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

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

11/07/2012

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

Ja

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The way and means through which a performing farmers adopt and use a combination of indigenous and scientific to maximaze production.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: To adopt and combine indigenous (traditional) and Scientific knowledge in Kibanja system to improve farm productivity through soil and water use efficiency.

Methods: Continuous adoption of indigenous knowledge through story telling and experience
Adoption of technical knowledge extension officers, knowledgeable farmers, projects and research agencies
Implementing the adopted knowledge to the farm


Stages of implementation: Area identification
Area planned phased and rehabilitation and mitigation
Continuous monitoring and supervision to prevent degradation
Introduce small and large stock for manure production


Role of stakeholders: Land user: Promote and use the technology
Community:Maine implementor of the technology,Source of labour
Extension and research:Provision of technical advise
Financial institution for financial capital support
Clan/Family: Family labour

Other important information: Though land ownership is through customary law, but approach is used by both gender, all family members benefit equally from the use of the approach.
Application of this approach needs integrative and proper conceptual understanding of both indigenous and

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.7 Type of Approach

• Integrated knowledge adoption(traditional,innovative,project)

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Improvement of house hold food security and income)

To improve agricultural production and productivity
Sustainable utilization of land and water
To minimize loss during adverse condition (drought/Wind)
To improve house hold food security,income and livelihood

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Low agricultural production
Inadequate complementary use of indigenous and technical knowledge
Poor livelihood and income

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	Land user and his family
planning	self-mobilization	Land user and his family
implementation	self-mobilization	Land user and his family
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	Land user and his family
Research	self-mobilization	Land user and his family

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

The land user through his own initiative basing on experience and interaction with other land user and experts decide on the proper technology to use

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). The land user through his own initiative basing on experience and interaction with other land user and experts decide on the proper technology to implementation of the technology

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 2,000-10,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (Land user on his own): 100.0%

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

7.1 Methods/ sources of information