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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 37, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Sustainable Rangeland Management Project (ILC / ILRI)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6111, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'ILRI International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) - Kenya', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

30/11/2016

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

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Joint village land use planning is a process facilitated by Tanzania's land policy and legislation. It supports the planning, protection and management of shared resources across village boundaries. It is an important tool towards land use planning and better rangeland management. This case study provides an example from a cluster of villages in Kiteto District, Tanzania.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The Sustainable Rangeland Management Project (SRMP) is an initiative led by Tanzania’s Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries (MoLF), the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and the National Land Use Planning Commission (NLUPC), with support from International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Irish Aid and the International Land Coalition (ILC). A key innovation of the project has been the development of joint village land use planning (JVLUP). The JVLUP process in Kiteto District, Manyara Region began in November 2013, and included the villages of Lerug, Ngapapa, and Orkitikiti. The three villages share boundaries and grazing resources, and in order to illustrate a single shared identity across the boundaries, the name OLENGAPA was chosen - incorporating part of each village’s name.
The total area of the three villages is (approx.) 59,000 hectares. The majority of inhabitants are Maasai pastoralists with some Ndorobo hunter-gatherers, and some farmers - most of whom are seasonal migrants. Mobility is central to the survival of the pastoralists and takes place across the three villages, as well as to locations in Kilindi, Gairo, and Bagamoyo Districts.
Average annual rainfall is between 800-1,000 mm per annum. There are no perennial rivers flowing through the OLENGAPA villages. The only permanent surface water source is Orkitikiti Dam, constructed in 1954.
In order to understand the different resources such as grazing areas, water points, cropping areas, livestock routes, and cultural places, SRMP supported participatory mapping. This assisted in developing a base map for the village land use planning process: it showed which resources were shared by the villages and where they were situated.
SRMP then helped village members to agree the individual village land use maps and plans - which zoned the village land into priority land uses - as well as the joint village land use map and plan, and the joint village land use agreement (JVLUA). These specified the grazing areas, water points, livestock routes and other shared resources. Reaching agreement was a protracted negotiation process between the villages, and within villages also - between different interest groups. It involved numerous community meetings and considerable investment of resources. Finally, each Village Assembly approved the JVLUA, which allocated approx. 20,700 ha of land for shared grazing –around 40% of the total village area. By-laws for management of the resources were developed and adopted.
Following approval of the JVLUA, the three OLENGAPA Village Councils established a Joint Grazing Land Committee made up of members from all three villages. This Committee is responsible for planning, management, enforcement of by-laws applicable to the OLENGAPA, and coordination of the implementation of both the OLENGAPA land use agreements and joint land use plan. In addition, a Livestock Keepers Association was established, including 53 founding members – but with most households from the three villages being associate members. A constitution was developed for the Association, which was officially registered on 11 September 2015.
In January 2016 the Ministry of Lands approved and registered the village land boundary maps and deed plans for the three villages. The District Council has issued the village land certificates, and the next step is for Village Councils to begin issuing Certificates of Customary Rights of Occupancy (CCROs). The shared grazing area will require three group CCROs to be issued to the Livestock Keepers Association – one from each village - for the part of the grazing area that falls under its jurisdiction. Signboards and beacons marking the shared grazing area are being put in place.
In November 2017 a fourth village joined OLENGAPA, expanding the shared grazing area to 30,000 ha. The villages are now working to develop a management plan to improve rangeland productivity.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

To secure shared grazing areas and other rangeland resources for livestock keepers, and to improve their management.

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	external support	The project supported communities to initiate the first steps taken to reach agreement on the need for planning and how this would be done.
planning	interactive	Communities were centrally involved in the planning of the VLUP process, with support from local NGO and government.
implementation	interactive	Village government and community in general is responsible for the implementation of the planning process, with the support of local government.
monitoring/ evaluation	external support	The community is responsible for monitoring and evaluation, but lack skills and capacity in this regard requiring external support.
Research	external support	Research on information required for planning processes collected and generated by communities with the assistance of technical support from local NGO, local government and researchers.

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:

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

Explain:

The policy and legislation lays down the steps to be followed for the VLUP/JVLUP process. However there is room to adapt these processes to local context - and here all stakeholders were involved to develop the process of JVLUP through its first piloting. This included communities, local and national government, local NGOs, researchers and development organisations.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• government staff

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• public meetings
• courses

Subjects covered:

Land users were trained in land related and other relevant laws and the JVLUP process. Field staff/advisers were trained in land laws, the JVLUP process, gender, and conflict resolution. Local government were trained in the JVLUP process, gender and conflict resolution.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

No

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local
• national

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Local government bodies including Village Council, VLUMC (village land use management committee) and Livestock Keepers Association have all had capacity strengthened, but more is required (particularly for the latter). Capacity of the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries and the National Land Use Planning Commission to implement JVLUP has been built.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

• data collected and database set up

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

M&E has not been strong in previous phases, but now is central with baselines being carried out in all new clusters of villages where the project will work so that impact can be fully assessed.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was carried out to identify good practice (in terms of social, economic and environmental impacts) from which the JVLUP process was developed. In future phases the full impacts of this JVLUP in terms of social, economic and ecological impact are being researched.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

IFAD, Irish Aid,

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)

• none

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Labour was voluntary with meal provided and/or travel costs covered.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify:

Tanzanian policy and legislation states that all village should have a VLUP, therefore this was an incentive for stakeholders to invest in the process. In addition conflicts over land use are increasingly a problem in Tanzania - so the resolution of these was also an important incentive.

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:

The community requires support from local government to protect their village lands including grazing lands from outsiders wanting to settle on the land - this is a constant problem to be addressed (despite the securing of village boundaries etc.). The community also needs capacity building and resources to improve the productivity of the land including the grazing areas. If they get these supports then they can sustain what has been implemented.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Improved the security of access and use to village land including grazing.
Brought attention to the challenges faced by land users in the area in protecting and using their village land, and the need for more investment and support for this.
Pastoralists are now more central to decision-making processes than they were before.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Collaboration of different stakeholders in implementing the approach has supported a new way of working.
Capacity of different stakeholders has been built along the way through joint problem-solving and learning-by-doing.
The approach - with adaptation - has application in other contexts/countries and shows that even if a rangeland is split by administrative boundaries there is opportunity to work across those village boundaries in order to maintain the functionality of the rangeland and land use systems such as pastoralism that depend upon this.

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?
Despite village land being theoretically protected, in practice it can still be encroached upon.	Greater support provided from government to enforce protection of land.
Time-consuming process which became more expensive than anticipated resulting in some gaps in funding.	Process needs to be refined through practice, and adequate funds allocated from beginning.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The selection of villages for JVLUP needs more care to ensure that enabling conditions for JVLUP exist.	In future selection of villages for JVLUP a set of criteria should be used that enable more enabling conditions to exist.
Information has not been methodologically collected on social, environmental and economic impacts of the approach.	In future the impacts of the approach need to be fully monitored and evaluated.
The VLUP is an expensive process to follow.	National government needs to identify ways to reduce the cost of the VLUP so that more villages can undertake it. Government needs to allocate more funds to VLUP. The VLUP is an expensive process to follow.
Need for an enabling environment.	The policy and legislation in Tanzania enables this process - it is not the case in the majority of other African countries.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Kalenzi, D. 2016. Improving the implementation of land policy and legislation in pastoral areas of Tanzania: Experiences of joint village land use agreements and planning. Rangelands 7. Rome, Italy: International Land Coalition.

URL:

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/79796

Title/ description:

Daley, E., Kisambu, N. and Flintan, F. 2017. Rangelands: Securing pastoral women’s land rights in Tanzania. Rangelands Research Report 1. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

URL:

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/89483

Title/ description:

International Livestock Research Institute. 2017. Sustainable Rangeland Management Project, Tanzania. ILRI Project Brochure. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

URL:

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/80673

Title/ description:

International Land Coalition. 2014. Participatory rangeland resource mapping in Tanzania: A field manual to support planning and management in rangelands including in village land use planning. Rome: International Land Coalition

URL:

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/51348

Title/ description:

Flintan, F., Mashingo, M., Said, M. and Kifugo, S.C. 2014. Developing a national map of livestock routes in Tanzania in order to value service and protect them. Poster prepared for the ILRI@40 Workshop, Addis Ababa, 7 November 2014. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

URL:

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/64964

Title/ description:

Village land use planning in rangelands in Tanzania, F. Flintan 2012

URL:

http://www.landcoalition.org/en/regions/africa/resources/no-3-village-land-use-planning-rangelands-tanzania

Title/ description:

Protecting shared grazing through joint village land use planning

URL:

http://www.landcoalition.org/en/regions/africa/resources/protecting-shared-grazing-through-joint-village-land-use-planning