1.2 Контактные данные специалистов и организаций, участвующих в описании и оценке Подхода

Название организации (-ий), содействовавших документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

Bukoba district council (Bukoba district council) - Танзания

Название организации (-ий), содействовавших документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

Missenyi District Council (Missenyi District Council) - Танзания

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

03/06/2014

Составитель и ответственный/-ые специалист(-ы) согласны с условиями, регламентирующими использование собранных ВОКАТ данных:

Да

1.4 Ссылка (-и) на Анкету (-ы) по Технологиям УЗП

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

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 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

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 Фотографии, иллюстрирующие Подход

2.5 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход

2.6 Даты начала и окончания реализации Подхода

2.7 Тип Подхода

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

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

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 Условия содействующие применению Технологии/ Технологий в рамках Подхода или затрудняющие его

3.1 Заинтересованные стороны, участвующие в реализации Подхода и их роли

3.2 Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ на разных стадиях реализации Подхода

	Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ	Перечислите участников и опишите их вовлеченность
инициирование/ мотивация	интерактивное	Village council members and field experts - sensitization and awareness creation meetings.
планирование	интерактивное	Village government, community and site facilitators - SLM planning meetings.
выполнение	интерактивное	Village government, community, groups and committees and site facilitators - Actual implementation of community site specific action plan.
мониторинг/ оценка	интерактивное	Village government, community, groups and committees and site facilitators - Actual monitoring and evaluation of community site specific action plan.
Research	интерактивное	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 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

Укажите, кто принимал решение по выбору применяемой Технологии/ Технологий:

• в основном землепользователи при поддержке специалистов по УЗП

Поясните:

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.

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи
• местный персонал/консультанты

• leaders and politicians

Если существенно, укажите гендерный и возрастной состав, статус, этническую принадлежность и т.д.

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

Тип обучения:

• в ходе работы
• опытные участки
• общие собрания

Тип обучения:

• special and adhoc serminars

Рассматриваемые темы:

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

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Укажите, где именно оказываются консультационные услуги:

• на полях землепользователей

Описание/ комментарий:

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 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

В ходе реализации Подхода были ли организованы новые институциональные структуры или поддержаны уже существующие?

• да, немного

Укажите уровень, на котором структуры были укреплены или вновь созданы:

• местные

Укажите тип поддержки:

• повышение компетенций/ обучение

Подробнее:

Members of environmental committee were provided with various SLM trainings.

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

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.

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

Если точный годовой бюжет неизвестен, укажите примерный диапазон затрат:

• < 2000

Комментарий (например, основные источники финансирования/ ключевые доноры):

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 Финансирование и внешняя материальная поддержка, предоставляемая землепользователям

Предоставлялась ли землепользователям финансовая/ материальная поддержка для применения Технологии /Технологий?

Да

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

• сельскохозяйственные

Если труд землепользователя был существенным вкладом, укажите, был ли этот вклад:

• в обмен на другие материальные ресурсы

Комментарии:

the were rewarded indirectly through IGA and input provision

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

5.4 Кредитование

Предоставлялись ли в рамках Подхода кредиты на мероприятия УЗП?

Нет

6.1 Влияние Подхода

6.2 Основные причины, побуждающие землепользователей внедрять УЗП

6.3 Долгосрочная устойчивость мероприятий в рамках Подхода

Могут ли землепользователи самостоятельно (без внешней поддержки) продолжать применение того, что было реализовано в рамках Подхода?

• да

Если да, опишите как:

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 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
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 )

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
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 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
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.

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
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.).

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

A report on Kyazi Microcatchment Characteriaztion