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

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

The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )

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

Rwanda Agriculture Board (Rwanda Agriculture Board) - Rwanda

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

Diffusion of sustainable land management technologies through an effective farmer-to-farmer diffusion approach

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Knowledge sharing through observation and experiments of self motivated individual farmers. The spillover of a technology/practice among farmers is simply motivated by good yield and other production factors of the technologies.

Methods: Farmer to farmer learning and adoption of new products/technology

Stages of implementation: Existing of best and new technologies, curiosity of farmers about the new product, experiment of the new products and adoption.

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

2.7 Type of Approach

• traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (maintenance of soil moisture and soil fertility)

Learning from others' experiences.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Low productivity of lands due to poor management of soil and low/none use of agricultural inputs. In addition, the problem is aggravated by inadequate soil erosion control measures.

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	Individual farmers by simple observation of what is happening in the neighborhood.
planning	self-mobilization	Individual initiative and this starts by curiosity and awareness. A self motivated farmer approaches the owner of promising agricultural technologies/practices for more details.
implementation	self-mobilization	There is no formal model
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization
Research	passive

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:

Innovative land users make a promotion of a technology and other farmers learn from them.

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

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

soil moisture conservation and soil fertility improvement

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: Extension; Key elements: farmer to farmer exchange visit

Advisory service is very adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; the impact of the technology on production is very high.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

Economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Farmers observed that the yield increases due to the technology
Area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations
No. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through measurements
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Nee

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• < 2,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (land users): 90.0%; other (governmental SLM specialist): 10.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Nee

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

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

If yes, describe how:

Yes because farmers explain by their own to other farmers which facilitate the spreading of any technology quickly

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
This approach can carry messages and content on other subjects than S.L.M. only (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: promote the approach as a general grassroots-based extension approach)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Both the service provider and the demand groups are local farmers; this approach therefore directly benefits only the local farming community (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: sensitization )
Technologies adopted through farmer-to-farmer diffusion are likely to be more stable and sustainable because innovative farmers will only disseminate successful technologies (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: sensitization )

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
some farmers are resilient to help other	sensitization and involvement of those resilient farmers in local decision making.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information