Prosopis spp has been demonstratedto have a wide range of ecological and socio-economic benefits (Mwangi andSwallow, 2008; Wambusya, 2013) that can be exploited to benefit communitiesliving in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs). As a result, there is a compellingneed to develop environmentally friendly and economically viable managementstrategies that are aimed at keeping Prosopisspp plant populations under control. Many management options are availableincluding management through exploitation/utilization which has becomeincreasingly popular among the key stakeholders. This strategy involves,management of the production processes especially production of fuel wood,sweet pods and relatively straight stems for timber. With these; exploitationof Prosopis spp can be seen as aprofitable venture in otherwise unproductive land. With the current risingshortages of livestock feed, domestic and industrial sources of energy andtimber, Prosopis potentially offers asustainable solution to the crisis if managed well. Markets for the Prosopis products are developing aroundthe world but knowledge of its range of uses needs to be promoted widely.Processing and utilizing Prosopis juliflora pods emphasizes a balanced usethat keeps its population below economic environmental injury levels whileprotecting it from over exploitation which could potentially lead to itsextinction.

The main targets of this innovation and management practice arecommunities in the dry land ecologies of Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan and Tanzaniathat have been invaded by Prosopisspp. The management practice is at uptake pathway stage and has already beentaken up by many communities in Kenya. The following approaches were used inscaling up of the practice:

a)    Training activities for communities

Capacity building of thegovernment staff and community facilitators was carried out in the initialpilot project in 2005 in Baringo district (now Baringo County). While thecommunity facilitators still work actively in Baringo County, the governmentstaff have been deployed to perform training activities on Prosopis spp in target areas across the country.

b)    Establishment of community groups

Establishment of localcommunity groups was a popular strategy for involving communities to manage Prosopis spp invasions. The task offorming the groups was delegated to local administrators and community opinionleaders. There was fair representation of all ethnic groups, in terms of ageand gender categories as well as other parameters as decided upon by the targetcommunities across all ASARECA supported Prosopisspp interventions,.

c)    Technology development through field demonstrations

Piloting of Prosopis spp management interventionswas strongly supported by each of the community groups. These demonstrationsserved as learning centres for the communities and were located at strategicplaces to allow maximum exposure to the community members. The key managementpractices promoted included: thinning and pruning of natural stands,suppression of regeneration and coppicing through controlled and regularcutting down of trees to provide fuel wood. These practices were mainlypromoted in communities where there was active utilization of land infestedwith Prosopis spp. Field days wereusually organized periodically to guide the community members and the generalpublic through the demonstrations.

d)    Scaling out of the technologies through formation of local communitygroups in other affected areas

The technologies developedin Baringo district were further refined with support from the World Bank(Kenya Agricultural Productivity Project – KAPP) and Kennington Overseas Aid/UK(Choge, 2005). Formation of local community groups in other affected areas waspromoted as an approach for scaling out the technologies; and this was donefrom 2007 to 2011. These technologies, innovations and management practices arenow being scaled out to affected communities in other Counties such as Garissa,Taita Taveta, Tana River and Turkana in Kenya. The approach has closelyfollowed the Baringo example where the entry points have been formation,registration and training of community associations. The Government of Kenya (GOK)has fully endorsed this concept of management and control of Prosopis invasions through utilization.

The line ministries, particularly the Ministry of Forestry andWildlife (KEFRI and KFS), Ministry of Agriculture (National Agriculture andLivestock Extension Programme, NALEP) and the Ministry of Livestock Development(Arid Lands Based Livelihoods Support Project, ALLPRO) have been encouraged toinclude the management of Prosopisspp as one of their core extension activities. Other national programmes (suchas Arid Lands Resource Management Project under the Office of the President)have also been involved, including international organizations (such asASARECA). Support for the community groups mainly focuses on training andempowerment as key future scaling-up approaches.

Market for Prosopisproducts is still small but growing, creating opportunities for increasedincome generation in future. Technology is quite low cost. 

Experience has shown that women andchildren are much more involved in Prosopisspp management and utilization than men. For example, collection and trading ofpods and making of charcoal are carried out mainly by women and children inmost communities actively involved in Prosopismanagement and utilization. However, in certain situations, men undertake moredifficult tasks such as cutting trees using power saws.

Choge, S.K;

National Prosopis Expert, Kenya Forestry Research institute(KEFRI);

P.O. Box 20412 00200;

Nairobi, Kenya.

Tel: +254-724-259781/2; +254-722-157414

Mob: +254 (0) 722862366

Email: skchoge2002@yahoo.com

Muthike, G.M;

Research Scientist, Forest Products Research Centre (KEFRI);

P.O. Box 20412 00200;

Nairobi, Kenya.

Tel: +254-724-259781/2

Mob: +254 (0) 722345405

Email: muthikegm@yahoo.com 

Experiences from Kenya are now beginning to show that usingcommunity-based groups is a popular and realistic approach to managing Prosopis species invasions (Njoroge etal, 2012). Management entails pruning and thinning the invasive tree species inspecific spacing regimes to achieve desirable plant densities. Procedures forinitiating such a process have been described by Choge and Muthike (2011).However, in order to strengthen and sustain the activities of the groups, thefollowing recommendations have been advanced:

    i).         The groups must have a reliable source of income that benefitseach member directly on a regular basis, without which the group willdisintegrate when members find alternative livelihood sources. From experience,charcoal production from Prosopis sppis often the easiest and most convenient source of income for the groups,followed by sale of poles and pods.

   ii).         Prosopis spp is often considered acommunal resource because it grows on communal grazing lands. Commercialproduction of charcoal, therefore, often attracts a large number of communitymembers, most of who are outside the formal groups. This has resulted inserious scramble for mature Prosopistrees, leading to sudden extensive clearance of vegetation, thus exposing thesoil cover to erosion and degradation. Furthermore, competition for Prosopis trees has also led towidespread illegal felling of indigenous trees, particularly in the absence ofproper supervision. It is recommended that strict measures for supervision are putin place before community groups are allowed to start with any management andproduct processing interventions. Follow-up measures for areas of interventionto reduce re-invasion are given in Choge and Muthike (2011).

 iii).         For effective management of invasions by communities, it is bestto zone the major invasions as a first step. Thereafter, the groups orcommunities are allocated specific areas within the zones. This allows someform of organized management and encourages accountability by those allocatedthe specific area(s). Issuance of permits to produce and transport charcoal andother popular commercial products from the intervention areas should be linkedto adherence to the rules and regulations governing the management of theinvasions. For example, minimum conditions that must be met could include:selective clearance to specific spacing regimes, removal/ pruning branches ofremnant trees to reduce shading of grass, removal of stumps to reducere-growths and preservation of indigenous trees among others.

 iv).         Processing of pods has been found to be expensive for the groups,particularly for local use by the group members. The gums and high fibrecontent of the pods (and sometimes the high water content owing to theiratmospheric moisture absorption tendencies) slows down their milling process,resulting in the need for high energy input. This could be subsidized fromsales of other products such as poles and charcoal. However, selling prices tothe industrial users are high and this may help to motivate the groups tocollect and process more pods. However, more aggressive marketing strategiesfor the pods are required in order to make their prices competitive.

   v).         In most cases, commercial products harvested from Prosopis invasions are far removed fromproduct markets, making it very difficult to transport them over longdistances. The government, producers, product buyers and other stakeholdersshould meet to find a long term solution to this problem in an effort toencourage harvesting and processing of pods as a strategy to manage theinvasions.

 vi).         The groups must have the capacity to store large quantities of Prosopis pods because their fruiting isseasonal. Research on the best conditions and forms for long term storageshould be established to minimize losses. There are unconfirmed fears that sincecommunities are earning a lot of income from sale of Prosopis products, this may encourage them to grow more of theweed, thus worsening the invasion of the species. It’s therefore, importantthat GOK supervises all Prosopismanagement activities to ensure that the objectives of the management approach areachieved. Monitoring and feedback by the coordinating institutions must be doneregularly to allow for revision of the strategy as and when the need arises.

Choge, S.K. and Muthike, G.M. 2011. Control of invasive Prosopis species through management andutilization. Guidelines for foresters, agricultural officers and extensionagents: KEFRI and ASARECA (in press).

Mwangi, E. and B. Swallow. 2008. Prosopis Juliflora Invasion and Rural Livelihoods in the LakeBaringo Area of Kenya’, Conservation and Society 6(2): 130

Njoroge, E., P. Sirmah, F. Mburu, E. Koech, M. Mware and J.Chepkwony. 2012. Preference and Adoption of Farmer Field School (FFS) Prosopis juliflora Management Practices:Experiences in Baringo District, Kenya’, Forestry Studies in China 14(4):283-290. 

Wambusya, E.N. 2013. Policy Outcomes and Community Perceptions ofa Dryland Invasive Species: A Case Study of Prosopisjuliflora in Baringo County, Kenya. Research Paper