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)

Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)

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

Alliance Bioversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT) - Kenya

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

22/03/2023

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

Participatory rehabilitation and productive use of dry valleys is an approach employed to rehabilitate degraded and degradable land. It is operationalised through the Lowland Soil Rehabilitation Project with local development partners from kebele, district, regional agricultural bureaus, and other relevant stakeholders.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Participatory rehabilitation of degraded and degradable dry valleys engages the community at the grassroots through consultation. It is operationalised through the Lowland Soil Rehabilitation Project with local development partners from kebele, district, regional agricultural bureaus, and other relevant stakeholders.
Technical experts from the district and region are involved in reconnaissance, observation and joint selection of the intervention sites. The team conduct a survey, then profile and design the technologies required, along with the project engineer. The approach optimises the participation of the community and agricultural actors, allowing the development of a sense of ownership and accountability through training and awareness-creation exercises. In turn this encourages them to take care of and maintain the structures.
This approach combines top-down and bottom-up methods. At the grassroots, the local agropastoral communities are mobilized by local extension agents and made aware about the SLM intervention that the project and partners strive to put in place – including the physical structures in the farmers' fields and communal lands. The procedures include a site visit, a survey/ observation, and the identification of the intervention site based on the specific topographic features and drainage system of the catchment. Then, detailed field data is collected and a profile analysis is made to develop the design and get approval after stakeholders’ consultation and review of the details of the implementation design. The approach is complemented by satellite imagery and ground truthing. Following this, the next stage is identification of masonry experts, provision of training, and supply of construction materials and tools. Building the masonry works involves both skilled and unskilled labour.
The woreda NRM expert (focal person) facilitate the process at the grassroots through the development agents. The community gives their consent and support to the objectives of the project implementation. Therefore, they are involved in local decision-making and overseeing the technology that is being put in place.
The agropastoral community is the end user and benefits from the positive consequences of the intervention which is a result of better management of soil and water for productive uses of the dry valley. However, because of a lack of awareness, and the agropastoralists conventional livelihoods practice traveling with their livestock, there is a lack of participation in the day-to-day implementation activities. That limits their active contribution in implementation. Of course, local elders value the consultative experience which confirms a sense of self-worth and acknowledges their role in ownership of the land and as the ultimate decision-maker for development intervention operating in their areas.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.4 Videos 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

To engage the community and other stakeholders in making participatory decisions on the rehabilitation of the dry valley.

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	Agropastoralists involve in allowing peers to understand SLM-related intervention.
planning	interactive	Land users involve in participatory planning and decision-making exercise.
implementation	external support	Skilled and unskilled laborers are sources from neighboring urban areas and the intervention kebeles.
monitoring/ evaluation	external support	SLM experts and extension agents support in monitoring and evaluation of the intervention activities.

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:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

The communities are consulted, however, selection decision is made by the SLM experts of the partner organizations in consultation with the project SLM specialists.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• public meetings

Form of training:

• Masonry workers

Subjects covered:

Dry Land Rehabilitation and Produce Use of the rehabilitated land. Basically, the training is on the SLM practices which are suitable for agropastoralist areas with special emphasis on the physical structure.

Comments:

SLM experts from partner organizations and masonry workers were trained to assist in the implementation of SLM practices for dry land rehabilitation.

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:

Advisory services related to SLM are infrequently given. As the agropastoralists are mobile looking for feed and water, particularly during the dry period, advisory services have not been provided on regular basis.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Stakeholders from government and bilateral organization (project) do make ad hoc meeting during planning and evaluation, this brings actors together but need to establish a sustainable institution that stands on its own and can be working beyond the project's lifetime. Particularly, a land users (agropastoralist) group is essential to oversee the technology placed on their land so that sustainability of the intervention can be ensured.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

The equipment refers to the technical tools that can be used by the partner experts - but not farm tools. The latter is expected during which the agropastoralist resumes the productive use of the rehabilitated land which is currently in the initial years of implementation and not yet associated with the productive uses of it.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

The monitoring and evaluation are part of the project implementation that enables the implementers to track the development and engage the end users to enable them to sense the benefits. The land users started to benefit from the structure such as fetching drinking water both for human and their livestock, though, it is an indirect benefit from the intervention.

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

Ja

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:

• 2,000-10,000

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

No specific data on budget allocation for SLM at the district level. However, Local Subsidy Contract (LSC) was used to assist the woreda implement and follow-up the development of the intervention.

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)

Comments:

There is no subsidy system supplied to the land users. Labor contribution is on a pay basis in cash. As the area is characterized by food insecurity and drought-prone by virtue, free labor is not expected. Basically, skilled and unskilled labor imported from the nearby town. Thus, it is impossible to assign this role to the land users.

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)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

As maintenance of the structure such as in cases of check dam is resource demanding, it is less likely for the land users to maintain/repair on their own. Rather early combining the physical structure by biological barriers or perennial forage or tree planation may ensure sustainability of the technology/land use. Furthermore, it demands time and labor from the agro-pastoralists.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Creates stakeholders awareness on SLM, and productive use of rehabilitated dry valley.
Improves coordination between agricultural actors in line offices, and other stakeholders collective action.
Enhances participatory decision making on the development and use of the rehabilitated lands.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It creates evidence based lesson learning to replicate similar practices across the region.
It improves SLM implementation capacity of the development partners (agricultural offices) and the land users at local level.
It encourages the government respective department to allocate matching fund for SLM operationalized by development partners.

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?
Time and energy/labor demanding to integrate efforts of experts from different organizations.	Nurture proper joint planning for collective action.
Shortage of financial and material resources to put the structure in place.	Find and generate sources of resources and promote efficient use of the available budget.
Improper participation of stakeholders (dropout of experts)	Enforce participation through adopting binding by-laws to all.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Recurrent droughts displace the land users while looking for water and feed to their animals.	Ensure representation to the community, and assess enabling environment that reduce temporal displacement of the land users.
Relatively low participation of the land users in the conception and implementation of the approach as well as the technology intended to rehabilitate the dry valley.	Promote land users participation through intensive capacity building and awareness creation by gender and various categories of the community.
Lack of forming agro-pastoralist group who are believed to share knowledge, skills and labor for collective oversee and maintenance of the technology when damage is encountered.	Promote the development of a local institution that allows not only for the use of the land but also to oversee the gaps, report the issues, and involve in participatory fixing activities.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Problems and landscape approach for ecological rehabilitation in the dry valleys of Southwest China. Dong, Y. & Liu, S. (Undated)

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shiliang-Liu-5/publication/221354340_Problems_and_Landscape_Approach_for_Ecological_Rehabilitation_in_the_Dry_Valleys_of_Southwest_China/links/574129be08ae9ace84160bec/

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Supporting local planning and the importance of mapping

URL:

https://dream.vandermeijde.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/220620_planningandmapping_Roden.pdf