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)

Scaling-up SLM practices by smallholder farmers (IFAD)

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

National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) - Lao People's Democratic Republic

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

31/08/2017

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

The disaster risk reduction project in upland communities aims to increase understanding about disaster management, disaster risk reduction, and community resilience. The main activities include emergency response during floods/droughts, reduction of impacts from disease outbreaks, livestock revolving funds, and village rice banks.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The disaster risk reduction project in upland communities was established after the Ketsana typhoon hit the southern region of Lao PDR in 2008, causing significant losses to assets, infrastructure, and agricultural land. The project was approved by the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, and Ministry of Planning and Investment to be implemented at community level through a project steering committee which included the deputy provincial governor. The district governor was the project director at the local level based on an action plan developed by the ministries concerned with assistance from Oxfam Australia. This action plan was aimed at disaster prevention and control. The project coordinators came from the relevant government agencies including the District Labour and Social Welfare Office, the District Agriculture and Forestry Office, the District Administration Office, the District Health Office, the District of Natural Resources and Environment Office, and mass organizations (Women’s Union, Youth Union, Trades Union, and Lao Front for National Construction). The key project aims are to increase understanding about disaster management, disaster risk reduction, and community resilience. The main activities to be implemented include emergency response during floods/droughts, reduction of impacts from disease outbreaks, livestock revolving funds, and village rice banks. In the agriculture sector, the project promotes integrated crop cultivation (maize, beans, lemons, etc), a particular rice planting method termed SRI (System of Rice Intensification), and household gardens. In addition, Oxfam Australia and the local government of Lao PDR in cooperation with Care International (Xekong Province), and the World Food Programme provided emergency response and relief, and sanitation. Although there are a number of organizations which have contributed to disaster risk reduction and emergency response, constraints remain such as the implementation of limited life projects, inadequate funding, and a lack of coordination in the province and districts.. Village Committees for Disaster Prevention and Control have been established with regular meetings and disaster awareness campaign activities implemented. The project outcomes demonstrated that the communities are satisfied with their active participation.

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

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The objectives of the project are to increase understanding about disaster management, disaster risk reduction, and community development in disaster impacted areas.

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	interactive
planning	interactive
implementation	interactive
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive
Field exchange	interactive	Facilitate 20 staff and training on disaster management and 7 farmers from each village conducted the field exchange on rice production technologies.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

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

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

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer

Subjects covered:

The fund management, water supply uses, rice bank, veterinary, chicken raising, aquaculture, rice production, disaster risk preparedness and response, typhoon, forest fires, disaster warning equipment.

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:

Once per month

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

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

The district and village committees for disaster prevention and control are responsible for supervising, acting as focal points and reporting to the provincial and central levels.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

The M&E team of the Oxfam project organized a monthly monitoring meeting involving collaboration with the community board at village and district levels.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

Ja

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

A number of potentially appropriate activities have been modified to fit local conditions, such as: promotion economics / marketing of animal breeds that people never raised before.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Indicate the annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach in US$:

100000.00

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

AUSAid funding source

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Ja

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Financial supported by AUSAid and implemented by Oxfam Australia

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• labour

• construction

• infrastructure

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

• food-for-work

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Nee

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

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:

The rice production and animal breeding groups are able to maintain their initiatives. Gravity fed water supply system, school, road have been supported by other development organizations.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Project implementation plan is parallel with the district development strategy and meets the needs of local people.
Build understanding on project management, project coordination in each level.
Continuous project monitoring for approximately 3 – 5 years.
Mobilization for participation in activities.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The project apply the participatory approach from early stage until monitoring phase.
Promotion of all concerned agencies and offices.
Detailed assessment for capacity building in planning for equipment/material supply, vehicles, staff visit the villages regularly.

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?
The staff lack appropriate knowledge and skills	Provide more training on technical knowledges and skills and other relevant topics.
There is still a large gap to understanding on certain topics between officials and local communities.	On-the-job training, use video as a means for communication to increase local people’s understanding.
Dependency on project and government to implement activities.
Some immoral traditional and cultural beliefs are still hindering development efforts.	It is recommended to increase awareness of village elders who can then influence the local people.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lack of financial resources to monitor project activities.
There were issues with repayment to village development fund, animal revolving fund in order to rotate to other households.	The need to have a robust contract and revise regulations.
Delayed supply of materials which is impact to late activity implementation.
Hand over of responsibilities to persons with insufficient capability.	Consider to transfer the activity to local implementers.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information