Approches

Active participation of herder leader (WAKONDO) in management of grassland and riverine ecosystems [Tanzanie]

  • Création :
  • Mise à jour :
  • Compilateur :
  • Rédacteur :
  • Examinateur :

Matumizi ya wamiliki wa mifugo (WAKONDO) katika hifadhi na matumizi bora ya nyanda za malisho na bionwai za mto.

approaches_2488 - Tanzanie

État complet : 86%

1. Informations générales

1.2 Coordonnées des personnes-ressources et des institutions impliquées dans l'évaluation et la documentation de l'Approche

Personne(s) ressource(s) clé(s)

Spécialiste GDT:
Spécialiste GDT:
Spécialiste GDT:

Egidius Pancras

Missenyi District Council

Tanzanie

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)
Bukoba district council (Bukoba district council) - Tanzanie
Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)
Missenyi District Council (Missenyi District Council) - Tanzanie

1.3 Conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées

Quand les données ont-elles été compilées (sur le terrain)?

03/06/2014

Le compilateur et la(les) personne(s) ressource(s) acceptent les conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées:

Oui

1.4 Références au(x) questionnaire(s) sur les Technologies de GDT

2. Description de l'Approche de GDT

2.1 Courte description de l'Approche

Prevention and mitigation of the grazing land and riverine ecosystems through mandatory grassroots meetings, law enforcement and active participation and empowerment of herder leaders’ (masters of the most resource destructive group)

2.2 Description détaillée de l'Approche

Description détaillée de l'Approche:

Aims / objectives: Aim/objectives: Empowering the village community, to take charge prevention and rehabilitation of the degraded and endangered grazing land and riverine ecosystem. Enhance SLM sustainability through agenda mainstreaming operationalization and formalization into existing information sharing and decision making forums. SLM be implemented through complementary and concerted efforts of the central government, local governments, grass roots institutions and the community at large. Community exposure to legal and policy framework guiding SLM and actively engaged in making informed decision.

Methods: Methods: The most resource destructive group is actively engaged and empowered to take the leading role in prevention and mitigation of the endangered and degrading riverine and grazing land ecosystems. SLM matters are formalized /operationalized and becomes permanent agenda in mandatory grassroots information sharing and decision making forums (sub village meetings, village assembly, ward development committee). The use of multi-sectorial concerted efforts that involves direct support by the central government in matters relating to SLM peace and tranquility (e.g. communities provided with mobile phone numbers for timely reporting of any destructive fire incidence and other environmental and peace threatening malpractices). Knowledge management and training (farmer capacity building) scaled up through adult learning methods (e.g. SLM demos). Active involvement of the most resource destructive group (herdsmen and their masters) in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, decision making and bylaw formation and reinforcement. Herders who usually suffer rights to information (due to their tight daily activity clock) are informed, lead and guided by their masters.

Stages of implementation: Implementation starts with land degradation analysis and identification of the red spots (land degradation problems) to be addressed. Development of community SLM site specific action plan indicating the degradation type, proposed prevention and mitigation intervention methods, conservation methodology/approach to use, inputs needed, people /stakeholder involvement and time frame, stakeholder awareness raising plan, training, education and capacity building. Roles distribution, joint implementation, monitoring and evaluation of community action plan.

Role of stakeholders: Community: take charge of SLM activities (e.g. land demarcation, planting of tree, reseeding of pasture, e.t.c.), potential informer of malpractices and play a role of grass roots community guard, detectors of SLM crimes are also responsible for up keeping of public order.
Sub and village governments: formation of village environmental committees, taking leading role in inclusion of SLM agendas in mandatory sub village and village meetings, community mobilization and law enforcement.
WAKONDO: forms the core stakeholders in this approach (as experience shows that herders are the major source of uncontrolled fire burning and intruders of riverine ecosystems), participate in decision making and bylaw formation, guide and frequently remind and lead herders how and where to graze, interpreted bylaws to herders so that they make wise and informed decision and liaise herders with sub village and village government.
Environmental committee: law enforcers, environmental patrollers, direct involvement in SLM activities, awareness creation through various means e.g. use of posters.
District council: Awareness creetion, training, education and capacity building and interpreting to the community laws and policy guiding SLM.
Central government: SLM peace and tranquility and law enforcement.



Other important information: The basic principle underlying this approach is facing SLM through multi-sectorial collaboration and active participation of the most resource destructive group of the community. The average annual costs needed in running the approach is > 2000 USD.

2.3 Photos de l'approche

2.5 Pays/ région/ lieux où l'Approche a été appliquée

Pays:

Tanzanie

Région/ Etat/ Province:

Tanzania/Kagera

Autres spécifications du lieu :

Missenyi/Kitobo/Kyazi

2.6 Dates de début et de fin de l'Approche

Indiquez l'année de démarrage:

2012

Date (année) de fin de l'Approche (si l'Approche n'est plus appliquée):

2014

2.7 Type d'Approche

  • Local initiatives mixed in a comprementary maner with project project initiatives.

2.8 Principaux objectifs de l'Approche

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities

Empowering and involvement of the community by building confidence, ownership and capacity to take charge prevention and mitigation of the degraded and endangered grazing land and riverine ecosystem. Establishment of active and reliable environmental committee. Make SLM to be permanent agenda and formalized into existing information sharing and decision making forums.
SLM be implemented through complementary and concerted efforts of the central government, local governments, grass roots institutions and the community at large.


The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Overgrazing and uncontrolled fire burning by herders, who undertake animal caring for WAKONDO (livestock owners), their activity clock is usually occupied and is under the control of their masters, they are voice less, no access to information about SLM, weak and have no power in decision making.
WAKONDO not adequately and effectively engaged in planning and implementing SML activities.
Dormant and inactive environmental committee coupled with lack of SLM technical knowledge.
No clearly defined grassroots forums for developing and dealing permanently with SLM agendas.
Weak, conflicting and disjointed efforts invested to environmental conservation.

2.9 Conditions favorisant ou entravant la mise en œuvre de la(des) Technologie(s) appliquée(s) sous l'Approche

normes et valeurs sociales/ culturelles/ religieuses
  • entrave

Poor grazing techniques characterized by overgrazing and uncontrolled fire burning.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Active training and engagement of WAKONDO (cattle owners) in planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and SLM decision making.

disponibilité/ accès aux ressources et services financiers
  • entrave

Low quick financial realization by members of the village community who invest their valuable time in SLM (e.g. members of environmental committee)

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Introduce environmental based quick win project (QWP) and income generating activities (IGA).

cadre institutionnel
  • entrave

Weak and ineffective commitment of the local governments at the grassroots level (sub village, village and ward).

Treatment through the SLM Approach: SLM be formalized as one of the permanent agenda in grassroots planning and decision making forums (mandatory village and sub village meetings).

cadre juridique (régime foncier, droits d'utilisation des terres et de l'eau)
  • favorise

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately helped the approach implementation: The current bylaws contribute significantly in adherence to environmental conservation and approach objectives.

  • entrave

Unlimited and uncoordinated use of grazing and riverine resources. Inadequate law enforcement. Low engagement of the central government (law enforcers and observers of peace and tranquility).

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Demarcation and encrosure of engendered grazing land and riverine ecosystems coupled with use of sign/warning posters. Active engagement of the central government (law enforcers and observers of peace and tranquility) e.g. community awareness and access to DCs phone for reporting crimes and any environmental threatening malpractices.

connaissances sur la GDT, accès aux supports techniques
  • entrave

Unintended results in management of the grazing land ecosystem (e.g. emergency of invasive species)

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Research and find alternative use of the invasive species and mobilize for controlled and organized consumption.

charge de travail, disponibilité de la main-d'œuvre
  • entrave

High work load to members of village environmental committee.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Development of regular time table and are the priority and potential beneficiaries of IGA.

3. Participation et rôles des parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche

3.1 Parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche et rôles

  • exploitants locaux des terres / communautés locales

Community at large, Environmental groups/commitees, WAKONDO and herders. Individual local communities (youth, elders, male and females)

Farmer groups, environmental committees (males and females). Almost gender balanced environmental committee, active participation of the youth and indiscriminate participation of disabled (as a matter of fact the chairperson of environmental committee is an handicapped)

  • Spécialistes de la GDT/ conseillers agricoles

Site facilitators (all males), District SLM multidicipline team (femals and males) . District Planning Team

  • gouvernement local

District, Village and Sub village governmen, village leaders and ward community representatives (Councilors).

  • gouvernement national (planificateurs, décideurs)

Central Government

  • organisation internationale

Transboundary Agroecosystem Project (TAMP)

3.2 Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales aux différentes phases de l'Approche
Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales Spécifiez qui était impliqué et décrivez les activités
initiation/ motivation interactive Village council members and field experts - sensitization and awareness creation meetings.
planification interactive Village government, community and site facilitators - SLM planning meetings.
mise en œuvre interactive Village government, community, groups and committees and site facilitators - Actual implementation of community site specific action plan.
suivi/ évaluation interactive Village government, community, groups and committees and site facilitators - Actual monitoring and evaluation of community site specific action plan.
Research interactive Village government, community, groups and committees and site facilitators - client focused research to deal with undesirable and unintended results (e.g. on how to handle invasive species).

3.4 Prises de décision pour la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies

Indiquez qui a décidé de la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies à mettre en œuvre:
  • principalement les exploitants des terres soutenus par des spécialistes de la GDT
Expliquez:

Decision over the technology was a resultant of site characterization technically backstopped by SLM specialists and actively participated by the empowered and informed community.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. The method was the resultant of a process phases and steps dialogue, discussion and consensus attained between land user and SLM specialists.

4. Soutien technique, renforcement des capacités et gestion des connaissances

4.1 Renforcement des capacités/ formation

Une formation a-t-elle été dispensée aux exploitants des terres/ autres parties prenantes?

Oui

Spécifiez qui a été formé:
  • exploitants des terres
  • personnels/ conseillers de terrain
  • leaders and politicians
Si pertinent, spécifiez le genre, l'âge, le statut, l'ethnie, etc.

all gender (male and female), all age (youth and elders), all status (the rich WAKONDO and the poor herders) and all ethnic group

Formats de la formation:
  • sur le tas
  • zones de démonstration
  • réunions publiques
Formats de la formation:
  • special and adhoc serminars
Thèmes abordés:

Fire control, grazing management, forest management, pasture establishment and use of bylaws.

4.2 Service de conseils

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils accès à un service de conseils?

Oui

Spécifiez si le service de conseils est fourni:
  • dans les champs des exploitants?
Décrivez/ commentez:

Name of method used for advisory service: Group method ; Key elements: Site vist and stakeholders visit, Group discussion, interaction and concensus building, local knowledge and technical knowledge balanced in a comprementary manner; Land users were visited by the experts and discussions held either on the site or elsewhere.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; There is shortage of staff and the few staff have high workload/are given multiple tasks.

4.3 Renforcement des institutions (développement organisationnel)

Des institutions ont elles été mises en place ou renforcées par le biais de l'Approche?
  • oui, un peu
Spécifiez à quel(s) niveau(x), ces institutions ont été renforcées ou mises en place:
  • local
Précisez le type de soutien:
  • renforcement des capacités/ formation
Donnez plus de détails:

Members of environmental committee were provided with various SLM trainings.

4.4 Suivi et évaluation

Le suivi et l'évaluation font ils partie de l'Approche? :

Oui

Commentaires:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: number of pasture growing species

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: percentage increase in vergetation cover

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: incedences of fire burning

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: number of grass bundles harvested

area treated aspects were regular monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: % hacterage protected and harvested

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: number of adopters/participants

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Number of FFS, Demos and IGA, patrols meetings

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: arrangement for the community to find alternative uses of unintended products in pasture establishment (alternative use of invasive species) .

There were several changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring and evaluation revealed the need to integrate SLM quick win project/IGA as stimulus factor to members of environmental committee who spend their valuable time in performing SLM activities.

5. Financement et soutien matériel externe

5.1 Budget annuel de la composante GDT de l'Approche

Si le budget annuel précis n'est pas connu, indiquez une fourchette:
  • < 2 000
Commentez (par ex. principales sources de financement/ principaux bailleurs de fonds):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (Transboundary Agroecosystem project): 25.0%; government (Central Government ): 5.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Village government and District council ): 18.0%; local community / land user(s) (Community, groups, village invironmental commitees ): 52.0%

5.2 Soutiens financiers/ matériels fournis aux exploitants des terres

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils reçu un soutien financier/ matériel pour la mise en œuvre de la Technologie/ des Technologies?

Oui

5.3 Subventions pour des intrants spécifiques (incluant la main d'œuvre)

  • intrants agricoles
Spécifiez les intrants subventionnés Dans quelle mesure Spécifiez les subventions
semences entièrement financé Pasture seed
fertilisants en partie financé DAP
Si la main d'œuvre fournie par les exploitants des terres était un intrant substantiel, elle était:
  • récompensée avec un autre soutien matériel
Commentaires:

the were rewarded indirectly through IGA and input provision

pasture seeds were supported fully but fertilizer was inadequate due to lean budget.

5.4 Crédits

Des crédits ont-ils été alloués à travers l'Approche pour les activités de GDT?

Non

6. Analyses d'impact et conclusions

6.1 Impacts de l'Approche

Est-ce que l'Approche a aidé les exploitants des terres à mettre en œuvre et entretenir les Technologies de GDT?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

Improvement of vegetation cover through controlled fire burning, livelihood diversification through sell of mulching and pasture materials, protection of the grazing land and riverine ecosystem ensured through area enclosure, demarcation and controlled harvesting of mulching and pasture materials.

Est-ce que l'Approche a autonomisé les groupes socialement et économiquement défavorisés?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

Youth, women and the disabled interms of livelihood and income

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup
Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

additional income accrued through mulching and pasture materials to casual labour, transporters and farmers.

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

Alternative income sources and improved money circulation.

6.2 Principale motivation des exploitants des terres pour mettre en œuvre la GDT

  • augmenter la production

expectation of getting high palatable pastures and mulching material for use and sale

  • augmenter la rentabilité/ bénéfice, rapport coûts-bénéfices

Profit realized from improved animal and crop production arizing from use of pasture and mulch

  • règles et règlements (amendes)/ application

People worry purnishment in terms of pernaties and standing before the court of law.

  • affiliation à un mouvement/ projet/ groupe/ réseaux

Benefit from SLM projects in terms of IGA and easy access to extension services.

  • conscience environnementale

Change of mindset through awareness creation and sensitization meetings/seminars.

  • well-being and livelihoods improvement

dirvesification of income sources (income from the sell of mulching and pasture materials)

6.3 Durabilité des activités de l'Approche

Les exploitants des terres peuvent-ils poursuivre ce qui a été mis en œuvre par le biais de l'Approche (sans soutien extérieur)?
  • oui
Si oui, décrivez de quelle manière:

Because the approach is internationalized and formalized into the existing systems (e.g. SLM becomes permanent agenda in mandatory sub village and village meetings).
The use of goat loan IGA project where farmers are given goats on loan bases and pay goats which are then passed and spread to more of their fellow farmer can continue without support.
Involvement of central government e.g. access of district commissioners and divisional officers phone is a reliable SLM crime control mechanisms which does not require any of external support (a mere text message can save and protect abundant hectare of land).

6.4 Points forts/ avantages de l'Approche

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue de l'exploitant des terres
Improvement of the natural vegetation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: To continue community education )
Availability of mulching materials (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Controlled harvesting and fire prevention )
Availability of fuel wood (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Permanent and routine guard )
Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
Incorporation internalization of SLM as permanent agenda in reliable mandatory grassroots forums (sub village and village meetings) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue internalization and SLM promotion through use of existing forums.)
Involvement of the central government (a mere text message can save and rescue abundance of hectare). (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue use of the central government.)
Empowerment and active participation of the the most resource destructive and environmental threatening group (livestock keepers). (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue use of WAKONDO (livestock owners) in planning, implementation and deciding SLM activities. )
Use of self spreading IGA to motivate environmental committee members who spend their valuable time in SLM activities (e.g. goat loan projects). (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue promotion, expansion and sustaining of self spreading IGAs.)
Dialogue and communication takes into consideration the daily activity clock of the stakeholder (through this principle WAKONDO can deliver SLM messages to herdsmen rather than SLM specialist) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Daily activity clock continue to be a criteria for planning SLM dialogue and communication.)

6.5 Faiblesses/ inconvénients de l'Approche et moyens de les surmonter

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue de l’exploitant des terres Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
shortage of working gears (umbrella, gumboots, raincoats and stationary) Ensure availability of working gears (e.g. SLM penalties be used to cover the costs of working gears).
Inadequate fund to support IGA Commit adequate fund to support and expand IGA.
Violation of rules and procedures by some untrustworthy individuals Strengthen law enforcement (use of penalties, court and ward tribunals)
No reliable transport for village environmental committees. Ensure reliable transport for the village environmental committee.
Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
Existence of untrained-able and lazy herdsmen and less committed WAKONDO. Strengthen law enforcement (e.g. use of penalties)
No reliable forum to collaborate with supplier of inputs and research as a results failure to figure out the reasons for unintended results (for this case unpalatable alien/native species overshadowed the palatable pasture and the reasons were not known) Strengthen collaborations with Research and supplier of inputs (pasture seeds e.t.c.).

7. Références et liens

7.1 Méthodes/ sources d'information

  • visites de terrain, enquêtes sur le terrain
  • interviews/entretiens avec les exploitants des terres

7.2 Références des publications disponibles

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

A report on Kyazi Microcatchment Characteriaztion

Modules