Public gathering at local community during LADA local level assessment in one of the catchment area representing foothills in Lesotho. (Polao Moepi)

Focus Group Discussion (Lesotho)

Pitso

Description

This focus group discussion was composed of 15-20 participants: community elders, youth, (males and females as informed by local beliefs and norms), retired government officials.The aim of community focus group discussion was to find land users’perception and behaviour on land uses and SLM. It was organised by Ministry of Forestry, LADA coordinator and national consultant. The target group was land users, local authorities, youth, small stock owners, retired government officials. The target group mandate was also to draw the community map which also showed the land uses and resources. This focus group discussion gave researchers information on land uses, natural resources, prior SLM interventions, and many more.

1. Conducted an initial field visit before the focus group discussion (FGD) with the selected villages within the sub-catchment: A tour by road with a few key informants to familiarise officers with the study area, land uses, also the extent and severity of degradation and types and extent of conservation and improved land management measures with the result being a community territorial map.
2. The aim of Focus Group Discussion (FGD) is to obtain information about range of land-users, their individual and communal management regime and the history of their area. This method is used as the first stage of implementation in LADA local level assessment.
3. The FGD representatives consisted of different social groups (i.e. both men and women – and different age groups) between 15-20 members. These members together with technocrats sat at round table set up which enabled free and interactive communication and feedback.
Each study area had its own list of FGD questions and facilitated them accordingly. Field Assessments confining; six (6) study areas in each sub-catchment.
•Vegetation assessment.
•Soil assessments which entail soil erosion and soil properties (2 study areas).
•Water resources assessment with key informant interviews on water resources.
•Household livelihood assessments.
•Land use systems
4. The target group mandate was also to draw the community map which also showed the land uses and resources. This focus group discussion gave researchers information on land uses, natural resources, prior SLM interventions, and many more. This approach enabled land users to present all their views without fear or dominance by other members. They realised that they have their resources in abundance, however, they need to improve their status as their livelihoods entirely depends on their good use.
5. It was organised by Ministry of Forestry, National University of Lesotho, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Water, Ministry of Local Government,LADA coordinator and national consultant. The target group was land users, local authorities, youth, small stock owners, retired government officials.
6. The advantage of FGD was that the land users were taught on income generating activities such as orchard establishment, food processing, vegetable production under shade nets/tunnels (climate smart agriculture). They did not like the timing of FGD because it interfered with their haresting season, it took longer than it was intended and the weather conditions were not condusive as it was too cold and on the second day, snow began to fall.

Location

Location: Focus group discussions were held in three different catchments (Ha Mahloane, Bolahla Pitseng in Leribe district, Lesobeng khutlo se-metsi catchment in Thaba-Tseka district and Ha mosuoe catchment in Quthing district., Southern Africa, Lesotho

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 28.3711, -29.84064
  • 28.22315, -29.01262
  • 28.31022, -29.04516
  • 28.31022, -29.04516
  • 28.31022, -29.04516

Initiation date: n.a.

Year of termination: 2030

Type of Approach
Participants' interaction during FGD (Joseph Patrick Mensah)

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
To find land-users views on their status of their natural resources and if they have indigenous knowledge systems applicable to be used in the management method
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: socio-economic factors can hinder the application of this technology
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: FAOLS country office assisted with finances
  • Institutional setting: The Lesotho government has provided all conditions necessary
  • Collaboration/ coordination of actors: Other line ministries have fully participated
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Farmer-Extension worker ratio is too high to enable adequate scaling up of SLM technologies
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): Lesotho land tenure needs to be reviewed
  • Policies: The Department of Soil and Water Conservation's policy is still in its draft form.
  • Land governance (decision-making, implementation and enforcement): In Lesotho, land is communally owned
  • Markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices: limited subsidies towards direct sourcing of specific inputs
  • Workload, availability of manpower: Farmer-Extension worker ratio is too high to enable adequate scaling up of SLM technologies

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities farmers, traditional healers participants
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers soil scientists, agriculturalists, environmentalists and hydrologists facilitators
researchers National University of Lesotho (natural resource management researchers) facilitators/reseachers
local government Chiefs and Local councillors community organisers
national government (planners, decision-makers) Soil and Water resource line ministries planning, mentoring and decision support
Lead agency
Ministry of Forestry, Range and Soil Conservation
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
x
key informants as community representatives
planning
x
key informants and technocrats working together to produce community maps
implementation
x
technocrats tour guided by community elders
monitoring/ evaluation
x
None
x
Flow chart

This flow chart describes participation of stakeholders in the implementation of DS-SLM activities in Lesotho

Author: Koetlisi Koetlisi (PhD) and Matoka Moshoeshoe
Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
There are farmer-farmer visits facilitated by extension workers. There are also agriculture resource centres whereby farmers visit to get more information.
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

Each researcher facilitated their area of speciality and this enabled the question-answer session to be easy. community members had bottle-necks which researchers ironed. The challenge in extension services is means of transport to the landusers due to terrain of our country, so extension service is somehow compromised and not acessible at all times.

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
FAO-UN Government of Lesotho The money caters for accomodation, meals, transport, refreshments for researchers. This is because reseachers do not reside where the FGD was taking place, after the FGD followed LADA local level assessment, which was conducted for 15 days.
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments
Other incentives or instruments

There are policies and laws which were referred to in order to support SLM such as Forest Act (1998), Range Resources Management policy (2013)

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?

participants exchanged information without any hindrance as they were able to learn based on their baseline knowledge

x
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

Land users were only given a theory on the importance of SLM technologies not how technologies are constructed. other researchers were novice in land management, it is though this approach where they learned facilitation skills. In Lesotho, land management activities are implemented mostly by women, youth and elderly because men in the villages work in South African mines. The picture of FGD also portrays more women than men

x
Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?

This was not part of the agenda

x
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?

It was agreed that participants would take part in demonstrations that would be implemented later in their respective communities

x
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?

All stakeholders in the natural resources management had a chance to discuss collectively- not in silos, issues that concerned them

x
Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?

All stakeholders in the natural resources management had a chance to discuss collectively- not in silos, issues that concerned them. Presence of researchers strengthened this collaboration.

x
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

x
Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?

all levels of society were represented

x
Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?

The youth were also represented

x
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

Lesotho land tenure issues need to be addressed at national level

x
Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?

Officers from Ministry of Agriculture through extension, delivered issues of nutrition and food security

x
Did the Approach improve access to markets?

There is abundance of natural resources in this area. Members were made aware of markets opportunities around them

x
Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?

Officers from Ministry of Water advised on issues of water and sanitation

x
Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?

The community entirely depends on the natural resources for better livelihoods

x
Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?

Climate change issues were also discussed and participants were made aware of the effects.

x
Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?

Key informants were asked about their means of livelihoods in the area. This opened income opportunities to some members

x
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Knowledge management
  • It can easily be implemented
  • It brings different land user groups together
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • other key resource persons such as local authorities liked this approach because it them ideas on which resources are available in the catchment and how communities utilise them for survival. The land users on the other hand ound this approach very useful as they were empowered and allowed to say their views without fear or favor as they were informed that there were no wrong answers. everybody participated fully
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • It is limited to key informants It should be replicated within the same community but, with different participants (Key)
  • Some key informants tend to dominate the discussion The facilitator should be observant and try to control dominating participants
  • It may become a platform for conflicts Local authorities should be present in case conflicts arise
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome

References

Compiler
  • Matoka Moshoeshoe
Editors
Reviewer
  • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
  • William Critchley
Date of documentation: Des. 13, 2018
Last update: Aug. 9, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • N/A:
Links to relevant information which is available online
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International