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)

Strengthening Adaptation and Resilience to Climate Change in Kenya Plus (StARCK+)

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

Resource Advocacy Programme (RAP) - Kenya

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

16/01/2018

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

Participatory mapping and monitoring of vegetation types and other natural resources in the rangelands. This involves convening stakeholder groups, reviewing conditions of rangeland, water and other resources under changing climatic conditions.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Participatory digital mapping using satellite imagery and digital earth and other open source Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a practical tool that can bridge knowledge and communication gaps between pastoral communities and county government planners. It offers an effective ‘tool’ for participatory planning and decision-making in support of climate change adaptation efforts in the drylands of Kenya.The use of participatory mapping is not new in seeking to capture communities’ understanding and use of natural resources. These maps are typically drawn on the ground using stones, sticks and other locally available materials to depict key features such as schools, water points, and forest areas, etc. However the process used in Isiolo County combines digital mapping with community-drawn perception maps. This offers a number of extra benefits. While fully capturing the wealth of local knowledge, they contain an in-built coordinate system which corresponds to a global reference grid, enabling their linkage to maps used in formal systems. Furthermore, the coordinate system provides a geographically precise basis from which to discuss natural resource management, making outputs of participatory mapping more universally useable. These benefits, however, need to be carefully balanced to avoid the risk that through this process, pastoral resources – which are highly dynamic - are ‘frozen’ in time and space. Mapping processThe participatory mapping process has adopted GIS workflows within community workshops, enabling the creation of integrated, consistent and standardized geospatial information. The process follows seven steps:Step 1: Community level meetings to develop perception maps drawn on the ground and/or on paper. The product is a community perception map of those resources that are important for their livelihood systems. This map should be created in a community setting to enable the participation of a large group. Several maps may be produced by smaller sub-groups (women, the youth, elders etc) and then amalgamated. The final map is then copied onto paper. Step 2. Digital mapping is introduced. This step takes place in a workshop setting with a smaller group of key informants chosen by the community - as well as county government planners and technical staff. The presence of the latter is critical to the process of ‘legitimizing’ community knowledge. Following a quick explanation of satellite imagery, Google Earth is projected onto a wall alongside the perception maps developed under step 1. The use of Google Earth is only for orientation, and to enable participants to navigate the imagery and to cross-reference their paper-mapped key resources against the satellite imagery. Features that participants feel are important (e.g. water points, wet and dry season grazing areas, drought reserves, wildlife routes) are then captured digitally using open source applications: Quantum GIS (QGIS) and JOSM, the Open Street Map editing platform.This produces the coordinates that pinpoint the locations of natural resources in a manner that can be independently and objectively verified. The highly interactive process of geo-referencing local knowledge to a coordinate reference system allows resource maps to be produced to any scale, and in real-time, with the community. Step 3. Qualitative and quantitative attributes describing the key resources are collected. As participants add features to the map, they also describe their specified characteristics or attributes. Attribution data includes a fuller description of the physical characteristics of the resource (e.g. soil type, waterquantity and quality, pasture species) as well as issues concerning their management (e.g. under customary or modern management, land tenure status, negotiated or paid access, area of conflict). Updating this data on a regular basis adds temporal and trend data to the spatial database. This underlines the need to structure data systems well to manage time-based data and to record updates.Steps 4-6: Data verification cycles are integrated into the mapping process in order to capture community feedback and verify the records in the geospatial data and their attribute values against the specification. The mapping includes a series of validation, cross-checking and verification cycles, run with the community - and in a few instances on-the-ground verification termed ‘groundtruthing’. Step 7: Field validation. Field validation is carried out where the verification stages highlight gaps in information. Verification consists of targeted field visits to take GPS markers, or holding meetings with the local community to clarify particular issues.

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 allow participation for community groups to inform planners.- To provide the necessary precision for planners to use local knowledge effectively.- To make a ‘bridge’ for information to flow between customary and formal institutions.- To better share ideas through communication tools using powerful visual language.- To demonstrate the depth of local knowledge about natural resources and with that, demonstrate the importance of these resources.- To identify gaps and risks in the system being mapped.- To compare one plan with another to see how complimentary/contradictory they are.

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	passive	Resource Advocacy Programme (RAP) undertook discussions with the local community and also with the county and national government in shaping the idea for the approach.
planning	interactive	All stakeholders (community, RAP, ADA, IIED, Geodata and Governments) were engaged in the planning for the implementation of the Approach.
implementation	interactive	Community members and all stakeholders were involved in the implementation of the participatory mapping.
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	The county government and the actors (RAP, ADA and IIED) monitor the participatory mapping database and improves it.

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 process requires inputs from all the relevant stakeholders. The community provide local knowledge of the features, GIS specialists provide technical expertise and the other local stakeholders provide their knowledge and experience of working in the communities for many years.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

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

5 persons trained- One from County Government (Planning Unit), Two from National government (National Drought Management Authority and Kenya Meteorological Department (KMD)) and Two representative of Local NGOs (RAP and MID-P)

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• courses

Subjects covered:

Participatory GIS mapping techniquesInput of data using different platformsUse of GPS devicesValidation of dataData management

Comments:

The training was well done with seminars and practical sessions

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:

practical sessions were provided in the field and with communities

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

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

• local

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Local institutions were able to use the maps to advocate for improved planning.

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Courses/trainings were provided

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

inputs were monitored

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

Yes

Comments:

It was also used to mapped investments that were done to improve community livelihoods

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research on vegetation patterns in Isiolo’s rangelands were conducted by the University of Nairobi's Department of Land and Resource Management.

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):

The approach was supported by RAP and IIED under the Adaptation Consortium with funding from UK's Department for International Development (DfID). The budget is used to convene sub-county level meetings and trainings sessions. Many of the participants costs and preparation costs are not covered.

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)

• labour

• equipment

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Communities provided the local knowledge to support the approach.

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:

The approach was implemented with support from donors and county government. Although in theory, it could be possible for resource users to auto-finance the Approach, this has not ever happened previously, and many of the resource users are not wealthy. Support is available for devolved development planning and mapping, but as yet this has not been assigned to participatory resource mapping.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It is a promising new approach that builds on the legitimacy of local/indigenous knowledge, and enables the county government to fulfil its mandate of undertaking participatory planning with communities.
GIS technology helps in the acceptance of the approach by many land users.
The mobililty of the technology can provide an opportunity for all community members to add features as they come up

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It is a user friendly approach accepted and recognized by Isiolo pastoralists for mapping their rangeland resources.
It provides an opportunity to map all investments of development partners in the county and avoid duplication of projects.
It is a powerful tool for communication and advocacy for community land rights.

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?
It requires time and commitment from community members and county officers.	Systematic use of media (e.g. radio, websites, etc) to publicize the approach and its importance to the community.
It is difficult for illiterate community members to fully engage with the approach and make meaningful contributions.	Provide local translations and interpretation as well as producing good visual maps.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
There is a need for continuous updating	Engage local universities and students.
Observation of key features and resources are sometimes obscured by clouds and thus mapping precision is affected.	Ground truthing visits and observations need to be undertaken to improve precision.
Lack of legislation to support and enforce the use of the approach.	Formulate legislation to support enforcement.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Participatory Mapping using Digital Earth Tools, Imagery and Open Source GIS in the drylands of Kenya and Tanzania by Chris Hill, Tom Rowley, Homme Zwaagstra, Andrew Harfoot and Mike Clark

Available from where? Costs?

Ada Consortium Website

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Resource Atlas of Isiolo County, Kenya

URL:

pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G03984.pdf