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)

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

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

SOWAP (SOWAP) - Hungary

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

Kisima Farm Limited - Kenya

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

Yield and income improvements by better soil moisture conservation and reduced labour costs resulting from individual initiative

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Overall purpose: improved yield and income. Specific objectives: Soil misture conservation and reduced labour costs for farm operations.

Stages of implementation: A gradual development of expertise through trial and error. Discussion with other farmers trialing a similar technology.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (crop yields, sheep farming)

To improve crop yields and income

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Soil moisture retention, reduced soil fertility, costs of farm operations, need to improve yields

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

3.4 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:

This is a single farm

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up)

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

area treated aspects were None monitored through measurements
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

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: other (farmer income/ savings): 100.0%

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

If yes, describe how:

Individual initiative

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Sets own timelines and goals

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Individual self-drive (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: national appreciation and publicising of such successes)

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?
Taking risks	Seeking expert knowledge

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Spending own resources on uncertain risks	Specialist advice to reduce risk

7.1 Methods/ sources of information