Group ranch concept and practice in Kenya with special emphasis on Kajiado District

J. C. Ng'ethe

University of Nairobi
Department of Range Management
P. O. Box 29053, Nairobi, Kenya

Introduction
Important historical developments
Livestock projects related to group ranches
Livestock production in Kajiado District
Group ranch subdivision
Co-operative societies following group ranches
Extension
Some relevant observations
Recommendations
References

Summary The Government of Kenya, since attainment of independence in 1963, has shown interest in and commitment to the development of arid and semiarid land (ASAL). ASAL is not suited to arable farming and therefore extensive livestock production is the most appropriate agricultural activity. This has been and will continue to be the main economic activity and land use for a long time. The current high human population growth rates in ASAL will continue to cause serious shortages of land relative to demand and may reduce the capacity of the land to support large human and livestock populations. There is not enough land to be shared on an individual basis. The group ranch concept was implemented in various districts in Kenya in the mid-1960s and early 1970s and aimed at overcoming some of the problems related to sharing land resources. The sharing was based on a defined livestock quota system which was not implemented. Individual members benefits depended on herd size, especially the size of the breeding herd which determined herd growth. The group ranch approach advocated a policy of destocking through periodic livestock sales aimed at achieving proper carrying capacity but this was viewed negatively by most pastoralists. In view of unequal herd sizes and disproportionate access to communally owned resources and benefits, some of the group ranches resolved to subdivide. The emergent co-operative societies in the subdivided group ranches lack adequate acreage of pastures to allow rotational grazing in other words, they do not have the principal input for successful livestock production. To succeed they need to diversify the economic base which requires a smaller land base. The group ranches have unintentionally increased livestock numbers in Kajiado District and have also been effective in transferring state land to communally owned free holdings, contrary to the original objectives.

Introduction

The arid and semi-arid land (ASAL) in Kenya covers approximately 80% of the total 541,416 km² land surface area. ASAL is the habitat of an estimated 35% of the total human population who largely practice pastoralism. In addition, this land supports 67% of the estimated 12.7 million cattle herd, 86% of the estimated 17.9 million national herd of sheep and goats, all the camels and most of the wildlife population except for the limited numbers found in the forested zones of the country.

Based on moisture availability for plant growth, i.e. ratio of rainfall to open pan evaporation (r/E₀) ASAL falls into four Agro-ecological zones (AEZ) (Figure 1). Agro-ecological Zone IV, covering 27,000 km² (4.7%) with r/E0 of 40-50 and 600-1000 mm annual rainfall, constitutes the subhumid zone. Agro-ecological Zone V covers approximately 87,000 km² (15.2%) with r/E0 25-40 and 450-900 mm annual rainfall and constitutes the semi-arid landmass in Kenya. Agro-ecological zone VI with r/E0 15-25 and annual rainfall of 300-550 mm covers 126,000 km² (23.3%). Agro-ecological Zone VII constitutes the arid lands (41.7%) with r/E0 below 15 covering 226,000 km² with 150-350 mm annual rainfall. It is the largest zone and constitutes the very arid region or the desert zone (Pratt et al 1966; Kenya Government, 1988).

Vegetation growth, primary production and availability of animal fodder in ASAL is closely related to the highly variable rainfall, both in its temporal and spatial distribution. Herbaceous vegetation is primarily ephemeral. The perennial vegetation composed of perennial grasses, shrubs and trees is largely deciduous in character. Most of the ASAL is suitable for extensive livestock production which has been the main land use.

In the last 20 years or so there has been a steady increase of spontaneous and planned human migrations to ASAL from the densely populated wetter zones of Kenya. The resultant large population size from both the migrations and natural increase is making it difficult to meet local food demands even during above average production years. The most conspicuous result is the haphazard expansion of cultivated areas in the ASAL. Conflicts between arable cropping requirements and the normal use of natural pastures by both wildlife and domestic stock undermines the long-term productivity of the land, reducing the capacity of the ASAL to support both human and animal life.

Figure 1. Arid and semi-arid lands in Kenya.

Important historical developments

Grazing schemes

Before 1900, most of the uncultivated and unforested land under natural pastures was used freely for livestock grazing by nomadic pastoralists. Most pastoral groups including the Maasai had developed extensive pastoral systems regulated by:

· the availability of water and good pastures determined by climate
· presence or absence of killer diseases along traditional nomadic routes
· prevailing peace status in the adjacent neighbourhood
· planned socio-cultural activities and ceremonies (Ministry of Agriculture, 1970).

Singida (1984) agreed with most observers that before the advent of the colonial government the life-style of most pastoral groups was spatially designed to provide a stable ecological foundation for their economy. This economy was neither stagnant or isolated. The opening of the Kenya-Uganda railway line in 1901 provided adequate communication for the development of inland freehold and long-term leasehold land grants for ranch development by white farmers (Langat, 1986).

However, the organisation and development of livestock production in the African sector, was institutionalised by the colonial government through the establishment in 1945 of the African Land Development Board (ALDEV). ALDEV organised several grazing schemes during the first 10-year Development Plan (1946-55). Pastoralists were initially organised to occupy large grazing schemes with dips and water facilities. Grazing management plans were not enforced in these initially widespread grazing schemes established in various districts such as Machakos, Kiambu, Kajiado and Narok. Pastoralists continued migrating in search of forage and water according to their traditional way of life and as dictated by climatic patterns.

In 1954-59 the "Swynnerton Plan", a major land-use policy involving land adjudication in high potential areas and extensive communal grazing in pastoral districts, was drawn up. Many grazing schemes, each with a livestock officer-in-charge, were started in various districts throughout the country.

The livestock officers attached to the grazing schemes were charged with the responsibility of running the schemes as "models" of proper land use particularly in livestock management and range resources utilisation. The aim was to convince the pastoralists of the need to reduce their livestock numbers to avoid, overuse of vegetation, to reduce erosion to manageable levels and to realise reasonable annual off-takes. A typical example of a grazing scheme was the Konza scheme in Kajiado District. The scheme was established on a 10,400 ha piece of land for 16 families. Before it was launched, an official livestock census was undertaken and each family was allotted a livestock quota and thereafter signed an agreement to sell surplus stock. Failure to honour the agreement meant immediate eviction from the grazing scheme. The government provided all the required fencing, water and dipping facilities to allow a three-month grazing rotation. No animals were allowed to move in or out of the scheme except animals going for sale. Annual inoculation of animals against contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP) and rinderpest, carried out by the Veterinary Department, was free and compulsory. Pastoralists were advised to inoculate their animals against other killer disease such as anthrax and blackquarter. Each livestock owner was expected to pay a small percentage of money accruing from animal sales to offset costs for acaricides and various fees for essential services rendered. Livestock numbers increased dramatically to levels beyond the carrying capacity of the grazing scheme. Pastoralists with large livestock numbers refused to sell and opted to leave the grazing scheme. Movement out of the scheme gained momentum and at the height of the 1960-61 drought, the six remaining families in the scheme moved out. Finally, in 1964 the scheme was divided into eight individual ranches of varying sizes. Nearly all grazing schemes established in the fifties suffered a similar fate (Langat, 1986).

Most pastoral groups viewed the colonial administration with suspicion and believed that the colonial government did not understand the real nature of pastoral cultures with their many attendant problems. Pastoralists were not committed to the success of grazing schemes; they were ready to accept short-term benefits and moved out of the schemes during periods of any hardships. ALDEV (1962) played an essential role during its 16-year life span leading to independence (Cone and Lipscomb, 1972). With a skeleton of qualified personnel ALDEV attempted to solve technical problems related to:

· excess livestock in range areas usually of low quality
· widespread soil erosion
· poorly distributed and inadequate water supply
· lack of roads
· diseases, e.g. tick-borne, water-borne and insect-borne diseases
· inadequate animal feeds.

ALDEV aimed at managing rangelands to maintain herds and flocks in better conditions through schemes aimed at controlling grazing. The schemes ranged from technically simple ones where a minimum of services were instituted to complex schemes where several management options were included, e.g. limiting stock numbers to the carrying capacity of the land; controlled rotational grazing; the development of water; and enforcing disease management strategies.

Group ranching concept (evolution)

Grazing schemes under ALDEV helped in the accumulation of experiences and ideas which could be moulded or modified to conceive other types of systems more suitable to the pastoral society traditions, culture and economy. The group ranch concept and practice is one system which has borrowed heavily from exposure to grazing schemes. Konza grazing scheme was seen and referred to as a communal ranch (Swynnerton, 1954; Brown, 1959).

ALDEV (1962) visualised the establishment of large extended family ranches concentrated in blocks of land of 8100 ha or more. The grazing scheme aimed at overcoming the shortcomings associated with overstocking and overgrazing. Both of these problems arise from the communal nature of pastoral lands where resources are free and the individuals interest is to accumulate livestock (ALDEV, 1962; Swynnerton, 1954). The grazing schemes aimed at controlling resident animal numbers through guided livestock sales and thereby maintaining a stocking rate related to the carrying capacity of the land. This concept behind the grazing scheme was adopted and incorporated in the setting and establishment of group ranching. The concept behind the group ranch was articulated in the Lawrence (1966) Mission Report which advised that land registration in pastoral areas should be on a group rather than on an individual basis. It formed the official basis upon which group ranches were established. The rationale was that under a viable individual ranch regime, chronic land shortage would be created affecting many people who would not be able to acquire individual grants. The government encouraged establishment of group ranches on the basis that small livestock owners would suffer since they would not be able to afford the necessary ranch inputs such as dips and the required water infrastructure to maintain a viable ranching unit. The solution was to acquire them as a group reducing the cost of inputs and thereby improving their viability. Some of these ideas were originally developed for group farming. It is therefore safe to say that the group ranch concept emerged in the course of various innovations associated with the development of agriculture in Kenya during the colonial era. The Lawrence report which produced the legal framework of the group ranch was later enacted through a parliamentary act adopted as the Group Representative Act of 1968. This act legalised ownership and occupation of land by a group of people and enabled participants to acquire funds for development and operation from local financial institutions. The resultant development created projects in two broad types of production systems namely commercial production systems in the form of a company, co-operative or individual ranches and pastoral production systems in the form of group ranches and grazing blocks. The groupings were dependent on land tenure and social organisations (Ayuko, 1981).

Group ranch defined

A group ranch is a livestock production system or enterprise where a group of people jointly own freehold title to land, maintain agreed stocking levels and herd their livestock collectively which they own individually (Ministry of Agriculture, 1968). It is noteworthy that selection of members to a particular group ranch was based on kinship and traditional land rights.

Objectives of group ranches

The group ranches were designed by the government in consultation with various members of interested parties, e.g. Maasai elders and financiers to meet the following predetermined objectives:

· increase the productivity of pastoral lands through increased off-take

· to improve the earning capacity of pastoralists

· to avoid possible landlessness among pastoralists in case large tracts of land were allocated to individual ranchers

· to avoid environmental degradation due to overstocking on communal lands

· to establish a livestock production system that would allow modernisation or modification of livestock husbandry and still preserve many of the traditional ways of life without causing social frictions or an abrupt break with traditional ways of life.

Acceptance of the group ranch concept

The group ranch concept implemented through Kenya Livestock Development Policy (KLDP) I and II (Kenya Government, 1980) was to be the main tool through which trustlands in the Maasai area would be transformed to deed holdings with rights and responsibilities of land ownership invested in group ranch members (IBRD, 1977). It is common knowledge that most Maasai people did not understand the full implications of the group ranch approach. However, the desire for security of land tenure, i.e. preventing the allocation of land to elite Maasai or any other individual or group; and the opportunities to develop water facilities and dips funded through supporting projects influenced the Maasai decision to accept or to be receptive to the concept of group ranches (Galaty, 1980). McCanley (1976) claimed that the group ranch concept was more honestly recognised as simply the least objectionable means by which to implement tenurial change in Maasailand. Furthermore, Goldschmidt (1981) stated that acceptance of the group ranch concept has derived from the "Fear of alternative governmental actions rather than enthusiasms for the proposal". Unkind views regard acceptance of the group ranch concept as a means of guaranteeing political integrity of the Maasai by replacing the spear with a land title deed (Cossins, 1980; Fumagalli, 1978, Galaty, 1980). The Maasai people viewed the infrastructure build up as a means of increasing their traditional wealth base (livestock) without compromising their culture and hence accepted it.

Livestock projects related to group ranches

Three externally funded projects were set up, namely Food and Agriculture Organization/ Government of Kenya (FAO/GoK) set up a special fund in 1964; the National Range and Ranch Development Project; and Kenya Livestock Development Project (KLDP Phase I and II). These projects had a significant impact on livestock development in Kenya's rangelands. The initial project aimed at strengthening and expanding the Range Management Division by promoting pastoral developments in ASAL by providing detailed land use surveys which would form the basis of range development plans; providing training for technical and extension staff to give professional services; and conducting applied research in specific areas such as range productivity and utilisation.

The range and ranch development project financed by the World Bank/Sweden and the Government of Kenya and implemented in 1970-86 developed "grazing blocks" by providing water facilities and professional advice on demarcated pastures with motorable access tracks. Target areas were the North Eastern Province, Isiolo and Marsabit districts in the Eastern Province and Turkana and Tana River districts. Grazing blocks were developed to manage water and pasture use by livestock and to stabilise livestock production at the optimum practical level (Moss, 1970). Simple methods such as animal distribution in the block would allow full use of pastures leading to optimum animal performance; resting pastures after use allowing plants to regain vigour; and the distribution of animal handling facilities which would encourage desirable distribution of animals.

Grazing blocks were developed on approximately 5.97 million ha in the North Eastern Province and 931,000 ha in Isiolo District.

The KLDP (Phase I) implemented in 1968-73 with a total budget of KSh 81.396 million for a five-year period was the first IDA credit for livestock development in Kenya. The objectives of the project were to:

· increase beef production by providing operational and development funds to the four types of ranching enterprises, namely the individual, the group, the co-operative and the company ranches in Kenya

· provide facilities for disease control and improve facilities for livestock marketing in Kenya

· assist traditional pastoralists for the first time through the transition from a subsistence to a market-oriented economy.

The KLDP (Phase II), implemented in 1974-80 with a total budget of KSh 350.5 million, had the following objectives:

· the establishment of 60 group ranches, 100 commercial ranches, 21 company/cooperative ranches and three feedlots

· improvement of 2.8 million ha of communal grazing land in the North Eastern Province and 1.2 million ha in Isiolo District, mainly by providing water and access roads

· development of three wildlife areas and the establishment of a census and an ecological monitoring unit.

The establishment of 159 group ranches in Kenya, 129 in the Rift Valley (Kajiado, Narok, Samburu, Laikipia, Baringo and West Pokot), six in South Nyanza, seven in the Eastern Province (Embu and Kitui) and 17 in Coast Province (Taita, Kwale and Kilifi) which cover approximately 30,261 km² (Table 1) owe their origin to KLDP I and II and other livestock-related projects although only 42 ranches benefited from KLDP credit.

Table 1. Distribution of registered and incorporated group ranches in Kenya.

Province	District	District area km²	Number of ranches	Area under group ranches km²	% of district
Rift Valley	Kajiado	20,963	51	15210	72.5
	Narok	18,513	33	5420	2.9
	Samburu	20,809	27	3330	1.6
	Laikipia	9,718	11	540	0.6
	Baringo	10,627	3	420	0.4
	West Pokot	5,076	4	540	1.1
Nyanza	South Nyanza	5,714	6	160	0.3
Eastern	Embu	2,714	2	151	0.1
	Kitui	29,389	5	200	0.1
Coast	Taita	16,959	5	320	0.2
	Kwale	8,257	6	2930	3.6
	Kilifi	12,414	6	1040	0.8
Total			159	30,261

Source: Kenya Government (1985 1990).

Fifty-one of the 159 group ranches (Table 1) developed were in Kajiado District. The group ranch concept was initially tested and implemented in Kajiado. For the purpose of this report Kajiado District has been chosen to illustrate the success and failure of group ranches in the country. Of additional interest is that Kajiado was in the ALDEV grazing scheme, the forerunner to the group ranch concept.

Livestock production in Kajiado District

General information

Kajiado District in the Rift Valley Province is one of the most important rangeland districts in Kenya. It covers 20,963 km² which is approximately 11% of the surface area of the province and 3.4% of the surface area of Kenya (Statistical Abstract, 1990). The district is divided into four administrative divisions; the Central Division (1,011,615 ha), Loitoktok Division (652,483 ha), Ngong Division (357,883 ha) and Magadi Division (188,619 ha).

Ecologically, the district has approximately 26,000 ha (1.2%) of land area in ecological zones II and III, 141,000 ha (6.4%) in ecological zone IV and the rest in ecological zones V and VI. Only 1670 km² in ecological zone II, III and IV receive more than the 500 mm of annual rainfall which can support rainfed agriculture. It is estimated that about 1,989,200 ha (90% of the district) is under natural forage and is used for extensive livestock production in group and individual ranches. This area supports 70% of the human population estimated at 224,560 people, nearly all the wildlife in the district and an estimated 513,633 stock units. There are 51 group ranches and over 375 individual ranches (Kajiado District, 1988). The group ranches occupy 1,520,917 ha (68.8%) of the grazing land and individual ranches occupy 468,283 ha (21.20%) of the grazing land area.

Poka Group Ranch established in 1965 in the Kaputiei section of Kajiado District was the first group ranch in Kenya. It was established on an experimental basis using government funds and developmental loans were extended to poor members to purchase breeding animals. Following the enactment of the Land Group Representative Act (1968) which provided the legal status for group land ownership, 14 new group ranches besides Poka were established between 1967 and 1970 in Kaputiei section. Planners favoured Kaputiei for group ranches development on the basis that it offered better prospects for social development and it was organisationally sound (IBRD, 1968). Under KLDP (Phase I) 108 ranches were developed in Kenya, 15 group ranches and 41 individual ranches in Kajiado, 42 commercial ranches in Laikipia, Nakuru and Machakos districts and 10 company ranches in the Coast Province. What became clear was that it was comparatively easier to finance individual ranches than group ranches.

Implementation of KLDP (Phase II) was riddled with many problems particularly in the period following the 1973-76 drought. Group ranchers moved out from their ranches in search of pastures and water. Developments in most ranches came to a standstill and proposed innovations were shelved. The 1976 group ranch review mission reduced the intended number of group ranches from 60 to 29. A total of 27 group ranches had been financed at the end of the project in December 1982. Throughout this period, the ranchers, planners, financiers and politicians were not happy with various developments in the group ranches and the idea of subdivision of the group ranches began to gain wide acceptance and momentum.

Livestock in Kajiado

The ecology and climate of Kajiado favoured the current major economic land use, i.e. beef production enterprise and meat production from small stock (sheep and goats). Livestock industry is the economic backbone in the district and supports the entire pastoral community. It provides more than KSh 10 million per year (Kajiado District, 1988).

The 1988 livestock census in the district indicated that there was a total of 515,633 stock units (SU) at 4 ha/SU compared with the recommended 331,537 SU (73.2%) while the small stock sheep and goats) contributed 120,800 SU (23.4%) and donkeys 17,309 SU (3.4%) of the total livestock population. The district was overstocked by over 184,000 SU.

Cattle

The small East African Shorthorn Zebu, the dominant breed in Kajiado, is continuously being upgraded with the dual-purpose Sahiwal breed and also with improved Boran in an attempt to increase milk and beef production. Approximately 45% of the district's cattle herd is upgraded with Sahiwal breed (Kajiado District, 1988). Small proportions of exotic cattle breeds such as the Simmental, Santa Getrudis, Friesian, Guernsey and Aryshire can be found in ranches with good facilities.

Milk requirements for calves and for human consumption demand that ranchers maintain a high component of breeding females in the cattle herd to ensure the necessary flexibility required to provide adequate milk throughout the year. The high proportion of breeding animals (43% cows and 17% heifers) maintained in the district ensure that a sufficient number of cows will be in milk at any one time to provide for the calves and for domestic use.

The breeding cows also ensure rapid livestock build-up following heavy losses after a drought period. The results of the census indicated that the bull/cow ratio was 1:30 against the recommended ratio of 1:25, calving rate was 65% and the culling rate was 15% with an adult mortality of 5% compared with calf mortality of 10%. The implication here is that there are no extra bulls which can be culled for slaughter.

There are about 10 important diseases recorded in Kajiado with East Coast fever (ECF), a tick borne disease, being the most prevalent. Other diseases include foot-and-mouth disease, blackquarter, anthrax, haemonchus, malignant catarrhal fever, anaplasmosis and foot rot during the rains. Tick control through dipping or spraying with acaricides is an expensive operation and most ranchers cannot meet the required standards. The problem is compounded by continuous contact between livestock and wildlife which increases the need for dipping livestock to a rate of at least twice a week.

Sheep and goats

Small stock (sheep and goats) form an important economic component in the livestock industry for most pastoral tribes including the Maasai. In Kajiado, the Red Maasai sheep, the Black-Headed Persian and the Dorper are the most important types. The 1988 census indicated there were about half a million head of sheep in Kajiado which constituted 62,555 SU. Ewes in the flock constituted 53% with a ram/ewe ratio of 1:11 compared with the recommended 1:50.

The Galla goat and small East African goat are the major goat breeds in the district which has a goat population of 466,506 (1988 census) which constitutes 57,317 SU. The census revealed a buck/doe ratio of 1:13 against the 1:50 recommended ratio. It is apparent that there are higher sheep numbers than goats. This is due to higher off-take of goats compared with sheep. The lambing and kidding rates are estimated at 110% with a culling rate of 15%, adult mortality of 4% and kid mortality rate of 6%.

The mortality rate for small stock is attributed to many factors, e.g. physical injury, hydatidosis, foot rot, heartwater, hepatitis, starvation, pneumonia, plant poisoning, predation, pasteurellosis, CPP, enterotoxemia etc.

Other livestock types

Other types of livestock in the district include donkeys, camels, pigs, hens, rabbits and bees. Donkeys are essentially beasts of burden used mainly by women for drawing water, for shopping and for moving purposes. There is a general feeling that the number of donkeys in Kajiado district are more than those required for domestic purposes.

Livestock marketing in Kajiado

Livestock marketing in Kajiado District is not well organised. There are three principal cattle routes through various holdings to the three main market outlets, namely Emali, Kenya Meat Commission (KMC) and Dagoretti. Dagoretti and KMC have slaughter houses and act as terminal stations for live animals while Emali handles animals on transit to Mombasa, Machakos and even KMC. Cattle, especially the small East African Zebu, are the main animals in the market. Producers generally sell castrates followed by males with females being the least evident in the market. Immature steers are traded only under exceptional conditions. Boran and Sahiwal crosses are rare indicating that these breeds form an insignificant part of Maasai herds. There is no organised market for small stock (sheep and goats) although these number nearly a million in the district.

The butchers and the livestock traders reap the highest benefits at the expense of the producers who in most cases are not well informed about the prevailing market prices. Price information would lead to higher sales of even small stock and to an increased off-take for most classes of livestock. The producers would benefit leaving land pastures with fewer animals.

There is a crucial need for collecting and disseminating livestock market information to all participants. A possible starting point would be organising markets on an auction basis with dates advertised in advance. This would require close collaboration between the Veterinary Department, local government, traders and the producers. A newsletter coordinated through extension services would help solve some of these problems.

Other markets for small stock need to be established to keep numbers (particularly of sheep) in balance with forage supply. Possibly livestock traders or producer families can be organised and encouraged to form small co-operative societies which specialise in the small stock business. Ultimately a network of livestock auction stations can be developed at strategic stations throughout the district. This would reduce the heavy animal losses experienced during the long trek to the market.

To enhance livestock marketing a credit scheme for livestock traders to increase the purchasing power of traders would help. Local government should provide leadership in this aspect. With this scheme, farmers and traders would be able to buy and trek large numbers of animals to the market and share costs.

Group ranch subdivision

Success and failure of group ranches should be evaluated from both the pastoralists' standpoint and from the stated official objectives.

Pastoralists' point of view

Initially the ranchers were eager and enthusiastic to implement group ranches despite the fact that pastoralists in general and Maasai, in particular, are very suspicious of new ideas, practices or actions originating outside their community. It is then amazing to note that even local Maasai elders who were largely illiterate agreed to part with old traditions and freely accepted demarcation and registration of their land and then obtained freehold titles which they mortgaged for development loans. Based on interviews and discussions with the Maasai pastoralists, the Maasai embraced the group ranch practice for the following reasons:

· the group ranch practice offered the possibility of increasing their traditional wealth base, i.e. livestock numbers through provision of water facilities, disease control and through acquisition of more animals as provided in the group ranch plans

· the group ranch practice offered the certainty of maintaining land under Maasai people since non-Maasai could not be members of any group ranch and land sales could not be effected since land was adjudicated to a particular group

· the group ranch practice seemed to offer social and cultural stability

· the group ranch practice would ultimately provide the medium of transferring state land from government hands to the Maasai people. This would initially be through freehold communal land tenure system which is the group ranch and ultimately to individual freehold ownership by subdivision of the group ranches to individual members.

These were some of the main considerations which influenced the Maasai to accept the group ranching. In qualitative terms the pastoralist achieved an admirable degree of success. In terms of livestock numbers only 12 ranches out of 51 (23%) had stocking levels below the recommended levels while all the ranches carried 450,160 SU compared to the recommended 272,023 SU (65% excess) in 1988 (Table 1). To the pastoralists this was a positive achievement.

Government and funding agencies' views

Group ranching failed to meet most of the objectives stipulated by the government. The causes of the failure are complex and difficult to interpret but exist within the politics of group ranch administration. By the mid-1970s it was clear that group ranches were an exercise in acquiring land title deeds but not an effective means of commercialisation of beef production through reforming pastoral systems (IBRD, 1977). The major rationale for group ranching was range conservation through increased livestock off-take, thereby increasing income to the pastoralists. The group ranch-was perceived as an effective tool to regulate herd size. This was a cardinal mistake, which everybody involved in the group ranch except the pastoralist, made. The individual herd owners attempted to maximise herd size in unregulated competition with other pastoralists (Solomon Bekure and Pasha, 1986). Indeed the pastoralist was not market-orientated. He/she only intended to sell the minimum number of animals to meet his/her financial commitment to the ranch. Livestock numbers increased beyond the carrying capacity of the land (Table 1). The objective of preventing environmental degradation through reduced overgrazing could not be realised (Meadows and White, 1981).

Furthermore, members of a group ranch held freehold land title theoretically on equal basis. Individual livestock quota was based on the unequal livestock numbers owned at the inception of the ranch. Livestock numbers varied from less than 30 head of cattle for the poor pastoralist to more than 4000 head of cattle for the rich pastoralists. The constitution of the ranch indicated that poor pastoralists could increase their livestock quota to 45 head of cattle, the minimum considered adequate to sustain a family of six. To achieve this, the livestock quota for rich pastoralists was to be reduced slightly to enable all the poor pastoralists to hold at least 45 head of cattle. A livestock quota system in group ranches meant unfair means of sharing resources among ranch members.

The group ranch practice achieved some measure of success in sedentarising pastoral people and their livestock. This limited their two main modes of adaptation, i.e. their high mobility and stock splitting which facilitated optimal use of marginal areas. Increased sedentarisation meant loss of grazing areas crucial for survival in times of drought and would ultimately lead to over-exploitation of ranch pastures. Vegetation degradation and continuous decline of grazing potential would be expected in most group ranches.

Government influence and control in the group ranches was mainly through funding various facilities and in the repayment of loans. Consequently the effectiveness and influence of the government started waning with the close of the project in 1982. Infrastructural facilities started deteriorating with the termination of funding by government with the exception of one ranch (Poke Ranch).

The problems of group ranches were further compounded by ineffective ranch committees which failed to properly manage and maintain dips, water pumps and engines. The committee even failed to enforce livestock quotas and collect revenue for repayments for outstanding loans. The management in most group ranches collapsed. Dyson-Hudson (1982) stated that ranch committees tended not to meet and when they did they dealt with issues which were inconsequential generalities. The meetings were also characterised by a failure to reach important decisions and if a decision was reached it was not implemented, hence subdivision became inevitable.

Pressure to subdivide group ranches

Despite the fact that the 1968 Group Representatives Act (1968) provided for subdivision of group ranches, the growing pressure to subdivide was fuelled by several other factors.

Individual members had a strong desire to own land title deeds for use as collateral for loans to advance livestock production and improve living standards. The end of the KLPD credit facility created a financial gap which required bridging.

Strong pressure in all group ranches from unregistered young men who were over eighteen years old emerged. The registration of group ranches to their fathers had denied them their natural inheritance to ancestral land and condemned them to a state of landlessness and unredeemable poverty. This pressure from second generation pastoralists was evident at the registration of initial group ranches and it was the main force that triggered group ranch subdivision (ole Pasha, 1985).

Most members were frustrated with the inefficiencies of management committees and their partial loyalties to age-groups, blood relationships and personal ambitions, with each individual member feeling the need to be in control. Pastoralists felt that subdivision would allow better operation and maintenance of the infrastructure. Table 2 indicates that 35% of the boreholes and 30% of dips and spray races in Kajiado are non-functional. Gradier (1981) revealed that only 50% of the dips and 62% of the boreholes were functional in the Kaputiei group ranches. The pastoralists subscribed to the theory that individual management is simpler and more efficient.

Table 2. Type and number of infrastructure in Kajiado District within group ranches.

Facility	Division	Loitoktok no.	Ngong no.	Magadi no.	District no.	Central no.
Boreholes	F	57	11	14	0	82
	NF	31	4	9	1	45
Waterpans	F	127	2	6	0	135
	NF	0	0	0	0	0
Dams	F	32	4	5	9	50
	NF	5	0	1	1	7
Well sites	F	20	8	1	0	29
	NF	0	0	0	0	0
Springs	F	15	22	7	0	44
	NF	1	0	3	0	4
Rock catchment	F	4	2	0	1	7
	NF	0	0	0	2	2
Tanks	F	87	27	38	20	170
	NF	14	0	0	0	14
Troughs	F	151	28	19	19	217
	NF	9	0	0	0	9
Pipeline (km)	F	229	87	173	85	574
	NF	18	0	0	0	18
Dips	F	67	28	50	1	146
Spray race .	NF	33	16	7	7	63
Crushes	F	95	35	23	9	162
	NF	3	6	0	0	9
Functional	F
Non-functional	NF

Government role in subdivision

Following government approval to subdivide Poka Group Ranch in 1981 and the subsequent subdivision of Kipeto-Kisanju Group Ranch in 1982, the government constituted a committee to provide an in-depth examination of the socioeconomic problems associated with group ranches as a basis for effecting future changes and subdivision of group ranches (Kenya Government, 1982). Finally the government allowed group ranches in Kajiado to decide on the issue of subdivision through voting by members in each ranch (Kenya Government, 1983). Each group ranch had to meet the following conditions to get approval for subdivision:

· To pay up all monies the group ranch owed to the Agricultural Finance Corporation. This condition proved difficult to meet since most members were reluctant to pay their share of the loan. Some ranches with marketable land managed to sell a portion of their ranch to raise the required funds.

· To resolve the issue of the registration of grown up young men in the ranch. However, politics and corruption complicated this issue.

· To convene a general meeting to dissolve the group ranch and clear the minutes with relevant authorities and to obtain official permission from the registrar of groups to dissolve the group.

On fulfillment of these conditions, the group ranch committee with the help of government personnel could embark on the process of subdivision. The approved practice was subdivision into equal shares of land for all registered members. By December 1984 the status of the issue of the subdivision of the 51 group ranches in Kajiado was as follows (Sadera, 1986):

· Seven ranches (14%) had been subdivided. The size of individual holding ranged from 49 ha (8.4 SU) to 298 ha (50 SU);

· Twenty-two ranches had resolved not to subdivide but to remain as group ranches;

· The government was initially opposed to subdivision as it was felt that it would undermine viability and promote environmental degradation and hence accepted subdivision reluctantly.

It was felt that subdivision of group ranches would result in ranch sizes too small to be ecologically and economically viable. Ranch sizes below 800 ha, the accepted minimum size of an individually-owned ranch in Kajiado, would not be ecologically viable and would lead to social, economic and environmental degradation. Sizes of individual holdings, once subdivided on equal basis ranged from 23 ha to 298 ha. However, if all the group ranches subdivided their total land on equal share basis, each member would on average receive approximately 100 ha; which is below subsistence requirement for a family of six.

In addition, subdivision would ultimately lead to increased cultivation on the fragile marginal lands. Severe erosion evident in other range districts like Machakos, Kitui, Baringo etc would become common place in Kajiado.

The Maasai were against subdivision for several reasons. Subdivision into smaller land units would encourage agricultural cropping and crop protection mechanisms like fences and trenches would restrict the usual livestock and wildlife movement. This would ultimately affect livestock production in terms of numbers and individual animal weights. Subdivision would also cause the influx of non-Maasai land buyers from various parts of Kenya. The new residents would dilute and undermine Maasai culture which most Maasai leaders wanted to preserve.

Important issues in subdivided ranches

Implementation of the group ranch subdivision process proved to be very slow and most groups failed to meet all the stipulations imposed by the government in 1983. Only nine group ranches have carried out and completed the process of subdivision and issued registered members with their own title deeds. Most of these subdivided group ranches are near urban centres and have reasonable arable or irrigatable land.

The surface area of nine subdivided group ranches covers 146,476 ha which is only 9.6% of the total group ranch area in the district. The subdivided ranches have a total membership of 1632 (11%) compared with the total membership of 14,593. The subdivided area has a livestock population of 61,216 SU compared with a total stock unit of 450,160. This constitutes 13.6% of the livestock stock units. These figures imply that group ranch subdivision on the basis of the land area, the members and livestock involved or in terms of total land resources involved is very small and insignificant. It is also doubtful whether the rest of the group ranches which have agreed to subdivide will ever meet the requirements of carrying out subdivision.

Closer examination of the different group ranch sizes in Kajiado indicate that of the 51 ranches, 12 ranches had an area below 10,000 ha and 29 ranches had an area of 10,000-50,000 ha. Eight ranches had an area of 50,000-100,000 ha while two had an area above 100,000 ha (Table 3).

Table 3. Frequency of distribution of various ranch sizes (ha) for the 51 group ranches in Kajiado, 1988.

Size (ha)	No. ranches	%
< 10,000	12	24
10,000-50,000	29	56
50,000 100,000	8	16
> 100.000	2	4
Total	51	100

If all the ranches were subdivided on an equal share basis, all members in 11 ranches would acquire land pieces of 0-49 ha, members in 21 ranches would acquire land pieces of 50-99 ha, members in 12 ranches would acquire land pieces of 100-149 ha, members in four ranches would acquire land pieces 150-199 ha and only members in three ranches would acquire land pieces above 200 ha each (Table 4). All these sizes would be below subsistence requirements.

Table 4. Extent of land sales and cultivation in four subdivided group ranches.

Ranch	Area (ha)	No individual hold	Area me (ha)	Hold Subd. %	% farm	Ave farm size (ha)	Sales (ha)
Empuyiankat	15,270	98	157	18	60	29	12
Embolioi	24,000	302	79	14	76	3	664
Olkinos	6,020	115	52	37	67	2.5	635
Olchorro-Onyori	3,687	144	35	75	84	2.5	466

Source: Adapted from Munei (1991)

Additional data indicate that individual landholdings on the subdivided ranches from 35 ha to 298 ha and in terms of current stocking rate vary from seven to 107 stock units. However, if the recommended stocking rates were followed, the individual livestock holding would range from 6 SU to 31 SU for eight ranches and 50 SU for members from Poka Ranch. Apparently, most of these holdings would not be adequate to meet subsistence requirements for individual families.

The status of infrastructure

The future usage of the group ranch livestock infrastructure in the subdivided group ranches depends on their accessibility by the ranchers and on whether they would be functional. Nearly all infrastructural development was left on public tracts of land and there was a general agreement that both new and old land owners were willing to allow users access to group facilities. This access was either through their land or alongside their boundaries. Available data indicated that most of the facilities in the subdivided ranches were functional. Of the original 27 boreholes 21 were functional (78%), 12 of the original 15 water tanks (80%) were functional while 31 out of the original 36 dips were functional (86%). All the original water-pans, rock catchments, crushes, troughs, pipeline, springs and well sites were totally functional. This is contrary to the popular belief that decentralisation of settlement would lead to impairment of infrastructure.

Theoretically the group facilities were available to both new and old farmers. However, the likelihood of long-term cooperation will be negatively influenced by new fences being put up and the lack of adequate funds to run and maintain these communal facilities. Several points were observed.

Subdivision of group ranches has led to small land allotments, increased cultivation and increased land sales (Table 4). Four ranches which have completed subdivision, namely Empuyiankat, Embolioi, Olkinos and Olchorro-Onyori were selected to illustrate the trends following subdivision and the following general conclusions were reached.

· Subdivision leads to small land parcels or individual holdings which may be too small to provide adequate family subsistence, e.g. Olchorro-Onyori where individual holdings were 35 ha;

· The smaller individual holdings tended to have higher rates of subdivision of their parcels. Only 18% of the initial members in Empuyiakat fragmented their holding compared to 75% members in Olchorro-Onyori (Munei, 1990);

· There is an increased tendency towards arable cropping with subdivision with higher intensity in smaller holdings (Table 4). The total land cultivated in each group ranch is small and ranges between 176 ha in Empuyiakat to 690 ha in Embolioi. The trend may change with further subdivisions and land sales;

· The total land sold is small compared to total initial ranch size and in itself may be insignificant (Table 4). However, the small parcels scattered all round the ranch may hinder animal movement and future land reconsolidation if desired by members.

Co-operative societies following group ranches

Cooperative use of facilities, e.g. pastures, water, group herding and stock splitting is an integral component of the traditions of most pastoral groups including the Maasai people. Livestock operations at any level of organisation, whether commercial or traditional, requires some form of cooperation. The emergence of small cooperative societies in the area where group ranches have been subdivided confirms the inherent need for cooperation in livestock production systems. These societies, owned and managed by individuals who independently own their land parcels, demonstrate a real need to reconstitute cooperation and fill the gaps left by subdivision of group ranches. The three established co-operative societies in Kajiado District though with small membership (20,150) indicate the desire to be joint owner of cooperatively owned assets either in the form of land, animals or business enterprises. Livestock-related activities, mainly butcheries, are the main form of business.

The cooperative livestock production in the newly formed cooperative societies is carried out on privately owned individual land parcels! In this system a certain number of cooperative society animals are entrusted to an individual member for herding throughout with the cooperative society meeting the cost of drugs, supervision and sales. The individual farmer is remunerated on the basis of the number of animals and the duration of time cooperative livestock spend on his pastures. This method appeared the most appealing to members.

Extension

Before the establishment of the Division of Range Management in the Ministry of Agriculture in 1963, livestock production activities in Kenya rangelands fell under the jurisdiction of veterinary and livestock officers. The major concerns were animal diseases and routine vaccinations, tsetse control programmes and livestock numbers. The Range Management Division, established as a technical division, required personnel specifically trained in range science with special emphasis on resource ecology, resource economies and livestock nutrition among other disciplines.

Despite the feet that the Division has adequate qualified personnel, various projects within the purview of the division including the group ranches have failed. Examination, evaluation and monitoring of these projects indicate that pre-development concepts and data were inadequate and, in most eases, inappropriate. Planners, developers and financiers failed to recognise the full implications of several important constraints including sociological, technical and ecological considerations.

Planning and implementation of projects were based on Western concepts and lacked adequate input from the pastoralists. They were not sufficiently involved to identify themselves with the project.

Sedentarisation, destocking based on definite livestock quota per member, a rigid grazing system based on calendar months and a sophisticated loan system were the central requirements in the implementation of group ranches. All these prerequisites violated conceived social values of pastoral societies including the Maasai society. Consequently the projects based on these stipulations had to fail.

Some relevant observations

In the group ranches, individual share grazing (pasture) and various infrastructural developments which include water facilities, dips and crushes exist. Individual members benefits depended on herd size and particularly the size of the breeding herd which determined the growth rate of the herd. Members with large herds reaped enormous benefits, as livestock was a means of generating income and storing wealth. Most producers assume the same position and are unwilling to sell their means of wealth production. Their aim remains to use their breeding herds to multiply the livestock herd. Destocking is viewed negatively in terms of reducing wealth and also as undermining the ability to generate income. Consequently the group ranch policy of destocking through periodic livestock sales to achieve proper carrying capacity of the range went against the intentions and wishes of most members. In other words there is little incentive for most individual members to cooperate in these periodic livestock sales. In this light, it is obvious that the initial rationale of group ranching was defective. Group ranches were doomed to fail from the start.

A large acreage of natural pasture is the principal input for successful livestock production in range areas. The acreage should be adequate to accommodate rotational grazing. The major constraint for the newly formed cooperative societies in Kajiado is the small land parcels which cannot accommodate rotational grazing. To overcome the problem, small ranch owners attempted to consolidate their parcels to achieve the minimum size required for meaningful ranching. However, most consolidation processes were complicated by two factors, namely most cooperative members did not necessarily own adjacent pieces of land and secondly, some of the cooperative members may have sold their land parcels to individuals who did not want to cooperate. The implication here is that the consolidation process is extremely difficult. The obvious conclusion is that individuals without sufficient land for livestock production cannot successfully produce livestock and will therefore be forced to cooperate with other small land owners. However, due to various problems that make land consolidation a problem livestock production on a cooperative basis in Kajiado District will not be successful. Viable land use alternatives therefore need to be formulated.

Recommendations

Subdivision of group ranches is not a solution to the socio-economic problems in the area under consideration. Long-term economic solutions lie in the rehabilitation of the group ranch practice. This can be achieved through an extensive review and correction of the shortfalls evident in the management and operation of group ranches. The major shortfalls were a livestock quota system based on initial livestock owned by original members that favoured the maintenance of the status quo with rich families maintaining their wealth at the expense of the poorer majority; and an inflexible economy based on one product, mainly livestock sales, that has not expanded to absorb young people as they mature and leave school.

A more holistic approach is needed to revitalise the group ranches in Kajiado and also to initiate other development activities. The following are some of the suggestions:

· There is urgent need to critically examine the possibility of establishing satellite towns in strategic areas in each group ranch or at a common junction of several group ranches. The satellite towns would serve as nuclei for various industries which initially would emphasise processing various livestock products, e.g. milk, meat, leather goods and even bone and blood meals for animal feeds.

· Livestock marketing (sheep, cattle, goats and donkeys) should be strengthened to enhance off-take and returns. This would require collective effort from the ranchers, local government and various government agencies.

· Group ranch management requires a critical review to streamline the possibility of running each group ranch as a commercial undertaking directed by a eve of qualified personnel answerable to aboard of committee members. Livestock quotas should be on an equal basis and livestock numbers on the ranch should be commensurate with the carrying capacity of the ranch.

· A study should be undertaken to suggest alternative enterprises such as honey production and poultry and rabbit farming to complement ranching.

· There is a need to strengthen dialogue and linkages between the pastoralists and government agencies. Cordial relationships will help to remove suspicion and to facilitate free flow of technical and non-technical information.

References

ALDEV (African Land Development Board). 1962. Land development in Kenya. Report for 1946-1962. Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, Nairobi, Kenya

Ayuko L J. 1981. Organisation structures and ranches in Kenya. Pastoral Network paper 116. Overseas Development Institute, London.

Solomon Bekure and Pasha I. 1986. Response of the Kenya Masai to changing land policies. Paper presented at Plain's India Culture: Past and Present Meetings, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, U.S.A.

Brown R. 1959. A survey of grazing schemes operting in Kenya. Ministry of Agriculture Annual Report.

Cone W L and Lipscomb J F.1972. The history of Kenyan agriculture. University Press of Africa, Nairobi, Kenya.

Cossins H. 1980. Report on group ranching administration and finance. Prepared for IBRD/ International Finance Co-operation.

Dyson-Hudson N. 1982. Changing production strategies in East African range livestock system. An overview. Document prepared for Programme Committee, ILCA

Fumagalli C. 1978. An evaluation of development projects among East african Pastoralists. African Studies Review 21:3

Goldschmidt W. 1981. The failure of pastoral economic development programmes in Africa. Proceedings of a Conference on Future of Pastoral Peoples Nairobi, Kenya.

Galaty J G. 1980. The Masai group ranch: Politics and development in an african pastoral society In: Sailzman P (ed.) When nomad, settle. pp. 157-172

Grandin B E. 1981. Report For IBRD Impact Study of Kenya Livestock Development Programme Phase I. ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa), Nairobi, Kenya

IBRD. (Internation Bank for Reconstruction and Development). 1977. Kenya Second Livestock Development Project: World Bank Report No. 10.

IBRD. (International Bank for Reconstruction and 1985. Kenya Second Livestock Development Project Credit 477- KE Completion report.

ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa). 1984. ILCA Annual Report 1984. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Kenya Government. 1980. National Livestock Development Policy. Ministry of Livestock Development, Nairobi, Kenya.

Kenya Government. 1982. Minutes on Poka Group Ranch meeting on Subdivision date 21/8/91. File KAJ/POKA Group Ranch/Vol/1/65.

Kenya Government. 1983. Minutes on Group Ranch subdivision dated 23/811983. KJD/Kenya/GEN/ Vol/1.

Kenya Government 1985. Animal Production Division Annual Report. Ministry of Livestock Development Nairobi Kenya

Kenya Government. 1988. Kenya Soil Survey: Map compiled by survey of Kenya.

Kenya Government. 1990. Statistical abstract. Central Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Planning and National Development.

Lawrence J D. 1966. Report on Mission of Land Consolidation and Registration in Kenya.

Langat R K 1986. Commercial ranches in Kenya. In: Hasei R M Wole B M and Child R D (eds). Range development and research in Kenya, pp. 39-46.

McCanley E H. 1976. Lessons from a survey of successful experiences in assisting the smallholder livestock producer. World Animal Survey Review 17.

Meadows S J and White J M. 1981. Evaluation of the contribution of group and individual ranches in kajiado to economic development and pastoral strategies. Ministry of Livestock Development, Nairobi. Unpublished report

Ministry of Agriculture. 1968. Annual Report.

Ministry of Agriculture. 1970. Annual Report.

Mwangata J H N. 1986. History of range management in Kenya. In: Hasei R M, Wole B M and Child R D (eds), Range development and research in Kenya. pp. 77-82.

Munei K. 1992. Study on subdivision of group ranches in Kajiado District. Unpublished report.

ole Pasha I K 1985. Organization and management of group ranches. ILCA report (unpublished).

ole Pasha I K 1986. Evaluation of individual and group Ranches in Masailand. In: Range development and research in Kenya. pp. 303-318.

Pratt D J Greenway P J and Gwynne M D. 1966. A classification of East African rangelands.

Sadera P L K 1986 Group ranches in Kenya: In: Hansen R M and Wole B M (eds), Range Development and Research in Kenya. pp. 19-27

Sindiga I. 1984. Land and population problems in Kajiado and Narok Kenya. Africa Studies Review 27/1.

Swynnerton R J M. 1954. A plan to intensify the development of African agriculture in Kenya.