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

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Italy

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Missenyi District Council (Missenyi District Council) - Tanzania, United Republic of

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

28/08/2012

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

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Livestock keepers groups and local government collaboration for management of livestock watering points.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The main aim of this approach is to improve management of water resources through strengthening collaboration between land owners and livestock keepers for efficient livestock production/management and increased incomes. This approach ensures livestock watering point accessibility during dry seasons. Objective is to reach a compromise between livestock keepers and land owners on terms of conditions for access and use of watering points. As results livestock keepers and land owner can improve their planning activities and minimize conflict between them.

Methods: A self-help livestock keepers group is normally formed. It establishes regular and efficient cooperation among the livestock keepers and negotiations with land owners on water access issues. They make financial contributions to support the established self-help group. Through these contributions construction and maintenance of the ponds and troughs (the livestock watering system) is assured. Construction and maintenance is also done through voluntary work.
This traditional system was developed by elders and spread through learning by doing from the old to the young generation. In passing over knowledge from the elderly to the youths, experience in livestock and water resources management systems is gained.
The approach is also characterized by reverence to the existing village by-laws reinforced by the village government as well as existing customary laws to prevent degradation and pollution of water sources. Extension officers provide technical backstopping on recommended animal health practices that include deworming, routine spraying and vaccination against diseases.


Stages of implementation: Implementation takes place in three stages
1) Livestock keeper group formation: The group size is determined by the number of livestock. A single trough can accommodate not more than 150 cattle which determine the number of livestock keepers to form a group. The group has its informal organizational system with a nominated leader.
2) Contributions and voluntary works: Each livestock keeper makes a payment of about 20 dollars to the land owner as annual user fee. Maintenance is the responsibility of all livestock keepers.
3) Management: Include use of by-laws and provision of advisory services


Role of stakeholders: Land owner: He has the key role of ensuring that the area is used in a sustainable manner. Group members pay land rent to him for area utilization and management.
Livestock keepers: These are key users of the area, voluntarily participate in construction and maintenance of water troughs, pay land rent, manage and control watering of their animals.
Village and Ward administration and elders: Ensuring that village by-laws and customary laws guiding use of fragile ecosystems are adhered to.
Ward and village extension officers: Provide technical advisory to livestock keepers.
District administration and extension staff: Facilitating and enabling community understanding of policy, acts and laws guiding use of fragile ecosystems so that they can make informed management decision.


Other important information: This approach plays significant role in preventing conflict between domestic water users and livestock keepers especially during the dry season.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.7 Type of Approach

• traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Construction, managment and utilization)

Minimizing of land dagradation and better water availability to contribute to livelihood improvement.


The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: 1. There was no livestock keepers organization to comprise over use of water resource during the dry season.
2. Water use conflict between livestock keepers and domestic water users
3. Weak administration of bylaws.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	self-mobilization	Livestock keepers /elders: Inheritance and transference of the approach to youth.
planning	self-mobilization	Livestock keepers /elders: Informal planning and improvement through cycles of action and reflection.
implementation	self-mobilization	Livestock keepers individuals and groups, village leaders and agricultural advisers: use of the approach, law enforcement and technical advisory services and interpretation of act, law and guidelines protecting fragile ecosystems.
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	Livestock keepers individuals and groups, village leaders and agricultural advisers and SLM specialists: manage effective use of the technology, ensure adherence of Acts, Rules and Regulation and SLM documentation for dissemination and sharing.
Research	interactive	Livestock keepers individuals and groups and agricultural advisers and SLM specialists: identification and documentation of researchable issues.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

A decision to use the technology relies on livestock keepers self-mobilization, own choice induced through inheritance and learning by doing.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). Decision to use the method is partly through spontaneous adoption from elders and improvement through cycles of action and reflection.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• village and ward leaders

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

both men and women and all ages (youth and elders).

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• public meetings

Form of training:

• seminar and workshops.

Subjects covered:

Act and Laws guiding the use of fragile ecosystems, prevention of water borne diseases, recommended livestock keeping methods and water management.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Farmer field school ; Key elements: learning by doing on the job and in the field (Number of knowledge sharing activities: on the job training, field practice), adult learning – livestock self-help groups , livestock management. , indegenous and technical knowledge balanced and combined in a complementary manner.; Technical advisory services largely involved building on and improving the successful experience resulted from the use of indigenous knowledge.

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The increase number of extension workers from 1 to 2 and introduction of TAMP project (trans boundary agro-ecosystem management project) in the village will speed up implementation of conservation activities in the village.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government, land users through observations; indicators: extent of area eroded

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government, land users through measurements; indicators: Ponds/troughs and maintenance requirements

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: number of livestock keeper trained

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: number of conflicts between land owners and livestock keepers

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: number of water conflict emerged and number resolved

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by government, land users through measurements; indicators: livestock production and productivity

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: increase in milk and meat productivity

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through measurements; indicators: livestock keepers using the technology

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through observations; indicators: number of livestock keepers using the technology

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through measurements; indicators: adherence to water protective bylaws

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: % number of village bylaws used and adhered to

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Implementation of group roles and adherence to by-laws e.g. protection of natural vegetation.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: decrease in destruction of natural vegetation and reduction of eutrophication at the water source.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

• adaptive SLM trials

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Adaptive trials through SLM demos by TAMP, ARI MARUKU and community. Farmers select the best bets technologies to apply on their own fields.

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• < 2,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (animal related extesion services, policy and law enforcement.): 20.0%; local community / land user(s) (voluntary contribution by livestock keeper groups and land owner ): 80.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

Comments:

labour is needed in taking the animals for watering as well as during actual watering of the animals.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

in the future a support is needed in terms of group management and organizational development, marketing and business planning skills and livestock keepers also need further exposure to SLM concept.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Is a mechanism for assurance of water availability for animal watering in the dry season. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continue with good collaboration with the land owner and livestock keeper solidarity.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The training of extension officers, elders etc covered many aspects of sustainable livestock production and natural water resources protection (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Activities presented during the training should be put into practice and spread among other livestock keepers )
Involvement of the district administration, wards, elders in the approaches implementation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: insist on active involvement )
Strong commitment of livestock keepers to improve livestock production and their livelihood (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Awareness raising )
Reduced conflict between water for domestic use and for watering animals (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: strengthen use of the approach and bylaws guiding it )
Reduced cost and largely relies on self mobilization and voluntarism of the livestock keepers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Group management and organizational development to strengthen cohesiveness.)
Is dynamic, flexible and accommodate outside advisory and technical support and therefore opens opportunities for future improvement. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Needs assessment and provision of appropriate advisory and technical support. )

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
low know how	broadern know how

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The approach is largely informal in terms of livestock keepers organization. There is no written constitution and the groups are not registration.	improvement in terms of formulation of group constitution, opening of bank account and group registration.
Narrow focus largely relies solely on indigenous knowledge base .	broaden horizon of understanding by combining with technical knowledge base.
Lack of promotion materials to involve other livestock keepers	increase number of promotion materials
Rural poverty not reduced significantly	more activities that can lead to reduction of rural poverty required

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Kagera TAMP project (pdfFinal Report 2013)

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/oed/docs/GCPRAF424GFF_2013_ER.pdf