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)

Orissa Watershed Developemnt Mission - India

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:

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Livelihood asset base development through participatory watershed developemnt keeping people at the center stage of development and promoting village level institutions.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Livelihoods improvement through asset building; Capacity building, Enabling environment, Village level institutions building, Natural resource management. Participatory tools are used to do situational analysis and planning. Self Help Groups and User Groups are promoted for taking up micro enterprise and land based activities respectively. Community mobilisation is done using local folk songs and dance.

Stages of implementation: The project is implemented within a five year period. First year is used as rapport building, institution building and preparation of micro plan. The external team plays the role of facilitators and capacity building of the primary stakeholders.

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 Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Productivity enhancement; Income generating programme, Water and sanitation)

1. Livelihood improvement. 2. Poverty Reduction. 3. Increase households(HH) annual income. 4. Eco restoration

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Natural calamity ( drought) 2. Poverty 3. Illiteracy 4. Sustanability in agriculture production.5. Economic enhancement of the people.

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	public meetings; Lack of awareness about the SWC measures.
planning	interactive	Mainly: rapid/participatory rural appraisal; partly: interviews/questionnaires; Conceptual clarity regarding SWC & its benefits
implementation	external support	Mainly: casual labour; partly: responsibility for minor steps; Engaged as daily wage labourer. Extends cooperation in non-monetary activities
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Mainly: public meetings; partly: interviews/questionnaires; 1. Evaluation of field work through measurement. 2. Transperancy on expenditure and programme.
Research	passive

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 land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

The problems are discussed while doing transect in the watersheds. Solutions aby the users as well as the SWC specialists are discussed. The consensus is arrived on the technology which land users can accept, adopt and maintain.And the technology do not put pressure on the natural environment.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. During the MLP,transect is carried along with the land users and options were discussed with the land users. Then they choose the best option after analysing the opportunities and constraints.The UG implement the technology. This has been laid down in t

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• SWC specialists, teachers (2), extensionists/trainers (1), planners (3)

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

Class room as well as on farm training provided to land users.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Participatoy extension methods and exposure to successful fields, demo plotsl; Key elements: Seeing is beleiving and learning by doing; 1) Mainly: Through change agents(Community Link Workers), Partly: government's existing extension system 2) Mainly: Through change agents(Community Link Workers), Partly: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: specifically hired project employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: To expertise and replicate

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Extensioin programme relating to production aspects of the technology is not adequate.

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

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through observations

technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements

area treated aspects were regular monitored through observations

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored through measurements

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through observations

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Increased participation and ownership. User groups are strengthened. Viewsa of the Users respected and involved in decision making.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

• Participatory and action research

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Participatory technology development through IDEI and action research with independent consultancy firms have been initiated. But relating to approach research study have not been initiated. This is infant stage.

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national - MoRD): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

• infrastructure

Comments:

UG

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Views and opinion of the beneficiaries are considered (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular follow- up.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
1.Community Organisation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Strengthen village level institutions)
2. Participatory Approaches (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Institutionalise processes)
3. Monitoring (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Strengthen community monitoring)
4. Evaluation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Evaluation by both internal and external agency)
5. Ownership (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: User rights ensured, Community Fund Sustainably utilised)

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?
Coherence among group members	How to make the groups self sustainable? This needs to be addressed by providing financial freedom, decision making opportunities,vision building through exposure to better groups

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Facilitators attitude	Capacity building programme for the facilitators

7.1 Methods/ sources of information