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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6508, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Safe Environment & Wildlife Africa (SEWA)', 'template': 'raw'}

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

2.1 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

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

• 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

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	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)

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)

4.1 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

5.1 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

• agricultural

• infrastructure

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)

6.1 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:

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

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

None

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

None