Overall Objective

To support civil society actors in Turkana county, Kenya to prevent and resolve land-related conflicts through community-centered and sustainable approaches.

Specific Objectives:

Explanation of the objectives

To support civil society actors in Turkana County, Kenya to prevent and resolve land-related conflicts through community-centred and sustainable approaches (overall objective), it is not only civil society actors that need to be empowered and mobilized. It requires the mobilization and constructive engagement of civil society actors, government (in particular at the county level) and private sector around locally-owned, community-centred solutions to land-related conflicts and natural resource management. Previous work from DDG, such as the UK-funded “LAPSSET Conflict Mapping” project (2014-2015) shows that constructive relationships can be established at county and national level without civil society organizations (CSOs) losing their ability to hold the government and private sector accountable. Throughout such engagement, it is critical that evidence-based and viable alternatives come to influence discourse and that concrete action is taken which places affected borderland communities at the centre of conflict reduction efforts and promote commitment and accountability among local and national leaders to stop fuelling communal tension and violence. However, government authorities and private sector actors only engage with and respond to CSOs if these can show that they have the capacity needed to be a credible, legitimate and constructive partner. Similarly, CSOs can only perform their oversight role when they have a collective voice and improved credibility, legitimacy, capacity and access to evidence to monitor that provisions agreed upon in mediated agreements are implemented. Lastly, more community-centred, conflict sensitive land governance and resolution of land-related conflicts can only be achieved if CSOs manage to link their advocacy trajectories effectively to constructive engagement with government and private sector. 

Target group(s)

County government, County Commissioner and Governors Offices: require credible CSO input about local needs to increase leverage and efficiency, and insight into county level planning/budgetary processes; Constrained by lack of information and participation in national level development planning. The action will provide them with grassroots information and recommendations, and will partner with them in land governance, building local alliances around common interests and common objectives.

Central government actors, line ministries and audit departments: require accurate information to improve efficiencies, quality, monitoring and resource management, often not connected to the reality of needs on the ground. The action will structurally engage with them through multi-stakeholder dialogues.

Private sector actors: require support on formulating and implementing community-centred and conflict sensitive plans and policies. Constrained by sub-optimal relationships with local communities and a lack of contextual understanding to translate CSR and international standards into practical solutions and. The action will structurally engage with them through multi-stakeholder dialogues and targeted advocacy.

Religious and community leaders: crucial for awareness raising, acceptance of changes and influencing the government, but often not connected with CSOs, land governance, or natural resource management processes. The CSOs will structurally engage with these actors.

Community land management committees and Community Assemblies: In line with the Community Land Acts 2016, these structures are now operational at the county and community levels respectively. Tasked with administration, registration and decision-making on community land matters, it is crucial to include them in the land governance and advocacy dialogues for sustainable local solutions and integration of conflict sensitive approaches in the implementation of their activities.  Constrained by inadequate information, understanding of their own decision-making powers on behalf of communities they represent, they are vulnerable to pressures from private sectors and government actors. Required actions include sensitization and creating awareness of the selection process and requirement for the committees and empowerment.

Grassroots CSOs/community-based actors: need capacity to monitor land governance and access to natural resources and to be a credible, legitimate and constructive partner of the government and the private sector, constrained by poor influencing strategies or activities, lack of collective voice or little structural engagement with the government. Frequent turnover of local government officials and lack of clarity about policies also hampers their effective participation in advocacy and monitoring processes. The action will provide capacity development support.

Final beneficiaries: Citizens need more access to the benefits of land, natural resources and development in Turkana, but there are particular vulnerable groups, including women and girls, disabled people, pastoralist communities and others who are disproportionally affected by the lack of efficient, transparent and inclusive land governance and natural resource management. The action will bring their voice and needs into the governance process through campaigns and other advocacy activities.

Estimated outputs

Estimated outputs

1.1 Development of civic education manual on rights, roles and responsibilities in land governance

1.2 Training on rights, roles and responsibilities in land governance and conflict-sensitive best practices for civil servants and CSOs;

1.3 Conflict prevention and management training for civil servants and CSOs

1.4 Training on advocacy, evidence-based research;

2.1 Participatory Action Research to support influencing trajectories;

2.2 Evidence-based advocacy planning workshops;

2.3 Facilitated implementation of advocacy trajectories;

3.1 Multi-stakeholder dialogue meetings on land governance and mediation;

3.2 Monitoring of provisions agreed during dialogue meetings 3.3 Gathering local stories and perceptions (using Sprockler).