1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Bukoba district council (Bukoba district council) - Tanzania, United Republic of

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Missenyi District Council (Missenyi District Council) - Tanzania, United Republic of

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

03/06/2014

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

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 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

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 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

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

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

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 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	Village council members and field experts - sensitization and awareness creation meetings.
planning	interactive	Village government, community and site facilitators - SLM planning meetings.
implementation	interactive	Village government, community, groups and committees and site facilitators - Actual implementation of community site specific action plan.
monitoring/ evaluation	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 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

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 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• leaders and politicians

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

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

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Form of training:

• special and adhoc serminars

Subjects covered:

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

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:

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 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

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Members of environmental committee were provided with various SLM trainings.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

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 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• < 2,000

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

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 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• agricultural

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

• rewarded with other material support

Comments:

the were rewarded indirectly through IGA and input provision

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

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

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:

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 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
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 )

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
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 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
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.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
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 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

A report on Kyazi Microcatchment Characteriaztion