Это устаревшая, неактивная версия этого исследования. Перейти к текущей версии.
Подходы
Неактивный

Joint village land use planning [Танзания]

approaches_3336 - Танзания

Просмотреть разделы

Развернуть все
Завершённость: 92%

1. Общая информация

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

Ответственный (-ые) специалист (-ы)

Специалист по УЗП:

Fiona Flintan

Название проекта, содействовавшего документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)
Sustainable Rangeland Management Project (ILC / ILRI)
Название организации (-ий), содействовавших документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)
ILRI International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) - Кения

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

30/11/2016

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

Да

2. Описание Подхода УЗП

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

Joint village land use planning is a process facilitated by Tanzania's land policy and legislation. It supports the planning, protection and management of shared resources across village boundaries. It is an important tool towards land use planning and better rangeland management. This case study provides an example from a cluster of villages in Kiteto District, Tanzania.

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

The Sustainable Rangeland Management Project (SRMP) is an initiative led by Tanzania’s Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries (MoLF), the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and the National Land Use Planning Commission (NLUPC), with support from International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Irish Aid and the International Land Coalition (ILC). A key innovation of the project has been the development of joint village land use planning (JVLUP). The JVLUP process in Kiteto District, Manyara Region began in November 2013, and included the villages of Lerug, Ngapapa, and Orkitikiti. The three villages share boundaries and grazing resources, and in order to illustrate a single shared identity across the boundaries, the name OLENGAPA was chosen - incorporating part of each village’s name.
The total area of the three villages is (approx.) 59,000 hectares. The majority of inhabitants are Maasai pastoralists with some Ndorobo hunter-gatherers, and some farmers - most of whom are seasonal migrants. Mobility is central to the survival of the pastoralists and takes place across the three villages, as well as to locations in Kilindi, Gairo, and Bagamoyo Districts.
Average annual rainfall is between 800-1,000 mm per annum. There are no perennial rivers flowing through the OLENGAPA villages. The only permanent surface water source is Orkitikiti Dam, constructed in 1954.
In order to understand the different resources such as grazing areas, water points, cropping areas, livestock routes, and cultural places, SRMP supported participatory mapping. This assisted in developing a base map for the village land use planning process: it showed which resources were shared by the villages and where they were situated.
SRMP then helped village members to agree the individual village land use maps and plans - which zoned the village land into priority land uses - as well as the joint village land use map and plan, and the joint village land use agreement (JVLUA). These specified the grazing areas, water points, livestock routes and other shared resources. Reaching agreement was a protracted negotiation process between the villages, and within villages also - between different interest groups. It involved numerous community meetings and considerable investment of resources. Finally, each Village Assembly approved the JVLUA, which allocated approx. 20,700 ha of land for shared grazing –around 40% of the total village area. By-laws for management of the resources were developed and adopted.
Following approval of the JVLUA, the three OLENGAPA Village Councils established a Joint Grazing Land Committee made up of members from all three villages. This Committee is responsible for planning, management, enforcement of by-laws applicable to the OLENGAPA, and coordination of the implementation of both the OLENGAPA land use agreements and joint land use plan. In addition, a Livestock Keepers Association was established, including 53 founding members – but with most households from the three villages being associate members. A constitution was developed for the Association, which was officially registered on 11 September 2015.
In January 2016 the Ministry of Lands approved and registered the village land boundary maps and deed plans for the three villages. The District Council has issued the village land certificates, and the next step is for Village Councils to begin issuing Certificates of Customary Rights of Occupancy (CCROs). The shared grazing area will require three group CCROs to be issued to the Livestock Keepers Association – one from each village - for the part of the grazing area that falls under its jurisdiction. Signboards and beacons marking the shared grazing area are being put in place.
In November 2017 a fourth village joined OLENGAPA, expanding the shared grazing area to 30,000 ha. The villages are now working to develop a management plan to improve rangeland productivity.

2.3 Фотографии, иллюстрирующие Подход

Медиа-галерея

2.5 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход

Страна:

Танзания

Административная единица (Район/Область):

Manyara Region

Более точная привязка места:

Kiteto District

Комментарии:

Kiteto District, Manyara Region, Tanzania

Предварительный просмотр карты

2.6 Даты начала и окончания реализации Подхода

Год начала реализации:

2010

Год окончания (Если Подход больше не применяется):

2017

2.7 Тип Подхода

  • в рамках проекта/ программы

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

To secure shared grazing areas and other rangeland resources for livestock keepers, and to improve their management.

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

Социальные/ культурные/ религиозные нормы и ценности
  • содействуют

History of collective tenure, management and sharing of rangeland resources as part of sustainable rangeland management practices.

  • затрудняют

Marginalisation of pastoralists from decision-making processes at local and higher levels.

Наличие/ доступность финансовых ресурсов и услуг
  • затрудняют

Village land use planning process is costly due to the requirement to include government experts in the process in order to gather required data and to authorise plans. Lack of government priority to village land use planning, so poor allocation of government funds to the process.

Институциональные условия
  • содействуют

Strong local government/community institutions for leading process at local albeit their capacity may require building.

Сотрудничество/ координация действий
  • затрудняют

Poor coordination of different actors supporting VLUP in the past due to previous weakness of National Land Use Planning Commission (NLUPC). However, this is now changing as NLUPC becomes stronger and takes up coordination role.

Нормативно-правовая база (землевладение, права на земле- и водопользование)
  • содействуют

Tanzania's legislation, if implemented well, provides an enabling environment for securing of community/village rights for both individuals and groups.

  • затрудняют

Legislation allows village land to be transferred into public land if in the "public" or "national" interest - this facility confers insecurity on village land.

Программные документы/ руководящие установки
  • содействуют

Tanzania possesses facilitating national land use policy for the joint village land use planning approach, together with guidelines.

  • затрудняют

There are conflicting policies over land coming from different sectors including land generally, together with forests, wildlife and livestock. These cause confusion at the local level. Depending on power of actors one set of policies may be stronger than another - wildlife-related policy for example can have a lot of power because there are many strong and influential tourism and conservation bodies lobbying for stronger protection of land, with potentially negative impacts for communities who want to use that land for other purposes.

Управление земельными ресурсами (принятие решений, осуществление и контроль за выполнением)
  • содействуют

Decision-making has been decentralised to the lowest levels, giving local communities considerable power to decide on the uses of their village land.

  • затрудняют

The process of village land use planning is costly due to the requirement for having local government experts involved, and the need to follow often complex procedures and steps. Many communities and even local government do not have adequate technical skills and knowledge to complete the long process, as well as not having adequate funds. This has held up the VLUP applications. Further few VLUPs move from their production stage to implementation stage including enforcement of bylaws and, for example, land management.

Осведомленность в области УЗП, доступность технической поддержки
  • содействуют

Good local knowledge of rangeland management based on historical practice. Communities understand need for better rangeland management.

  • затрудняют

Lack of investment in rangeland management and the provision of technical support e.g. through government extension services. Lack of technical knowledge in rangeland rehabilitation and improving rangeland productivity at scale.

Рынки (для приобретения материалов и услуг, продажи продукции) и цены
  • затрудняют

Lack of local markets and coordinated operations for livestock production.

Объем работ, доступность рабочей силы
  • содействуют

Well-structured local community bodies ready to provide manpower. Local government experts in place to support VLUP process.

  • затрудняют

Lack of knowledge, skills and capacity amongst local communities and government experts to complete JVLUP adequately, including such as resolving conflicts between different land users.

3. Участие и распределение ролей заинтересованных сторон

3.1 Заинтересованные стороны, участвующие в реализации Подхода и их роли

  • местные землепользователи/ местные сообщества

Village members (Assembly) of three villages - Orikitiki, Lerug and Ngapapa.

All village members as the Village Assembly have an opportunity to contribute to the land use planning process and to approve it.

  • организации местных сообществ

Village Council, Village Land Use Management Committee (VLUMC), Rangeland Management Committee, Livestock Keepers Association.

Village government coordinated the planning process at local level. VLUMC develops plan. Village Council approves plans and issues CCROs. Rangeland Management Committee oversees development in rangelands. Livestock Keepers Association established made-up of all members of the villages that have livestock (nearly all village members) - they will be issued with CCROs as "owners" of the grazing land.

  • эксперты по УЗП/ сельскому хозяйству

Land use planning consultants

Provision of advice to the project team, local government and villagers on the JVLUP approach.

  • ученые-исследователи

International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)

Identification of good practice in village land use planning in Tanzania and ways to adapt and incorporate good practice into joint village land use planning to improve the approach. Research on role of and impact on pastoral women. Undertaking of baseline studies.

  • общественные организации

KINNAPA Development Association (supported originally by CARE and Tanzania Natural Resource Forum).

KINNAPA is the local CSO partner working as part of the project to implement the JVLUP with local communities

  • местные власти

District Council including the PLUM (participatory land use management planning experts)

The District Council provides local government oversight of the planning process and approves the plan before submitting to national government body. The PLUM technically supports the development of the JVLUP working with the village government(s) and village committees.

  • государственные власти (отвечающие за планирование или принятие решений)

Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, National Land Use Planning Commission (NLUPC), Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development,

Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries leading the planning process with a sectoral interest in protecting rangelands. NLUPC provides technical oversight and guidance. Ministry of Lands is the national body that approves the final plan.

  • международные организации

International Land Coalition (ILC)

ILC is the grant recipient for the funds from the donors. The project is implemented through ILC members such as ILRI. ILC coordinates its members work in Tanzania on land issues including the JVLUP through a national engagement strategy (NES). ILC also provides technical support to the process through its global/Africa programme - the ILC Rangelands Initiative. The ILC Rangelands Initiative is a platform for learning, sharing, influencing, and connecting on rangeland issues with the objective of making rangelands more secure.

  • Donors

IFAD and Irish Aid

Provide funds for the project. IFAD also provides technical support on land tenure issues.

Если участвовало несколько заинтересованных сторон, назовите ведущую организацию:

The lead agency is the International Land Coalition (ILC) working through its members including ILRI. In country, the main implementer is the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries

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 внешняя поддержка The project supported communities to initiate the first steps taken to reach agreement on the need for planning and how this would be done.
планирование интерактивное Communities were centrally involved in the planning of the VLUP process, with support from local NGO and government.
выполнение интерактивное Village government and community in general is responsible for the implementation of the planning process, with the support of local government.
мониторинг/ оценка внешняя поддержка The community is responsible for monitoring and evaluation, but lack skills and capacity in this regard requiring external support.
Research внешняя поддержка Research on information required for planning processes collected and generated by communities with the assistance of technical support from local NGO, local government and researchers.

3.3 Схема реализации (если имеется)

Описание:

Steps in the Joint Village Land Use Planning Process

Автор:

Fiona Flintan

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

Укажите, кто принимал решение по выбору применяемой Технологии/ Технологий:
  • все участники как часть процесса совместных действий
Поясните:

The policy and legislation lays down the steps to be followed for the VLUP/JVLUP process. However there is room to adapt these processes to local context - and here all stakeholders were involved to develop the process of JVLUP through its first piloting. This included communities, local and national government, local NGOs, researchers and development organisations.

Поясните на чём было основано принятие решений:
  • анализ подробно описанного опыта и знаний по УЗП (принятие решений на основе подтвержденных фактов)

4. Техническая поддержка, повышение компетенций и управление знаниями

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:
  • землепользователи
  • местный персонал/консультанты
  • government staff
Тип обучения:
  • в ходе работы
  • общие собрания
  • курсы
Рассматриваемые темы:

Land users were trained in land related and other relevant laws and the JVLUP process. Field staff/advisers were trained in land laws, the JVLUP process, gender, and conflict resolution. Local government were trained in the JVLUP process, gender and conflict resolution.

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Нет

4.3 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

В ходе реализации Подхода были ли организованы новые институциональные структуры или поддержаны уже существующие?
  • да, существенно
Укажите уровень, на котором структуры были укреплены или вновь созданы:
  • местные
  • национальный
Опишите организацию, функции и ответственность, членство и т.д.

Local government bodies including Village Council, VLUMC (village land use management committee) and Livestock Keepers Association have all had capacity strengthened, but more is required (particularly for the latter). Capacity of the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries and the National Land Use Planning Commission to implement JVLUP has been built.

Укажите тип поддержки:
  • финансовая
  • повышение компетенций/ обучение
  • оборудование
  • data collected and database set up

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

M&E has not been strong in previous phases, but now is central with baselines being carried out in all new clusters of villages where the project will work so that impact can be fully assessed.

Если да, будет ли данный документ использоваться для мониторинга и оценки?

Нет

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

Укажите темы исследований:
  • социология
  • экономика / маркетинг
  • экология
Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

Research was carried out to identify good practice (in terms of social, economic and environmental impacts) from which the JVLUP process was developed. In future phases the full impacts of this JVLUP in terms of social, economic and ecological impact are being researched.

5. Финансирование и внешняя материальная поддержка

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

Если точный годовой бюжет неизвестен, укажите примерный диапазон затрат:
  • 10000-100000
Комментарий (например, основные источники финансирования/ ключевые доноры):

IFAD, Irish Aid,

5.2 Финансирование и внешняя материальная поддержка, предоставляемая землепользователям

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

Нет

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

  • нет
 
Если труд землепользователя был существенным вкладом, укажите, был ли этот вклад:
  • добровольный
Комментарии:

Labour was voluntary with meal provided and/or travel costs covered.

5.4 Кредитование

Предоставлялись ли в рамках Подхода кредиты на мероприятия УЗП?

Нет

5.5 Другие методы или инструменты стимулирования

Использовались ли другие методы или инструменты стимулирования для продвижения Технологий УЗП?

Да

Если да, поясните:

Tanzanian policy and legislation states that all village should have a VLUP, therefore this was an incentive for stakeholders to invest in the process. In addition conflicts over land use are increasingly a problem in Tanzania - so the resolution of these was also an important incentive.

6. Анализ влияния и заключительные положения

6.1 Влияние Подхода

Сумел ли Подход расширить возможности местных землепользователей, повысить участие заинтересованных сторон?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

Local village communities now feel strongly empowered in protecting and managing their land. The process has brought different stakeholders together and strengthened commitment to make the process work.

Сумел ли Подход дать возможность принимать решения на основе подтвержденных фактов?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

The piloting of the JVLUP showed what is possible and the positive impacts realised (albeit they could have been better documented). On these results the process is being scaled-up.

Сумел ли Подход помочь землепользователям внедрить и поддерживать технологии УЗП?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

The planning process has laid the foundations for improved rangeland management - what is now required is investment in that management.

Сумел ли Подход улучшить согласованность действий и повысить рентабельность применения практик УЗП:
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно
Сумел ли Подход мобилизовать/ расширить доступ к финансовым ресурсам для применения практик УЗП?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно
Сумел ли Подход расширить знания и возможности землепользователей в применении практик УЗП?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

Land users have greater knowledge of the potential and need for rangeland management based on a better understanding of their land and resources gained through the JVLUP process, but they still need skills and resources to put this knowledge into action.

Сумел ли Подход расширить знания и возможности других заинтересованных сторон?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

National and local government have seen the potential of the JVLUP to resolve conflicts over land use, and their capacities to implement the JVLUP in this regard has been improved.

Сумел ли Подход укрепить сотрудничество между заинтересоваными сторонами/ выстроить механизмы сотрудничества?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

The approach is helping build relations between the Ministry Livestock and Fisheries and the NLUPC together with NGO(s) at national level, as well as between different stakeholders involved in JVLUP at local levels.

Сумел ли Подход снизить остроту конфликтов?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

Through the process of JVLUP the roots of land use conflicts come to the surface and must be resolved before agreement is reached. This may cause tensions and even conflict along the way - but the outcome should be positive.

Сумел ли Подход расширить возможности социально и экономически уязвимых групп?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

Pastoralists are often left out of village land use planning processes. This approach when implemented well gives greater opportunity for them to be involved. However this is still a challenge.

Сумел ли Подход содействать гендерному равенству и расширить права и возможности женщин и девочек?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

Women can be left out of village land use planning processes. This approach when implemented well gives greater opportunity for them to be involved. However this is still a challenge.

Сумел ли Подход стимулировать молодежь/ будущее поколение землепользователей заниматься УЗП?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

Youth can be left out of village land use planning processes. This approach when implemented well gives greater opportunity for them to be involved. However this is still a challenge.

Сумел ли Подход разрешить правовые проблемы землевладения/ землепользования, препятствующие использованию технологий УЗП?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

By following the JVLUP process village land has been certified and secured, as well as the rights of access and use of livestock keepers to the grazing land.

Сумел ли Подход способствовать улучшению продовольственой безопасности/ качества питания?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

This has not been specifically monitored but it assumed by having stronger security to land and resources, food security and nutrition will be improved.

Сумел ли Подход расширить доступ к рынкам?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

This has not been specifically monitored but it assumed by having stronger security to land and resources, access to markets will be improved.

Сумел ли Подход улучшить санитарные условия и доступ к водоснабжению?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

In terms of water for livestock the JVLUP process has secured rights for the three villages to shared water resources.

Сумел ли Подход привести к более эффективному использованию электроэнергии/ возобновляемых источников энергии?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно
Сумел ли Подход улучшить способность землепользователей адаптироваться к изменениям климата и смягчать последствия катастрофических погодных явлений?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

By having stronger security to land and resources local land users are better placed to adapt to climate change etc.

Сумел ли Подход привести к созданию новых рабочих мест/ к расширению возможностей получения дохода?
  • Нет
  • Да, немного
  • Да, умеренно
  • Да, существенно

This has not been specifically monitored but it assumed by having stronger security to land and resources, income opportunities will be improved.

6.2 Основные причины, побуждающие землепользователей внедрять УЗП

  • рост продуктивности

By protecting grazing areas, there will be more secure access to resources required for livestock production.

  • снижение деградации земель

By protecting grazing areas and improvement of rangeland management practices land degradation will be reduced.

  • снижение риска катастрофических погодных явлений

With more secure access to land and resources, local land users are better placed to manage their resources in order to reduce risks to disasters.

  • нормативно-правовое регулирование (штрафы)/ контроль

By gaining protection from village certification, village land use planning and local bylaws developed as part of this, local land users are better placed to enforce rules and regulations relating to land use and to prevent encroachment/trespassing by outsiders.

  • престиж, общественное давление/ солидарность

The JVLUP process improved the social cohesion and group identify of the three villages - expressed in the name OLENGAPA (made up of the three village names). There is a strong livestock keepers association now made up of livestock keepers from all three villages who are working more closely together.

  • снижение остроты конфликтов

The JVLUP helped to resolve land use conflicts by opening up space to discuss root causes, find solutions and come to agreement between land users.

6.3 Долгосрочная устойчивость мероприятий в рамках Подхода

Могут ли землепользователи самостоятельно (без внешней поддержки) продолжать применение того, что было реализовано в рамках Подхода?
  • нет уверенности
Если нет или нет уверенности, объясните почему:

The community requires support from local government to protect their village lands including grazing lands from outsiders wanting to settle on the land - this is a constant problem to be addressed (despite the securing of village boundaries etc.). The community also needs capacity building and resources to improve the productivity of the land including the grazing areas. If they get these supports then they can sustain what has been implemented.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
Improved the security of access and use to village land including grazing.
Brought attention to the challenges faced by land users in the area in protecting and using their village land, and the need for more investment and support for this.
Pastoralists are now more central to decision-making processes than they were before.
Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
Collaboration of different stakeholders in implementing the approach has supported a new way of working.
Capacity of different stakeholders has been built along the way through joint problem-solving and learning-by-doing.
The approach - with adaptation - has application in other contexts/countries and shows that even if a rangeland is split by administrative boundaries there is opportunity to work across those village boundaries in order to maintain the functionality of the rangeland and land use systems such as pastoralism that depend upon this.

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
Despite village land being theoretically protected, in practice it can still be encroached upon. Greater support provided from government to enforce protection of land.
Time-consuming process which became more expensive than anticipated resulting in some gaps in funding. Process needs to be refined through practice, and adequate funds allocated from beginning.
Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
The selection of villages for JVLUP needs more care to ensure that enabling conditions for JVLUP exist. In future selection of villages for JVLUP a set of criteria should be used that enable more enabling conditions to exist.
Information has not been methodologically collected on social, environmental and economic impacts of the approach. In future the impacts of the approach need to be fully monitored and evaluated.
The VLUP is an expensive process to follow. National government needs to identify ways to reduce the cost of the VLUP so that more villages can undertake it. Government needs to allocate more funds to VLUP. The VLUP is an expensive process to follow.
Need for an enabling environment. The policy and legislation in Tanzania enables this process - it is not the case in the majority of other African countries.

7. Справочные материалы и ссылки

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

  • данные, собранные из отчетов и достоверных документов

The compiler has been involved in the project/process since its inception and had access to all reports and existing documentation.

7.3 Ссылки на материалы, доступные онлайн

Название/ описание:

Kalenzi, D. 2016. Improving the implementation of land policy and legislation in pastoral areas of Tanzania: Experiences of joint village land use agreements and planning. Rangelands 7. Rome, Italy: International Land Coalition.

Адрес в сети Интернет:

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/79796

Название/ описание:

Daley, E., Kisambu, N. and Flintan, F. 2017. Rangelands: Securing pastoral women’s land rights in Tanzania. Rangelands Research Report 1. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

Адрес в сети Интернет:

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/89483

Название/ описание:

International Livestock Research Institute. 2017. Sustainable Rangeland Management Project, Tanzania. ILRI Project Brochure. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

Адрес в сети Интернет:

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/80673

Название/ описание:

International Land Coalition. 2014. Participatory rangeland resource mapping in Tanzania: A field manual to support planning and management in rangelands including in village land use planning. Rome: International Land Coalition

Адрес в сети Интернет:

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/51348

Название/ описание:

Flintan, F., Mashingo, M., Said, M. and Kifugo, S.C. 2014. Developing a national map of livestock routes in Tanzania in order to value service and protect them. Poster prepared for the ILRI@40 Workshop, Addis Ababa, 7 November 2014. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

Адрес в сети Интернет:

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/64964

Название/ описание:

Village land use planning in rangelands in Tanzania, F. Flintan 2012

Адрес в сети Интернет:

http://www.landcoalition.org/en/regions/africa/resources/no-3-village-land-use-planning-rangelands-tanzania

Название/ описание:

Protecting shared grazing through joint village land use planning

Адрес в сети Интернет:

http://www.landcoalition.org/en/regions/africa/resources/protecting-shared-grazing-through-joint-village-land-use-planning

Ссылки и модули

Развернуть все Свернуть все

Модули