Approaches

Integrated and collaborative approach in management of savannah rangelands with high livestock [Tanzania, United Republic of]

Ushirikiano wa jamii na wadau mbalimbali wa maendeleo katika kuendeleza nyanda za malisho za uoto asilia wa savannah wenye ng’ombe wengi (Swahili).

approaches_2538 - Tanzania, United Republic of

Completeness: 78%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Makula Steven

Missenyi District Council

Tanzania, United Republic of

SLM specialist:

Kulwa Hanter

Missenyi District Council

Tanzania, United Republic of

SLM specialist:

Eric Kagoro

Missenyi District Council

Tanzania, United Republic of

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Interplay among multiple uses of water reservoirs via innovative coupling of substance cycles in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (INNOVATE / GLUES)
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)?

22/12/2015

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

Yes

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Using integrated and collaborative approach in managing land degradation and conflicts in Savannah range land with high livestock.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: a) Conservation of Savannah range land guaranteed through improved rainwater harvesting, improved pasture management and improved livestock genetic potential
b) Frequent range land use conflicts are resolved and halted
c) Resource conserving and environmental sound livestock husbandry practice adopted and widely used.


Methods: Community working by various stakeholders (land users, various level extension workers, employed and elected representatives, project staffs and administrators at the local and central government) and supported by the North South Trans border project (NSTP) uncovered their setbacks through participatory dialogues events. Participatory/multi-stakeholder problem analysis/research events enabled identification of a combination of technologies needed to solve the existing problems as construction of rain water harvesting structure, pasture management (introduction of nutritious and palatable pastures) and livestock improvement through introduction of improved bulls. Joint planning events eventually resulted to development of Bubale community SLM action plan indicating activities, resources and roles. Each stakeholder absorbed the uncovered messages and integrated the ideas into responsive and complementary SLM plans. SLM plans were used to mobilize, negotiate and search for both internal and NSTP supportive resources and thus land users acquisition of the necessary technological input, equipment and financial resources. Knowledge acquisition & skill development was achieved through extension advisory services and on the job and action based training. Technology adaption and innovation was stimulated through; 1) pasture demo plots 2) incentive system 3) quick win interventions 4) and through reinforcement of rules and regulation guiding and protecting the use of the technologies.



Stages of implementation: Situational analysis; community awareness and sensitization events. Problem identifications, analysis and research: defining the root cause of land problems and appropriate technological solution using participatory dialogues. Development of the Bubale community SLM action plan: through collaborative & integrative events. Development of stakeholder plans complementary & responsive to the Bubale community SLM plans. Resource mobilization: using Bubale SLM plan and other stakeholder’s complementary plans. Implementation: collaborations between the community and other stakeholders. Supervision, operation and maintenance of completed technologies: democratic devolution of completed projects to beneficiary groups selected by empowered land users using their own forums and democratic process and subsequent training in operation and maintenance.

Role of stakeholders: Field level (sub village, village & ward): Daily supervision. Planning, review and decision making through obligatory meetings. Setting & reinforcing bylaws guiding the use and protection of technologies. Intermediate level (district level): extension services, technical expertise, and supervision and monitoring. Assist the community in interpreting the relevant policies, rules and laws guiding and protecting the use of various SLM technologies. Reporting implementation progress to the regional level & other stakeholders. Control of support funds, procurement procedures and make payments subject to approval by the community project committee. Regional level: Supervision monitoring and reporting implementation progress to the national level and were the subject matter consultants providing services upon request by the district. Policy makers (Councillors and Member of Parliament): supervision, monitoring, policies interpretation & reinforcement of rules and bylaws protecting the technologies. Central government: resolving and managing land conflicts & observing peace and tranquility.

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Tanzania, United Republic of

Region/ State/ Province:

Tanzania/Kagera region

Further specification of location:

Missenyi, Kakunyu, Bubale village

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2012

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Pasture establishment & improvement of genetic potential )

a) Stop uncontrolled exploitation and degradation of range land through correct stocking, improved pasture management and controlled fire burning.
b) Resolve and halt conflict over the use of range land among livestock keepers and between crop and livestock keepers
c) Improve livestock production and productivity through the use of animals with high genetic potentials.
d) Ensure availability of financial resources to invest in sustainable range land management


The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: a) Overuse and degradation of range land resources through overstocking, poor pasture management and uncontrolled fire burning.
b) Conflict over the use of range land among livestock keepers and between crop and livestock keepers.
c) Low livestock production and productivity due to poor livestock practices (use of animals with low genetic potentials).
d) Lack of financial resources to invest in sustainable range land management

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

Poor cultural traditions: keeping large stock of low genetic potential as prestige going together with overgrazing


Treatment through the SLM Approach: Training in the use of improved animal husbandry practices, recommended stocking and introduction of improved bulls.

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Reluctance to invest in SLM and improved husbandry practices

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Awareness creation through demonstrations, incentive system and various training (seminars, workshop and meetings)

institutional setting
  • hindering

low performance of grassroots institutions (community project committee)

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Improving performance of community project committee through training in supervision and monitoring

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • hindering

Land user ignorance in laws, rules and regulations guiding SLM

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Training and awareness creation of land users to various laws, rules and regulations guiding and protecting SLM technologies.

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately hindered the approach implementation The range land is largely communally owned and this to some extent is hindrance to improved pasture management.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Poor access to various expertise needed for smooth implementation of SLM technologies (e.g. charco dam construction experts)

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Access improved through project support

workload, availability of manpower
  • hindering

Failure to implement some of SLM technologies due to high workload demand

Treatment through the SLM Approach: The project enabled land users to gain access to the work simplifying equipment and machinery.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

local community & land users in Bubale village. Community land users, elected and employed representatives/leaders and civil servants/extension workers at the village and ward level

male & female livestock keepers but almost 70% of livestock keepers are men. Mobilization and emphases was given to involvement/participation of widows, land users living with HIV/AIDS and handicapped/disabled almost in each every SLM process phases and steps,

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

The district level provided the various subject matter specialists (SMSs) who played the role of delivering extension services, necessary technical expertise, supervision and monitoring

SMSs and NSTP project officers.

  • local government

Missenyi District council, Kakunyu ward and Bubale village

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

central government (Missenyi division secetary & district commisioners office)

councillors and member of parliament were part of the policy makers

  • international organization

North South Transboundary Project

  • administrators at the local and central government
If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

All approach design process phases and steps were gender sensitive

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 community land users, elected and employed representatives/leaders and civil servants/extension workers at the village and ward level. were involved in problem identification and situational analysis.
planning interactive community land users, elected and employed representatives/leaders and civil servants/extension workers at the village and ward level Collaborative planning events of which eventually resulted to development of Bubale responsive comprehensive community SLM action plan indicating activities, resources and roles to be played by various stakeholders.
implementation interactive community land users, elected and employed representatives/leaders and civil servants/extension workers at the village and ward level Daily supervision of construction work, contributed in terms of indigenous knowhow, cheap labour, material in kind and security and setting and reinforcing bylaws guiding implementation of technologies.
monitoring/ evaluation interactive community land users, elected and employed representatives/leaders and civil servants/extension workers at the village and ward level participated in collaborative and client interactive monitoring
Research interactive community land users, elected and employed representatives/leaders and civil servants/extension workers at the village and ward level participated in multi-stakeholder problem analysis/research events (special meetings, workshops and seminars)

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:

Technologies needed for solving the existing land problems and improvement of the situation were identified through project supported participatory problem analytical events (special meetings, workshops and seminars) where, land users in Bubale village supported by SLM specialists were able to learn and understand the real and root cause of the existing land problems and in the due course made the choice on SLM technologies.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Empowered community working collaboratively with SLM specialists took the leading role in deciding on the method of implementing the SLM Technology

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
  • politicians, employed and elected leders, admintrators and other stakeholders
Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
Form of training:
  • special meetings, workshops and seminars
Subjects covered:

In-house training, action based training and learning by doing on the job these include: pasture management, hay making, use and management of improved bulls and charco dam construction and management, environmental impact assessment, law and guiding and protecting the use of particular SLM and further operation and management.

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: community participatory dialogues and analytical process ; Key elements: builds trust and understanding with land users, ensures that the viewpoint and realities of land users are accurately reflected, empower participation of the disadvantaged and promote ownership of the analytical process ; so the process was largely people centered

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The fifth phase ruling government elected in October 2015 is committed to support land conservation. To a large extent the commonest electoral manifesto of the ruling party emphasis on the importance of land/environmental protection.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, moderately
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training
Give further details:

the community project committee was supported in terms of training in supervision and client interactive monitoring. beneficiary groups were trained on project operations and maintenance.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Increased animal production and productivity

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Annual livestock water accessibility (No. of months)

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: Annual livestock water accessibility (No. of months)

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: No of livestock keepers using recommended animal husbandry practises

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: No of livestock keepers using recommended animal husbandry practises

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Readiness to use improved bulls and correct stocking, % reduction of uncontrolled fire burning

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: Readiness to use improved bulls and correct stocking, % reduction of uncontrolled fire burning

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: Increased animal production and productivit

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Hectare of range land well conserved

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: Hectare of range land well conserved

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: No. of livestock keepers adopting improved pasture managment and use of improved bulls, % reduction of land conflicts

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: No. of livestock keepers adopting improved pasture managment and use of improved bulls, % reduction of land conflicts

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: The level of community involvement and ownership of the approach

management of Approach aspects were monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: The level of community involvement and ownership of the approach

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring and evaluation revealed the need to devolve supervision and management of completed project (charco dam, pasture demo and improved bulls) to beneficiary groups.

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

  • problem analysis and identification
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Technologies needed for solving the existing land problems and improvement of the situation were identified through project supported participatory and multi-stakeholder problem analysis/research events

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • 10,000-100,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international non-government (North South Trans border Project (NSTP) ): 50.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Missenyi District Council ): 30.0%; local community / land user(s) (Bubale Community ): 20.0%

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)

  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
dam excavation equipment partly financed
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
fully financed pasture seed
  • construction
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
stone, wood and bank stabilization materials partly financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary
Comments:

Labour was largely voluntary and partly as casual. labour was substantial input in various activities including excavation of dam, land tilling, loading and unloading of construction materials.

NSTP supported fully financed inputs as kick start investment.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Land conflicts and incidences of uncontrolled fire burning are currently minimal compared to the time before and livestock keepers are currently enjoying year-round availability of water for animal watering.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

This is in terms of easy access to water for both domestic use and animal drinking and improved bulls and acquisition of new skills

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The approach give emphasis to tackling land issues through association life i.e. through group organization and management.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

15 livestock keepers in Bubale village have adopted improved pasture management (in terms of establishment of improved pasture and fencing) and 5 of them have procured improved bulls.

Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Livestock keepers who adopted improved pasture and use of improved bulls are realizing improved animal productivity. On the other hand improved productivity is the result of year round accessibility of water. Improved animal productivity has direct impact to improve income and human well-being. In general there is a great promising feature.

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The approach helped much in land conflict resolution and acquisition of new land conservation skills and ultimately opened opportunities for land users to use land resource to raise their income and meet their other vital needs like water, improved pasture and high productive and genetically improved animals.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

Promote improved animal production

  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio

Promote improved animal productivity and consequently improved profit

  • reduced workload

Availability of water at close proximity for both animal and domestic use reduce fetch work load

  • rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement

Rules and regulation guiding the use of technologies are stimulus and motivating factors to adoption

  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks

Promote common efforts aiming to ending land conflicts and associational life to land managemet

  • environmental consciousness

Land users are made aware of the root causes of the land degradation and take appropriate action

  • well-being and livelihoods improvement

Improved animal production and productivity have positive impact to well-being

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:

After the kick start support by the project then operation and supervision of the charco dam, pasture demo plot & improved bulls are devolved to the group of gender balanced beneficiaries who are selected through community priority and selection. Payments of user fee and penalties for those who violate set rules and regulations enable the community to manage operational, maintenance and other costs.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
1. Easy to access necessary external supportive resources
2. Foster complementary and collaborative working relationship with multi-stakeholders
3. Reduce land conflicts
4. Open opportunity to shift from tradition to commercial livestock keeping (e.g. through acquisition of improved bulls)
5.
(How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Scale up use of the approach
Maintain complementary and collaborative working relationship
Maintain the use of technology
Scale up use of the approach
)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
1. Is collaborative and integrative
2. Highly rely on the use of existing local institutions and forums
3. Quick win results and incentive system (e.g. pasture seeds) speed up adaption and innovation
4. Multilevel participation and collaboration
5.
(How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Strengthen and maintain collaboration and integration
Continue strengthening use and operationization of existing institutions and forums
Maintain quick win interventions and incentive system
Maintain multilevel participation and collaboration

)

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?
1. Destruction of established structures (e.g. fencing materials) by dishonest land users. Strengthen security (e.g. community police) and law enforcement
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
1. High initial investment cost e.g. in charco dam construction/ improved bulls.
2. Difficulties in the use and management of collective pasture demo plots
Introduce user fee and strengthen group associations and rural credit facilities & financial institutions (e.g. SACCOS)
Devolve management of demo plots to beneficiary groups & provide training in supervision, operation and management of pasture demo plots.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules