Integrated Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation Project [Zimbabwe]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Kalulu Mumpande
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: William Critchley, Joana Eichenberger
IWBCP
approaches_7367 - Zimbabwe
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach
Key resource person(s)
co-compiler:
Mumpande Kalulu
+263773667529 / +263773667529
mumpandekalulu@yahoo.com / safesewa@gmail.com
Safe Environment & Wildlife Africa
Stand No. 1659 Medium Density Binga
Zimbabwe
SLM specialist:
Mumkombwe Jane
+263 773666246 / +263 773666246
katemunkombwe46@gmail.com / katemunkombwe46@gmail.com
Agriculture & Rural Development Advisory Services (ARDAS)
Binga medium Density Stand no// 872 Binga
Zimbabwe
land user:
Susan Mwembe
+263782644815 / +263782644815
Nil / Nil
Smallholder Farmer
Manjolo Primary School P.O Box 10 Binga
Zimbabwe
land user:
Mudenda Naison
+263771152184 / +263771152184
Nil / Nil
Smallholder Farmer
Manjolo Primary School P.O Box 10 Binga
Zimbabwe
Indigenous Knowledge Guardian:
Mwembe Nomai
+263775256810 (Daughter) / +263775256810 (Daughter)
Nil / Nil
Community Elderly
Manjolo Primary School P.O Box 10 Binga
Zimbabwe
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Safe Environment & Wildlife Africa (SEWA)1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
21/10/2024
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
The integrated wetlands biodiversity conservation project aims to restore wetlands and associated biodiversity. The approach strengthens the resilience of neighbouring marginalized groups to climate change through developing lifelong skills and providing livelihoods support.
2.2 Detailed description of the Approach
Detailed description of the Approach:
The Integrated Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation Project aims to restore wetlands and associated biodiversity. It is a 2-year project which started in June 2023 with the support of a USD 50,000.00 grant from the Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme, implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP-GEFSGP). The approach strengthens the resilience of neighbouring community to climate change through developing lifelong skills and providing livelihood support. It targets those marginalized groups surrounding protected areas, who experience severe droughts due to high cases of human-wildlife conflicts, making them highly food insecure. The approach is simultaneously improving sustainable management and utilization of the Masibinta wetland and its catchment.
Technical activities are targeted at restoring Masibinta wetland’s ecological integrity by protecting the wetland, implementing conservation agriculture in its catchment, reforesting bare land, controlling and reshaping gullies to create small ponds, and removing a bushy invasive species (Ipomoea carnea) while making compost from its leaves and branches. The ponds increase the recharge of the wetland. This helps provide water to the community and at the same time acts as a barrier to soil erosion and epicenters for natural vegetative cover regeneration and biodiversity restoration. Land degradation neutrality is an overall goal.
Specific targets include:
(a) Protection, rehabilitation and conservation of 13 hectares of Masibinta wetlands, as well as reclamation of degraded land in and around the wetland, while increasing the capacity of the community members to conserve biodiversity.
(b) Increasing access of 387 households to adequate and clean water.
(c) Reduction of invasive species in the wetlands by 80%, and reclamation of 1000 m of gullies.
(d) Promotion of sustainable use and management of Masibinta wetland through regenerative agriculture, livelihood support and imparting lifelong skills to 50 youths (30 females and 20 males).
A variety of technical and social methods are employed:
(a) Grey and Green Infrastructure (GGI): hybrid restoration techniques that involve the combination of engineered structures and Nature-based Solutions (NbS).
(b) Regenerative agriculture: including mulching, mixed cultivation, crop rotation, agroforestry, use of organic manure in nutrition gardens, and zero tillage (“Maganko”).
(c) Incentives: monetary incentives to the community members who offer their labour.
(d) Self-mobilization.
(e) Peer-to-peer learning.
(f) Problem-solving.
The stages of implementation involved are:
(a) Baseline survey,
(b) Education and training of project support staff, stakeholders,
(c) Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL),
(d) Livelihood support,
(e) Protection of the wetland, then MEL,
(f) Borehole Drilling,
(g) Invasive species management, then MEL,
(h) Gully modification, and
(i) Evaluation and Learning.
The stakeholders involved and their roles are:
(a) Environmental Management Agency (EMA): Implement and monitor restoration activities in the wetland and assess the impact of barricading the gully on the environment.
(b) Forestry Commission (FC): Nursery establishment, management and tree planting.
(c) Agriculture and Rural Advisory Services (ARDAS): Train farmers on agroforestry, goat rearing, climate-smart agriculture, gully reclamation, and polyculture.
(d) Rural and Infrastructure Development Agency (RIDA): oversees all engineering work.
(e) Ministry of Youth Empowerment Development and Vocational Training (MYEDVT): Monitoring youth engagement and benefits.
(f) Ministry of Women Affairs Community Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MWACSMED): Tracked and monitored inclusion and entrepreneurship.
(h) United Nations Development Programme – Grant disbursement, monitoring and evaluating the implementation and sustainability of IWBCP at the national level in line with the GEFSGP expectations.
2.3 Photos of the Approach
2.4 Videos of the Approach
Date:
02/02/2024
Location:
Manjolo
Name of videographer:
Kalulu Mumpande
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied
Country:
Zimbabwe
Region/ State/ Province:
Matebeleland North
Further specification of location:
Binga
Comments:
Masibinta wetland, surrounded by bare catchment areas
Map
×2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach
Indicate year of initiation:
2023
If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date when the Approach was initiated:
less than 10 years ago (recently)
Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):
2025
2.7 Type of Approach
- project/ programme based
2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach
The Approach aimed at developing an environmentally responsive community, capable of managing and utilizing Masibinta Wetland most sustainably through:
(a)Increasing knowledge and skills in restoring degraded and conserving the restored land
(b)Improving perceptions on biodiversity and building best practices which promote sustainability of the natural resources capital
(c)Increasing conservation benefit sharing and improving governance of the natural resources
2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach
collaboration/ coordination of actors
- enabling
Collaboration between the stakeholder and the community enabled the Approach to win a Provincial Award: Excellence in Biodiversity Restoration and Social Impact.
legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
- hindering
Land is owned along family lines which make it difficult to restore. For example a 100-meters portion of a gully which was reclaimed was later cleared to paved a way for a garden by the family member.
policies
- hindering
Lack of policy on conservation cultivation
knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
- hindering
The stakeholders have limited knowledge on disaster risk reduction and regenerative farming
markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices
- hindering
Limited access to markets which offers competitive prices for the landers as producers.
workload, availability of manpower
- hindering
The work load is huge and the manpower is limited. The support staff were on a voluntary contract.
3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
- local land users/ local communities
Traditional leaders and community members
Community members provided labour and security of materials and food during the Approach's activities. They also monitored and evaluated the Approach and provided valuable lessons. Traditional leadership provided the approach's local oversight role, whipped members into line, provided Indigenous knowledge, and guided the implementation process in accordance with the values and beliefs of the Manjolo community. Traditional leadership was key in information dissemination and resolution of issues which would otherwise affect the success of the Approach
- SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
Agriculture & Rural Development Advisory Services (ARDAS), ZimParks, Forest Commission, Environmental Management Agency (EMA), Small to Medium Enterprises, Ministry of Youth, Social Development, Ministry of Information, Ministry of Health and Child Welfare
Provided technical support, training community members, and local management committees. Supervising activities and evaluating the Approach
- local government
Binga District Development Committee
Monitoring and Evaluation of the Approach
Providing supportive framework and ensuring that the Approach keep in line with the district's development agenda
If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:
Environment Management Agency (EMA) and Agriculture & Rural Development Advisory Services (ARDAS)
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 | self-mobilization | Smallholder farmers The initiation began in October 2022 where the organized a meeting and invited SEWA. At this meeting the farmer highlighted the degradation of Masibinta wetland and how the degradation was negatively affecting their lives. The farmers gave suggestion on possible solutions to the challenges faced. |
planning | interactive | Smallholder farmers, youth, traditional leaders, local business community, church leaders, teachers, Rural Care Givers, Health Workers, Resources Monitors, Counsellors, People with Disability In December 2022, the farmers who initiated the Approach mobilized community members to a planning meetings, developed activities, pledged own contribution to the Approach, outlined roles of each social group in the Approach, developed ways of mobilizing locally available materials and selected management committees and local lines of communication. They also identified potential challenges and suggested ways of dealing with the challenges that could otherwise arise from the Approach |
implementation | interactive | The smallholder farmers, traditional leaders, local business community, youth, church leaders, teachers, Rural Care Givers, Health Workers, Resources Monitors, Counsellors, People with Disability The implementation started in July 2023 after GEFSGP had supported the Approach with a grant of $50,000.00 through the UNDP. The community members worked together and provided labour and security of materials and food during the Approach's activities. They also monitored and evaluated the Approach and provided valuable lessons. Traditional leadership provided the approach's local oversight role, whipped members into line, provided Indigenous knowledge, and guided the implementation process in accordance with the values and beliefs of the Manjolo community. Traditional leadership was key in information dissemination and resolution of issues which would otherwise affect the success of the Approach |
monitoring/ evaluation | interactive | Small holder farmers, youth, traditional leaders, local business community, church leaders, teachers, Rural Care Givers, Health Workers, Resources Monitors, Counsellors, and People with Disability, These provided the views on how the Approach impacted their lives and also on what needed to be changed. |
3.3 Flow chart (if available)
Description:
Integrated Wetland Biodiversity Conservation Project (IWBCP) Implementation framework
Author:
Mumpande Kalulu
3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies
Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
- all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
Specify on what basis decisions were made:
- personal experience and opinions (undocumented)
4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management
4.1 Capacity building/ training
Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?
Yes
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.
124 smallholder farmers (69 females, 55 males), 10 Village Heads (2 females, 11males), and 2 Ward-based Environment Monitors (all males) were capacity developed from the 32 hours structured training on land and biodiversity restoration and conservation. During the training the participants were engaged through presentations, drama, role plays, scenarios, problem-solving and field trips. The key stakeholders drawn from government line ministries, and Binga Rural District Council trained the the beneficiaries.
Form of training:
- on-the-job
- farmer-to-farmer
- public meetings
Subjects covered:
Biodiversity conservation, project infrastructure management, sustainable land management, agroforestry, gully reclamation, conservation farming, climate change, and environmental policies
Comments:
The training sessions were not enough due to limited budget. Each training was conducted conducted over for 8hrs and the participants had little time for hands-on participation.
4.2 Advisory service
Do land users have access to an advisory service?
Yes
Specify whether advisory service is provided:
- on land users' fields
- at permanent centres
Describe/ comments:
The Rural & Infrastrure Development Agency , Forest Commission and Agriculture & Rural Development Advisory Services provided advisory services to land users crop fields preparation, gully reclamation, tree planting, and wetland management
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
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Community Management Committee and local constitution
Supervision of the land users and enforcing constitution
Specify type of support:
- capacity building/ training
Give further details:
The management committee was trained once on their roles. However, more structured training would enhance their discharge of duties
4.4 Monitoring and evaluation
Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?
Yes
Comments:
Continuous monitoring was carried out by the Approach support staff. Monitoring and Evaluation was done quarterly, involving all key stakeholders
If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?
No
4.5 Research
Was research part of the Approach?
No
5. Financing and external material support
5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach
Indicate the annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach in US$:
25000.00
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):
-Co-funding
-Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme, implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP_GEFSGP)
5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users
Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?
Yes
If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):
Fencing materials, stationary, cement, goats, seed inputs
Provider: UNDP_GEFSGP
5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)
- equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
tools | partly financed | |
Fencing material | fully financed | |
- agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
seeds | partly financed | |
- infrastructure
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
Fence | fully financed | |
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
- voluntary
Comments:
The land user provided voluntary work during the fencing of the wetland. An additional funding of $15,000.00 for the management of the Ipomoea carnea and gully medication has been secured from he G20 Global Land Restoration Initiative. Under these activities, the land users will be provided and an incentive of $1.50 per day per individual for the provision of labour. The activities are yet to be implemented once the funds are disbursement into SEWA's bank account.
5.4 Credit
Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?
No
5.5 Other incentives or instruments
Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?
Yes
If yes, specify:
Monetary incentive (for activities which are yet to be done using the additional support from the G20 Global Land Restoration Initiative)
6. Impact analysis and concluding statements
6.1 Impacts of the Approach
Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
124 land users were trained, supported with seed imputes, and goats.
Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Decisions were made based on data gathered from community engagements, lessons learned from the before projects in the area and the surveys conducted as a baseline.
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Land users have reclaimed 100 metres of gullies, implemented conservation cultivation, used nature-based approaches to restore the wetland
Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The use of Nature-based Solutions and indigenous knowledge reduced the cost of implementing the SLM as such approaches are cheaper in terms of cost. Approach improved coordination between the project management and land users through clearly defined roles and lines of communication
Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Mobilized finances from the Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP-GEFSGP). Finances have also been mobilized from the G20 Global Land Initiative, though yet to be disbursed into SEWA's bank account.
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
124 land users were trained on SLM and were given kowledge material such as brochures.
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Not much training of stakeholders was done. However the stakeholders drew lessons from the project and shared their experience during project progress update meetings.
Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Each and every stakeholder involved in the project had clearly defined roles and synergies
Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The fencing of wetland including the nutrition gardens and the development of the land users' constitution mitigated conflicts
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Assisted women, youth and people with disability with female goats. These groups were trained under the same rood
Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Financial limitation reduced the engagement of youth in Manjolo as the effective method of engaging youth in Manjolo require a reasonable budget
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 has not yet tackled the issue
Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Through crop yields, and income generation projects.
Did the Approach improve access to markets?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Local market. Land users are supply Boarding School and a hospital with green vegetables
Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Boreholes Drilling couldn't find water.
Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The Approach did not look at energy
Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Through training and livelihoods support
2 youth were employed for fencing
6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
- increased production
Improved protection of their crops in nutrition gardens, increased crop production, ownership and management of the wetland.
- increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
81 out of 144 wetland users reported an average increase of 32% from their incomes over the last cropping season. 79 out of 144 reported an average increase of 40 kg of maize production in the last between November 2023 and March 2024. All wetland user reported reduced destruction of their crops by livestock over the past cropping season.
- reduced land degradation
67 Farmers adopted the use of organic fertilizers and 23 were involved in the demo plots for poly cropping. The wetland user protected 13 seeps using the reeds. 15 farmers have since abandoned the use of brash wood fencing adopting the edible hedging. These practices have reduced land degradation. However restoration is still ongoing to realize full impact of the Approach.
- reduced risk of disasters
89 out 144 households which used to miss at least a meal per day during the drought months (July to February) reported that they never missed a meal between July 2024 and October 2024.
- reduced workload
The fencing of wetland has significantly reduced the workload particularly for women and girls who used to spend about 27% of their 24-Hour Day manning their gardens from animals. A 12% decrease in time spend looking after crops has been observed.
- rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
As way of improving sustainability of Masibinta wetland, the community have set rule and regulations for the management of the resources. The trespassers are liable to a commensurate fines and the rules are enforces at local level by the Community Management Committee (CMC) and the traditional leadership. The community members participate in the enforcement of the rules through being own police.
- prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
Masibinta Wetland saves support 2400 community members and 3 schools with water, livelihoods and income for feeds and health needs. The restoration of the wetland by the Approach has unified different groups in the community by working and living together for a common cause. It has improved social relationships, pride and reduced poverty
- affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
As a result of the Approach, SEWA has joined the UNCCD and WOCAT Network.
- environmental consciousness
The Land Users have formed the Manjolo Environment Defenders Club (MEDC). The MEDC was formed as community initiative led by women after being educated by the Approach on land restoration and Protection. The club carries out peer-to -peer education on best environmental practices, such as encouraging fellow Land Users to use organic fertilizers, stop cutting of trees, accouraging safe use of wetland and monitoring the wetland health. The club started with 4 women but now the membership has grown to 15. This shows improved environmental consciousness as a result of the Approach
- customs and beliefs, morals
The Approach has improved the Land Users' awareness of the importance of conserving land resources. This motivated them to explore beyond what they were taught. They now value nature more that before the implementation of the approach.
- enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
The training reconceived by the Land Users has equipped them with skills to contract gabions, plants trees, raise tree nurseries for commercial purpose. Two of the youth who were trained in fence installation got contracts on fencing. The farmers who were trained on regenerative agriculture, are now practicing on their crop fields.
- aesthetic improvement
The Approach's innovativeness and novelty made to appeal o the Land Users
- conflict mitigation
Conflicts caused by livestock destroying crops in nutritional gardens have been reduced. However due to the improved habitat conditions, crocodiles and pythons have since invaded the wetland and new conflicts have arisen between these species and the farmers. How, SEWA is working with the Community Resources, Communal Areas Management Programmes For Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) and Zimbabwe Parks & Wildlife Management Authority (ZimParks) in monitoring and relocating the crocodiles and pythons.
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:
In terms of human sustainability, the training that the Land Users have received, skills and knowledge that they have gained will enable them to continue with the project activities without any external support. The involvement of the Land Users in decision making structures and programmes will enable Land Users to make and implement key decisions beyond the external support. The income generating projects and the Internal Savings and Lending Schemes introduced under the Approach will ensure financial sustainability. The training of the stakeholders by the Approach provide the technical sustainability.
6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
---|
The Approach is providing women with financial independence and choices. |
The Approach is empowering the marginalized community groups with climate resilient and bankable assets. For example 12 youth, 3 people with disability and 10 women have been assisted with 2 female goats, increasing conservation benefits. |
The land Users view the Approach as their out of hunger and poverty |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
Views the Approach as sustaible and transformative development. |
The Approach is viewed as practical demonstration of sustainable land management |
Viewed as a sources of lessons for the partners and environmentalists |
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? |
---|---|
The Approach has a limited thrust on influencing policy and land tenure | Involving policy makers at local level |
The Approach has not identified learning areas | Identify learning areas through monitoring and evaluation sessions |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
The ponds may cause risk of drowning of children as kids love playing in water | Constructing shallow ponds |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
24
- interviews with land users
6
- interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
1
7.2 References to available publications
Title, author, year, ISBN:
None
7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online
Title/ description:
None
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules