gardening

Common environmental problems

Land degradation due to unsustainable management practices

Game virtually extinct

Drought

Land degradation due to unsustainable management practices

Game virtually extinct

Drought

Vegetation Bush species dominating is Acacia Mellifera, large pan in area devoid of vegetation, a lot of Prosopis trees, bare ground in many areas, most common species Schmidtia kalahariensis

Camelthorn supposed to dominate, area is known for its palatable bushman grass species, Grewia bicolor also good source of fodder; annual grasses have taken 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).

28

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.

29

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.

30

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

31

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

32

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

33

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).

34

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

farm

Aminuis Site C (AC) Corridor Site C (CC)

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

35

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.

36

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 (trees/ha)

400 252 109 68 91 14

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

37

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.

38

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 weed) species

Schmidtia kalahariensis

Indigofera teixeirae Torre

Senna italica Mill. subsp. Micrantha

Acrotome inflata Benth.

Aristida stipitata

Eragrostis Porosa

Tragus racemosus

Aristida stipitata

Indigofera teixeirae Torre

Aristida stipitata

Tragus berteronianus

Senna italica Mill. subsp. Micrantha

Eragrostis echinochloidea

Eragrostis trichophora

Schmidtia kalahariensis

Aristida stipitata

Brachiaria nigropedata

Senna italica Mill. subsp. Micrantha

Eragrostis bicolour (outside E)

Eragrostis chinensis (outside E)

mellinis repense sub spp glandiflora (outside E)

Schmidtia kalahariensis

Schmidtia kalahariensis

Senna italica Mill. subsp. micrantha

Schmidtia kalahariensis

Aristida stipitata- spicata

Eragrostis stipitata-spicata

grass spp (TBI)

Andropogon chinensis

Tree species

Prosopis

Acacia erioloba

Lycium bosciifolium Schinz

Acacia mellifera

Grewia flava

Rhigozome brevispinosum

Acacia luderitzii

Ziziphus mucronata

Acacia erioloba

Acacia nebrownii

Acacia mellifera

Boscia albitrunca

Acacia luderitzii

Catophractes alexandri

Acacia erioloba

Grewia flava

Acacia mellifera

Grewia flava

Acacia herbeclada

Acacia erioloba

Tree of the year 2006?

Ziziphus mucronata

Acacia luederitzii

Acacia erioloba

Acacia mellifera

Acacia luederitzii

Acacia mellifera

Acacia Erioloba

Boscia albitrunca

Acacia erioloba

Grewia flava

39

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.

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

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

Rai

nfa

ll (m

m)

months

Rainfall (mm) in the Aminuis Settlement, Omahehe Region from October 2006 - March 2012

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

40

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

41

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

42

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 gr