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: where people and their land are safer - A Compendium of Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (where people and their land are safer) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 869, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'HEKS (Hilfswerk der Evangelischen Kirchen Schweiz) (HEKS (Hilfswerk der Evangelischen Kirchen Schweiz)) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

26/10/2016

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

The consensus-based management of the area of Guidan Issa consists of rehabilitating this resource for agro-pastoral livelihoods in a participatory and inclusive way, by considering the various actors involved in the exploitation and management of this rangeland area.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The population of the department of Mayahi is predominantly agro-pastoral. The two activities of farming and pastoralism take place in the same areas, where the condition of natural resources shows a declining trend. An increase in the size of the population and the number of livestock is observed, which imposes increasing demands on land. The cultivated area continues to increase, and the transhumance of animals becomes an increasingly important activity. The small areas of rangeland which receive these herds are increasingly overloaded, and show obvious signs of degradation. In addition, these rangelands are progressively reduced at the benefit of agricultural land.

In view of this situation, and given the need for action, the communities and the project Zamtapo, with the methodological and financial support from HEKS, initiated and implemented a strategy for consensus-based management of degraded rangelands, among which the rangeland of Guidan Issa, which is the principal rangeland for the village of Guidan Issa (department of Mayahi, rural municipality of Tchaké). The management of this rangeland is based on a participatory and inclusive approach, aiming at a social agreement between all stakeholders.

The activities of the project Zamptapo target only the pastoral land which is recognized and accepted by all the actors to exist since many generations, even before the origin of some villages. The selection of areas to be managed is made by the administrative and customary authorities, and by the delegates of the farmers and ranchers. Cross-community meetings, gathering all probable land users, are organised in the villages surrounding the area of Guidan Issa to ensure the exact demarcation of the area. These meetings also allow to remind the neighbouring populations of the issues regarding this grazing land, and of the advantages of its management.

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

- Reduce conflicts
- Share experience

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	Local land users, the departmental land commission and the project team. Meetings to inform and to raise awareness on the importance of rehabilitating the area.
planning	interactive	Local land users, the municipal council, the departmental land commission and the project team. Planning of activities and prior identification of the area to rehabilitate.
implementation	external support	Local land users, the departmental land commission and the project team. Land rehabilitation work.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Local land users, the departmental land commission and the project team. Monitoring of the work during the implementation.

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 decision making for the selection of the technology has been done in a participatory way with all the actors concerned. Missions for identification have been performed, discussion groups have been organised. The whole process was focused on obtaining social agreements.

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

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

60% women and 40% men

Form of training:

• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

Techniques for the management of degraded land
Non-violent conflict management

Comments:

The land users are in control of the rules for the use and exploitation of the common resources.

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:

The land commissions and the environmental services support the land users in implementing techniques for sustainable land management in the area where the work is carried out.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

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

• local
• regional
• national

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

The COFO derives from the Rural Code. This institution is charged with the control and management of natural resources at the local level. The COFO constitutes a framework for agreement, reflection and decision making on the prevention of conflicts related to natural resources. The COFO has the following roles:
- Making the population aware of the measures that can be taken to manage the natural resources;
- Identification and demarcation of the community grounds;
- Ensuring compliance with the demarcated community grounds;
- Issuing of land titles.
The members of the land commissions are representatives of all the social and professional groups (farmers, ranchers, technical services, etc.)

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

The land commissions received several trainings, support and equipment to improve their functioning.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

The community, the municipal council and the Zamtapo project carry out the monitoring and evaluation.

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

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

Financed by the NGO HEKS EPER

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Compensation payments for labor (cash for work)

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• labour

• equipment

• agricultural

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

• paid in cash

Comments:

Labor was used for the land management work (construction of semi-circular bunds and seeding). The labor was paid in cash after the work.

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 land users are able to continue their activities. For example, the seed collected on the treated area was used for seeding other degraded areas on the initiative of the same community.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
- Conflict mitigation
- Enforcement of rules and regulations
- Improvement of knowledge and skills in sustainable land management

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The approach is easy to implement.
The approach is sustainable and based on consensus.

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?
- Hesitance of the land users to participate in the beginning of the implementation of the approach.	- Awareness raising in cross-community discussion groups with all concerned actors.
- The approach is difficult to implement without support from funding agents.	- Fund raising with the support from the local, regional and national governments.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
- Ignorance of texts and laws regulating pastoralism.	- Translation of texts in the local languages and extension.
- Hesitance of land users to participate in the beginning of the implementation of the approach.	- Informing stakeholders and awareness raising.
- The approach is difficult to implement without support from funding agents.	- Fund raising.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information