1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

11/12/2017

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

Nee

Comments:

The technology has demonstrated SLM.

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Social Tenure Domain Model (STDM) is about people and their relationships with land. The tool as applied secures tenure through the recognition of tenure diversity and social contexts. In the management of land and resources use, STDM facilitates proper land use and control to minimize practices that lead to degradation.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Technology application
Social tenure domain Model technology is applied in relating Natural and human environment as a social tool that defines relationship of persons to Natural resources such as land, their utilization and sharing for sustainable development. To realize optimal resource utilization, the tool enables the direct engagement of the resource users in a collective and participatory way.

Main characteristics of the technology;
The Technology (Social Tenure Domain Model) is a Relational database build on an open source GIS platform called Quontum GIS (QGIS), running on Postgres SQL .This tool was Built by Global Tools Land Network (GLTN) .The technology captures both Spatial information of the resource as well as socio economic aspect of a resource and allows definition of the type of relationship that exist between the resource and the person as well as percentage of tenure or right to use. Therefore the technology enables capturing of bundles of rights that people have/should enjoy in a resource.
The Technology allows generation of reports and performing desired analysis of the information stored within the databases. it is an open source thus available free hence its sustainability.

The purposes/ functions of the Technology
The functions of the technology as have been piloted before has always focused around Land tenure ; to address security of tenure for vulnerable poor communities living within informal settlements and Management of resources such as water and graze lands for improved /increased production of both plants and animal agriculture. However, the technology can be customized to serve other purposes of information storage and management. In securing the use and management of resources, the technology promotes better livelihoods in this case through land management and reduced risks of degradation.

The major activities/ inputs are needed to establish/ maintain the Technology
Major inputs needed in mostly empowerment of local communities through building their capacity to apply the technology on their own initiative. Building community based resource centres and equipping them with computers installed with the softwares, this ensure the technology is centred at the day to day activities of the communities and institutions for sustainability. Partnership with institutions of higher learning so as to include the technology within the curriculum; this will the the ultimate sustainability of the technology and the knowledge sharing from generation to generation.Creating awareness through conferences and workshops by sharing experiences of the pilots where the technology has been applied successfully.

Benefits/ impacts of the Technology
The Technology has left more organised communities in terms of managing land and other resources information.
The technology as assisted local governments to manage issues of Land ownership especially within the context of customary land tenure and ownership. The county governments for instance, have spatial data and information that can help in planning and resources allocation.
in areas where the technology was used in the context of RECONCILE's work, better service and resources can be acquired on accurate information. Improved and sustainable use of natural resources which have a direct impact on production.
Small Dairy Farmers have been able to manage grazing lands, water and salt leeks to improve production of animal products.
Information captured and managed by the technology have enabled communities within informal settlements to negotiate with government authorities to enable land alienation thus security of tenure and improved livelihood.

What do land users like / dislike about the Technology

Likes: The technology is flexible, it can be customized to capture information in any form desired.
It is based on a GIS platform which is easy to manipulated and open source(users can get it for free)
Dislikes: Users sometimes encounter errors that are a result of wrong information entered and these errors are written with programming format thus it required a bit higher knowledge of the technology to fix it.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2016

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

The technology did therefore help the communities to appreciate the common resources that support the livestock keeping.

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

Before the mapping exercise, most common resources were not given much attention. After participatory mapping and documenting these resources and establishment of information, communities have taken up the management of the resources more seriously and therefore increase of tenure security for both rangelands and resources therein.

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

Specify:

April to October and November through March

Livestock density (if relevant):

NA

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• natural and semi-natural forest management
• pastoralism and grazing land management
• integrated crop-livestock management

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• 10-100 km2

Comments:

The technology is applicable in both. It can be customized to fit any use. The best outcome though is total area social enumeration and spatial mapping.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Land degradation in rangelands is a problem that is being experienced and other challenges especially in the areas where agro-pastoralism is practiced include sustainable land use and management. The mapping process while not having direct response to these issues, it demonstrated that the communities can use sustainable means in land use through land use planning.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation
• adapt to land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

The overall space or measurements for the project areas were within the range of 25 to 75 KM2.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• US Dollars

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

101.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Enumeration of at least 1000 farmers	Other measures	9 months
2.	Mapping of communal resources	Structural	9 months
3.	Mapping of private resources	Structural	9 months
4.	Data Management	Management	3 months
5.	Preparation of data collection including testing of the tools	Other measures	1 month
6.	Dialogue sessions with community leaders	Management	2 months
7.	Negotiations on the methodology for data collection and the kind of information to be collected/asked	Structural	1 month
8.	Technical reviews and reflection with project team and partners	Management	1 month

Comments:

The kind of tasks undertaken in this process is more project oriented combined with advocacy and policy processes.

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Enumerators	persons	90.0	50.0	4500.0
Labour	Consultants	Persons	6.0	1000.0	6000.0
Labour	Technical Staff contribution and time	persons	5.0	750.0	3750.0
Labour	Data processing and management	persons	24.0	60.0	1440.0
Equipment	Data entry and analysis	persons	20.0	40.0	800.0
Equipment	GPS hiring		120.0	55.0	6600.0
Equipment	GPS purchase		5.0	320.0	1600.0
Equipment	Computers		4.0	750.0	3000.0
Equipment	Conferences		9.0	1500.0	13500.0
Other	Administrative costs	9 months	9.0	1400.0	12600.0
Other	Logistical support		36.0	600.0	21600.0
Other	Preliminary activities including targeted dialogue etc	Travels and associated costs	5.0	300.0	1500.0
Other	Documentation of the project (to be finalized)	Video documentary	2.0	3000.0	6000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					82890.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

UNHABITAT, RECONCILE, Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Programme (SDCP)

Comments:

The project was supported by the UNHABITAT with contributions from RECONCILE and partners. the community contribution in kind is not included since it has not been tabulated in terms of cash.

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	NA
2.	NA
3.	NA

Comments:

The project did not have physical structures developed. However, as a result of the work structures like cattle dips have been rehabilitated and are currently being maintained by the the communities themselves. This does not need recurrent costs for maintenance or otherwise by the project.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The technology costs are dependent on the size and number of resources targeted by the process. It will therefore define the costs accordingly.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• communal/ village
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• communal (organized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual rainfall		decrease	moderately

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	moderately

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• more than 50%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

The technology covered around 500 individual farmers

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 10-50%

Comments:

The technology application did not attract any material gains or incentives but, the process was community centered thus the adoption.

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Ja

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

The technology was more of the urban oriented tool but had to be modified to adopt to the local demands.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Ability to define spatial space and common and private resources including those resources associated with milk production such as milk coolers, water points, cattle dips, food stores, grazing areas, salt licks, crush, animal corridors, forest e.t.c Establish the carrying capacity of communal shared resources.
Establishment of the Land tenure system of shared communal resources and issues arising. Status (management) of private resources within the rangelands. Production and income generated against household size.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The nature of the problem required innovative use in the mapping of the land and natural resources. The technology addressed immediate need and provide a foundation for future updates and demands. The technology benefited from the existing data and improved delivery of output without exerting any impediments.
The technology bridged the gap through skills transfer and capacity building and in facilitating dialogue on issues affecting the community (Maps, reports). Ability to adapt the technology in a simplicity manner that the users can relate with and find value in their use contributed immense success Introduced even a more user friendly of the mobile and smartphone use. The quick win could be seen in the transformation of mobile phones into data collection tools and the data can be seen, verified and shared replacing the tedious and manual process which many were struggling with.
STDM database accommodate inclusion of social economic and spatial data that can be maintained, accessed and update by the communities anytime. Provided visual representation of available resources and their distribution and people can relate to spatial information on the map.
Ownership of technology by local people who are now leading on data collection, customizing the template, developing reports and innovating on its use.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
The design of the tool was a more urban oriented and took time to be adopted for rural use especially where land is communal and customs are key.	Created more awareness.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Difficult to setup the server environment where no internet is available. Engaging other service providers may be difficult and takes time (Internet service provider need to authorize setting up additional server). Appropriate devices for capturing data may necessity additional budget.	The internet component remains a challenge Technology is evolving and needs systematic information channels even with the community members. The process requires proper funding in order not to have a break in between.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

RECONCILE end of project report and other progress reports are available for sharing

Title/ description:

Food security in Bomet county

URL:

awsc.uonbi.ac.ke/sites/default/files/chss/arts/.../Bomet-final.doc