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

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (DEZA / COSUDE / DDC / SDC) - Switzerland

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Italy

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Ja

2.1 Short description of the Approach

All participants that way and means used to promote and implement sWC Technology Support more sustainable.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Gradually improve the livelhood of most vulnerable house hold by wise utilization and conservation of natural Resource with incentives to improve gully degradation, to improve production and productivity by conserving the natural resource, to creat incime generating activities there by improve income of households, to empower local farmers and users how to evaluate, monitor and plan to get forage crops from vegetation, to be aware of land degradation. 1. suggetion, trusing the users and participants, socio economic study, environmental study/survey, implementing, evaluation and monitoring, After all the above process method is earth work Gully Deshope, the problem should adresser according that:- trusting is all participant the 1st stage, Rccording the land use and utilitation or pro and damagings the stage of implementation apply. If the land is degraded the bund strature for moisture harves with biological conservation 2nd, to contrubit the local knowledge, rule moral technology and fancial and material inputes for SWC technology for sustainable use, for transporting, for sharing responsibility, for stroring exprince.

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 focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Land management - to decrease the over grazing use and encourage areas clauser and Rotion use)

to promote and implement a SWC technology to support, sustainable soil and water conservation measure for production and production and productivity and ecological balance.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: the main problems addressed were by human activities, gracature cause, detorestation and removal of natural vegation, over groting.

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	passive
planning	interactive
implementation	external support	responsibility for minor steps
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	measurements/observations;
Research	none	measurements/observations;

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:

the decision must Agreed by land user the plan, monitory and evaluation must be participatory (bottom-up) with land users starting from the vollage unit upto Kebel stage.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). the planing is from bottom up and dicussion with the village unit community

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• extensionists/trainers

Form of training:

• farm visits

Subjects covered:

For modern farmers only - for soil conservation, Agroforestry, Molticalture, animal production and handling.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Individual; Key elements: Teaching/training, Visiting; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

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:

• financial
• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through observations

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

no. of land users involved aspects were monitored through measurements

management of Approach aspects were monitored through observations

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: monitoring is according the plan and aim to/for successing, evaluation, by measuring observation/estimations for out put/impact, then the low method was change e.g. land management/area clause.. According th recommendation of could be change or improve the method or system.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was carried out on station

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (we can't define); international non-government (we don't have); national non-government (finance as budget); local community / land user(s) (only labour); other (but-for running cost for fuel and res)

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

7.1 Methods/ sources of information