Are Innovation Platforms possible Institutions

for Integrated Natural Resource Management

Practices at Landscape Level?

Verrah Otiende, Joseph Tanui, Rick Kamugisha, Mieke Bourne, Jeremias Mowo

What is an Innovation platform (IP)

A broader environment for learning and change

Various actors from different backgrounds: farmers,traders, food processors, researchers, governmentofficials, development practitioners, etc.

Collective diagnosis of challenges, identification ofopportunities and plan of achieving mutual goals

Innovation platforms (IPs)

Referred to in various names including multi-stakeholderarrangements, innovation networks, coalitions or public-private partnerships

Work at a single level or across several levels: value chainor economic sector

Considered as channels for catalyzing collective action toenhance sustainable smallholder livelihoods and ruraldevelopment

IPs contribution to innovation processes through a casestudy of Kapchorwa District Landcare Chapter(KADLACC) in eastern Uganda

The AGILE concept

The African Grassroots Innovation for Livelihood andEnvironment (AGILE) concept spearheaded theestablishment of KADLACC as an IP

Evolved through insights from work carried out atcommunity and district levels that focused on:

Community assets

Institutional dynamics

Livelihood and environmental conservation

The AGILE concept

Hinged on four pillars of learning:

Exploration of livelihood opportunities

Farmer institutional development

Linking conservation to development

Lesson learning framework at various levels

Geared towards influencing community, researchand development institutions towards a holisticsustainable INRM based on the 6 principles ofLandcare

6 Principles of Landcare

Integrated Sustainable Natural ResourceManagement practices addressing primary causesof natural resource decline

Community based and led natural resourcemanagement within a participatory framework

The development of sustainable livelihoods forindividuals, groups and communities utilizingempowerment strategies

6 Principles of Landcare

Government, community and individual capacitybuilding through targeted training, education andsupport mechanisms

The development of active and true partnershipsbetween governments, Landcare groups andcommunities, non-government organizations

The blending together of appropriate upper levelpolicy processes with bottom up feedbackmechanisms

Case description

Kapchorwa District Land Care Chapter (KADLACC) isan innovation platform of 22 grassrootsorganizations

Targets the marginalized poor communities andvulnerable groups in the degraded densely populatedwatersheds with low productivity.

Facilitates collective action for integrated naturalresources management and community formulatedINRM by-laws

KADLACC structure

Why KADLACC?

The case of KADLACC provides an indication of an IPachieving tangible INRM outcomes

Study focused on seven farmer groups purposivelyselected:

Involved from inception of the platform

Have evolved over the period of the IP

Sufficiently advanced thus adequate depth ofexperience to elucidate the innovation process

Key Challenges

• Declining vegetation cover

• Declining soil fertility

• Erosion and landslides

• Conflict in Forest areas

• Gender inequality

• Weak farmer institutions and structures

Why KADLACC

Integrated development and NRM planning fromvillage to sub-county levels

Linking of farmer learning cycles to trainedfacilitators

Appreciative inquiry into the process of buildinglocal level assets and the spirit of volunteerism

Defined process of linking livelihood goals toconservation objectives advocated for by thecommunity

Major interventions through the IP

Strengthened role of local government structures inintegrated NRM planning; involvement of communitymembers in policy reform

Strategies under development for enhancing linkagesto markets in the context of environmentalconservation

Maintained agility and ability to identify newopportunities

Ensuring ownership by the local community

Major interventions through the IP

Significant increase in the number of treesplanted between 2003 and 2011

Key results

Key results

Development and implementation of community bylaws to support watershed management

Key results

Increased enterprise opportunities from land investments; income generation and asset accumulation

Outcomes at Household level:

• Reduced free range grazing

• Increased livestock production

• Increased agroforestry tree cover

• Reduced landsides frequency

• Increased food production

• Increased income opportunities

The REAL Outcomes:• Community cohesion and unity – evidenced

by the networking, knowledge sharing, relationships & trust

• Gender balancing – workloads and decision making

• Youth engagement

• Local by laws formation and implementation

Conclusion

Innovation Platforms are useful in engaging actors

at grassroots levels into integrated initiatives that

yield better returns in NRM

THANK YOU