Download ECOLOGICAL MONITORING

Università degli Studi di Milano – Bicocca
Facoltà di Scienze Matematiche, Fisiche e Naturali
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
Tutors: Giorgio Colombo
Silvia Ceppi
Student: Francesca Colombi
NGO: Istituto OIKOS
Academic year 2015 - 2016
Table of contents
1. Introduction
2. General information
2.1 Tanzania
2.2 Project area
2.2.1 Climate
2.2.2 Geology
2.2.3 Soil, land use and vegetation
3. ECO BOMA project
4. Rangeland
4.1 Rangeland definition
4.2 Carbon sequestration in rangeland and its importance
4.3 Key issues in rangelands
4.3.1 Constrains in project area
4.4 Steps to be taken
5. Participatory mapping
6. Rangeland ecological monitoring
6.1 Alien plants
6.2 Charcoal production
6.3 Livestock
6.3.1 Road transect
6.3.2 Livestock follow
6.4 Set aside
6.5 Land cover and grass cover
6.6 Market survey
6.7 Rainfall and temperature
7. Monitoring database in QGIS
8. Conclusion
9. References
10. Annexes
10.1 Participatory maps
1
2
3
3
4
5
7
9
13
15
15
16
18
20
24
25
26
27
34
35
35
36
37
38
40
41
42
46
47
50
50
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.
2
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)
Population in rural areas (% on the total)
Total extension
Percentage of land for agriculture
Capital
Region
Rural popupaltion with access to safe water sources
Urban popupaltion with access to safe water sources
3
51.820.00
70%
947,303 km2
46%
Dodoma
Eastern Africa
44%
78%
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 subvillage: 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
4
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).
Af
Tropical rainforest climate
Tropical monsoon
Am
Aw
BSh
BWh
Cfa
Cfb
Csa
Csb
Cwa
Cwb
climate
Tropical savanna climate
Hot semi-arid climate
Arid climate
Humid temperate climate with uniform rainfall
Oceanic climate
Dry-summer subtropical climate
Dry-summer temperate
Humid subtropical climate with a dry winter
Highland climate
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.
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
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.
Map code
AC
AN
Major soil group
Acrisols
Andosols
Sq. km
81642.50
15904.46
Percent
8.63
1.68
AR
CM
Arenosols
Cambisols
21926.33
337353.69
2.32
35.64
CH
FR
Chernozems
Ferralsols
4734.96
59852.62
0.50
6.32
FL
Fluvisols
26223.13
2.77
GL
HS
LP
Gleysols
Histosols
Leptosols
1486.19
3791.45
76738.02
0.16
0.40
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
58836.73
6.22
Water Bodies
Figure 8 – Tanzania soils map
9
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
10
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 semiarid 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 rainfed farming of maize and beans is becoming a more common practice. This fragile ecosystem is
11
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
12
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.
13
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.
14
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 (tallgrass 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
15
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,
16
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
17
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:
18

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).
19
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.
20
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
21
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)
22
Figure 17 – Soil erosion
Figure 18 – Overgrazing
23
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
24
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).
25
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.
26
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
27
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
28
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
29
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
30
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
31
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
32
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 subtropics. 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,
33
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
34
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 overutilization 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.
35
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
36
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;
37
-
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:
38
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
39
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.
40
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
COW - FEMALE ADULT
Unit
1
COW - MALE ADULT
GOAT - CASTRATED
GOAT - FEMALE
SHEEP- CASTRATED
SHEEP- FEMALE
MAIZE
BEANS, KIDNEY
SUGAR
OIL SUNFLOWER
SOAP
CHARCOAL
1
1
1
1
1
20 L BUCKET
4 L CONTAINER
KG
20 L CONTAINER
BAR OF 30 CM
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
41
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
42
-
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
43
Figure 53 – Layer Alien plants
Figure 54 – Layer Livestock boma follow
44
Figure 55 – Layer Road transect
Figure 56 – Layer Set aside
45
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.
46
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
47
➔ 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
48
➔
➔
➔
➔
<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
49
10. Annexes
10.1 Participatory maps
Participatory mapping Lemanda
Participatory mapping Losinoni
50
Participatory mapping Mkuru
51