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

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

Resource Conflict Institute (RECONCILE) - Kenya

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

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

04/09/2017

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

Oui

2.1 Courte description de l'Approche

Social Tenure Domain Model (STDM) is about people and their relationships with 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 investments confidence at different levels including; small scale, large scale both urban and rural investors who all need secure tenure.

2.2 Description détaillée de l'Approche

Description détaillée de l'Approche:

Background
The Rangelands Initiative Africa is a programme of the International Land Coalition (ILC) that is working to make rangelands more tenure secure. Resource Conflict Institute (RECONCILE) hosts and coordinates the Africa component while ILRI hosts and coordinates the Global component. Rangelands Initiatives existence recognizes that rangelands diverse resources and interests transcends across different stakeholders and therefore learning within these groups is important for strategic interventions and responses. As such, the programme supports ILC members and partners in upscaling their initiatives, documenting good practices and creating spaces for lessons sharing and learning.

RECONCILE seeks to demonstrate the application the Social Tenure Domain Model (STDM) in a rural setting 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 technology uses the people as the central nexus in land administration. As such, an extensive range of systems and processes to manage land through effective and accurate planning and management.

Context
Land as a factor of production attracts interests from stakeholders. As such, secure access to land, whether through formal, informal, customary or other means, is necessary for rural households to enjoy sustainable livelihoods, and is an important part of sustainable development. Securing access by rural poor people to land and water rights is key to the reduction of extreme poverty and hunger, since land and water are among the most important assets that poor rural women, youths and men have. Kenya has legal, policy and institutional frameworks and governance systems that presents options and opportunities.

The process of the technology
STDM process involves, problem identification, stakeholder analysis, training, community enumeration, data collection both socio-economic and spatial data and total data management. The process allows an understanding and testing the extent STDM technology responded to gaps and how best they could be applied to cater for needs of all stakeholders within the rural, agricultural, communal land settings. The application of the technology demands complete data sets that are consolidated through total census of both resources users and resources.
In piloting the STDM in the county, 44 rangelands common resources identified, mapped and documented included; water points, grazing areas and cattle dips. These resources have a direct bearing on sustainable rangelands use and management supporting livelihoods system. Using a census survey with pre-tested structured questionnaires, 498 rangelands users (smallholder farmers) interviewed using participatory enumeration in Sugumerga. There were many constraints but of significance; the changing land use patterns, which introduced fencing off communally, used resources like water points, access routes. The agro-pastoralists and other rangelands users specifically have challenges in accessing common grazing lands.

2.3 Photos de l'approche

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

2.6 Dates de début et de fin de l'Approche

2.7 Type d'Approche

• fondé sur un projet/ programme

2.8 Principaux objectifs de l'Approche

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

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

3.1 Parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche et rôles

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	The communities internalized the process and as such were very engaging and even self mobilized for the tasks.
planification	interactive	Same as above.
mise en œuvre	interactive	These were the key people in all the process of resource identification mapping and protection of both communal and private resources identified and mapped.
suivi/ évaluation	auto-mobilisation	They still follow and report on status.

3.3 Diagramme/ organigramme (si disponible)

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:

• tous les acteurs concernés dans le cadre d'une approche participative

Spécifiez sur quelle base ont été prises les décisions:

• les résultats de recherches?

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

Formats de la formation:

• sur le tas
• entre agriculteurs (d'exploitants à exploitants)
• réunions publiques

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?
• dans des centres permanents

Décrivez/ commentez:

The users are beneficiaries of a government programme in the areas and were the basis against which the approach was used to close the gap.

4.3 Renforcement des institutions (développement organisationnel)

Des institutions ont elles été mises en place ou renforcées par le biais de l'Approche?

• oui, beaucoup

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
• équipement

4.4 Suivi et évaluation

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

Oui

Si oui, ce document est-il destiné à être utilisé pour le suivi et l'évaluation?

Non

4.5 Recherche

La recherche a-t-elle fait partie intégrante de l’Approche?

Non

5.1 Budget annuel de la composante GDT de l'Approche

Si le budget annuel précis n'est pas connu, indiquez une fourchette:

• 10 000-100 000

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?

Non

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

• aucun

Si la main d'œuvre fournie par les exploitants des terres était un intrant substantiel, elle était:

• volontaire

5.4 Crédits

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

Non

5.5 Autres incitations ou instruments

D'autres incitations ou instruments ont-ils été utilisés pour promouvoir la mise en œuvre des Technologies de GDT?

Non

6.1 Impacts de l'Approche

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

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:

The approach application did not attract any material gains or incentives but, the process was community centered thus the adoption.

6.4 Points forts/ avantages de l'Approche

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue de l'exploitant des terres
The approach was targeting identified problem that was 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 resources associated with milk production such as milk coolers, water points, cattle dips, food stores, grazing areas, salt licks, crush, animal corridors, forest e.t.c
Collectively, communities were able to know the status (management) of communal shared resources and responsible persons. Establishment of the Land tenure system of shared communal resources and issues arising. Status (management) of private resources within the rangelands.

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
The approach uses participatory approach hence building 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 (Maps, reports). Ensures the adaptability of the process though technical, is simplified users can relate with and find value in their use contributed immense success.
STDM database accommodate inclusion of social economic and spatial data that can be maintained, accessed and update by the communities anytime. Provided visual representation of available resources and their distribution and people can relate to spatial information on the map.
Ownership of technology by local people who are now leading on data collection, customizing the template, developing reports and innovating on its use.

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?
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.

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
Difficult to setup the server environment where no internet is available. Engaging other service providers may be difficult and takes time (Internet service provider need to authorize setting up additional server). Appropriate devices for capturing data may necessity additional budget.	The internet component remain a challenge. Technology is evolving and needs systematic information channels even with the community members. The process requires proper funding in order not to have a break in between.

7.1 Méthodes/ sources d'information

7.3 Liens vers les informations pertinentes disponibles en ligne

Titre/ description:

RECONCILE end of project report and other progress reports are available for sharing

Titre/ description:

Food security in Bomet county

URL:

awsc.uonbi.ac.ke/sites/default/files/chss/arts/.../Bomet-final.doc