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)

Book project: where people and their land are safer - A Compendium of Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (where people and their land are safer)

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

World Vision (World Vision) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

28/11/2016

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

After consultations with local stakeholders, experts (from NEMA, ICRAF, KFS, Wildlife Kenya) and Homabay County Government representatives the FMNR approach is being introduced by World Vision through a public funded project. The aim of the approach is to promote FMNR and sustainable land and natural resource management through disseminating the basic idea of regenerating trees.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The approach follows the basic principles of the of Training Trainers ToT (transfer of technology) concept i.e. key stakeholders and agents are trained to pass their knowledge on to others. Through a multi-stakeholder inception workshop all local stakeholders learn about the FMNR technology, its advantages and impacts. Representatives of the county and the national government are invited in order to get their support. Technical experts in agriculture are represented as well.
The Kenya Forest Service (KFS) and World Vision (WV) are the main actors in sensitising the local chiefs, school head teachers, CBOs, self-help groups, farmers' associations and individual farmers about FMNR, Disaster Risk Reduction and other topics. As a result farmers, teachers, schools management committee and CBO members register for the FMNR training, which is also carried out by KFS and WV. Selected farmers (those who are early adopters) are chosen as FMNR agents.
The registered FMNR practitioners (farmers, CBO members, school children, etc.) have to set aside a plot for FMNR application. They implement the technology. Each administrative unit (ward) establishes one FMNR committee under the lead of the local chief. The FMNR committee members (agents) are responsible for further dissemination for training and monitoring of the activities and maintaining the demonstration sites. They also organise exchange visits. They regularly report back to World Vision Development Facilitators. New FMNR farmers register with the committees. Research institutions (e.g. Maseno University) conduct studies to follow-up assumptions and to document change. The Community Disaster Management group is influenced by the FMNR committee and the County administration with regard to erosion control measures and gully restoration.The implementation is jointly monitored by the key stakeholders and documented by World Vision.

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

The main objective of the approach is to promote FMNR and other natural resource management practices including agroforestry, crop diversification, sustainable rural energy sources and rehabilitation of highly degraded areas. It is also to utilise environmental education to advise on disaster risk reduction in order to increase the resilience of the target population against adverse effects of climate change and natural disasters.

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	passive	local farmers, DRR committee members and local chiefs were invited to take part in sensitisation sessions
planning	interactive	local chiefs very active in supporting the new technology by motivation local farmers to become registered
implementation	interactive	FMNR committees as technical support, do also monitoring and reporting
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	done by FMNR committees, they receive data from all households jointly with other stakeholders and report back to the project management
research	external support	done by students of the Maseno University by gathering primary data from demonstration sites very 6 months and compiling a biodiversity report

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

Explain:

The technology is transferred by World Vision from other African contexts. Each land-user is encouraged to try it on a piece of land. Each farmer decides whether he/she adopts it or wait and see how it develops in the neighbourhood. Demonstration plots help show case the impact and power of natural regeneration.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

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

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

there are participants list available but no time to analyse them

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

FMNR, Natural Resource Management, Disaster Risk Reduction, Conservation Agriculture etc.

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:

Done by the FMNR committees and development facilitators from KFS and WV.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

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

• local

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

schools, churches, CBOs.

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

same as above

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

Yes, joint monitoring and evaluation

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

Ja

Comments:

perhaps, but separate documents will be created as per donor requirement.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Specify topics:

• ecology

• biodiversity

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Maseno University, botanic and zoological studies, see separate reports

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

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

9230.00

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 2,000-10,000

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

The initiative is funded by public donors and co-funded by the county government. For the approach including awareness, campaigns, training and monitoring as well as exposure trips 9230 USD were budgeted per year.

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):

transport to the demo sites, for local farmers and stakeholders, food during the training, materials for sensitisation, training & monitoring, accommodation only during exposure trips

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

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 local FMNR agents are well known in the community as environmentalists. They have demonstration sites on their farms. They took part in FMNR campaigns and training. Every visitor gets attracted by the technology. The agents introduce them. By applying the new technology their neighbours see and learn about FMNR as well. Even on other occasions in the community e.g funerals, religious meetings, ceremonies, the agents use the opportunity to reach more people with FMNR.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view

Sensitisation is integrated in community meetings or gatherings which bring many people together. Some of the meetings are called by local administrators who were the first champions of FMNR so this helps in infusing the knowledge through the sessions. Implementation is mostly by seeing and doing. Many farmers are consciously or subconsciously adopting FMNR as they see the sites in their neighbourhood. As the farmers visit each other alongside other engagements, FMNR monitoring continues since the people like to share new things with their friends and what they have learned.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view

The ToT approach by working with FMNR agents and a local FMNR committee bridges the gap brought about by the absence of agricultural extension workers - only a few farmers actually visit them in their office in town. Also the day-by-day monitoring is done b y the FMNR committee members and not by the project staff alone. A big advantage is the support of the Kenya Forest Service officers. They were ready to help with the on-site training. Crucial for the success of any approach is to involve and win over the local chiefs. They really have understood the benefits and even try to apply the technology themselves.

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?
Lazy people who are not patient will not appear to training sessions because they might not have understood the benefits of the technology.	Continuous engagements and ensuring the sites are at strategic places where all farmer can see them easily. These people can be convinced through the success of others.
The approach seeks the support of all levels (County and local government, CBOs, local farmers, schools etc.) so it is quite time consuming and requires skilled personal as facilitators.	A donor needs to take this into account in terms of available budget and life time of the project.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Some people still maintain old traditions (clean agriculture) hindering women participating in meetings, from planting trees or working on trees in their homestead. These people are more resistent to new ideas and approaches.	The tradition is being demystified especially with the church leaders and with more exposure. This might change their thinking.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Farmer-Managed Natural Regeneration Enhances Rural Livelihoods in Dryland West Africa, Weston, Peter, Reaksmey Hong, Carolyn Kaboré & Christian A. Kull, Environmental Management Volume 55, Issue 6, pp 1402–1417,2015, ISBN 0364-152X00267-015-0469-1

Available from where? Costs?

Springer, USD 35

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Re-greening the Sahel: farmer-led innovation in Burkina Faso and Niger, Reij, C.; Tappan, G.; Smale, M., in Millions fed : proven successes in agricultural development, 2009, ISBN 9780896296619

Available from where? Costs?

International Food Policy Research Institute

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration Hub

URL:

http://fmnrhub.com.au/

Title/ description:

Der Waldmacher. Der Agrarexperte Tony Rinaudo verwandelt abgeholzte Steppen in grüne Wälder. Seine Methode könnte für Afrika bedeutender werden als Milliarden von Dollar Entwicklungshilfe.

URL:

http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wissen/natur/der-waldmacher/story/26739960