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)

Book project: Guidelines to Rangeland Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rangeland Management) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6117, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Resource Conflict Institute (RECONCILE) - Kenya', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

04/09/2017

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

The Social Tenure Domain Model (STDM) is about people and their relationships with the land. The tool as applied secures tenure through the recognition of tenure diversity and social contexts. STDM recognizes that secure tenure builds confidence among the resource users, and therefore promotes confidence to investment at different levels: small-scale, large-scale, urban and rural investors who all benefits from security of tenure.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The Rangelands Initiative Africa is a programme of the International Land Coalition (ILC) that is working to make rangelands more tenure-secure. The Resource Conflict Institute (RECONCILE) hosts and coordinates the Africa component, while the International Livestock Research Institutre (ILRI) takes global responsibility. It is recognized that the diverse resources and interests of rangelands concern all stakeholders and learning within these groups is important for strategic interventions and responses.
RECONCILE seeks to demonstrate the application of the Social Tenure Domain Model (STDM) in a rural setting, and in this context it has been able to secure social tenure rights for increased production among smallholder farmers. This land management and tenure security programme sought to address the dynamics around common resources in Bomet. Recognizing that there are multiple claims to common resources, the approach focuses on people as the central nexus in land administration. As such, it incorporates an extensive range of systems and processes to manage land through effective and accurate planning and management.
Land - as a factor in production – always attracts interest from various stakeholders. As such, secure access to land, whether through formal, informal, customary or other means, is necessary for rural households to create clarity and security about their rights and to enjoy sustainable livelihoods. In turn this is central to sustainable development. Securing access by rural poor people to land and water rights is key in the reduction of extreme poverty and hunger, since these are crucial assets for poor rural women, youth and men. Kenya has legal, policy and institutional frameworks and governance systems that presents options and opportunities.
The STDM process involves problem identification, stakeholder analysis, training, community enumeration, and data collection. Data includes socio-economic and spatial information. The process allows for a better understanding and testing of the extent that STDM technology responds to gaps and how best it can be applied to cater for the needs of all stakeholders within rural, agricultural, communal land settings. The application of the technology demands complete data sets that are consolidated through a census of both resources users and resources.

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

- Improve production
- Reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
- Conserve ecosystem
- Protect a watershed/ downstream areas

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	interactive	The communities internalized the process and as such were very engaging and even self-mobilized themselves for the tasks.
planning	interactive	Same as above
implementation	interactive	These were the key people in all the process of resource identification mapping and protection of both communal and private resources, both identified and mapped.
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	They still follow and report on the current status.

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

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• research findings

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• public meetings

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

The users are beneficiaries of a government programme in the areas where the approach was tested.

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

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training
• equipment

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

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

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

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?

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)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

The approach did not confer any material gains or incentives, but the process was community-centred, thus adopted.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The approach targeted identified problems that were felt by the actors/ implementer and communities in a joint mission. The approach demonstrated the capability to map livelihood resources of the rangeland users, including those associated with milk production such as milk coolers, water points, cattle dips, food stores, grazing areas, salt licks, crush, animal corridors, forest etc
Collectively, communities were able to understand the management status of communally shared resources and responsible persons. Establishment of the land tenure system of shared communal resources and issues arising. Status of private resources within the rangelands.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The approach uses a participatory approach, hence builds community ownership.
The mix of the approach bridges the gap through skills transfer and capacity building, and in facilitating dialogue on issues affecting the community (through maps, reports). The process though technical, can be simplified, and because users can relate to, and find value in, it contributed to its immense success.
The STDM database accommodates inclusion of social, economic and spatial data that can be maintained, accessed and updated by the communities anytime. It provided a visual representation of available resources and their distribution, and people can relate to spatial information on the map.
Ownership of the technology by local people is important: they are now leading on data collection, customizing the template, developing reports and innovating on its use.

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?
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 set-up the server environment where no internet is available. Engaging other service providers may be difficult and takes time (Internet service providers need to authorize setting-up an additional server). Appropriate devices for capturing data may necessitate an additional budget.	The internet component remains a challenge. Technology is evolving and needs systematic information channels. The process requires proper funding in order to continue without interruption.

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