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)

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (DEZA / COSUDE / DDC / SDC) - Switzerland

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

It is food for work based participatory approach, by which the land users takes part in all stages of conservation planning, implementation and evaluation.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The overall purpose of the approach is to achieve better SWC through promotion of participation, Awarness creation, better organization and better planning. The specific objective of the approach is to provide solutions for Top down approach, to achieve better quality work, to achieve better participation, to achieve better planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

Methods: There are different methods involved in the approach, to mention some: Wealth ranking, Vulnerability assessment and mapping.

Stages of implementation: The stages of implementations are planning, implenentation, monitoring and evaluation.

Role of stakeholders: The roles of the participants are sharing their views and opinions on the resources management and they contribute the full labour required for the activities.

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 on SLM only

Facilitate better achievments of SWC through promotion of participation, awarness creation, better organization, training skill upgrading and better planing

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Topdown approach, poor participation and integration, poor planning, low quality of conservation activities and low level of awareness

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	Mainly:LLPPA; partly: public meetings
planning	interactive	Mainly: LLPPA; partly: public meetings
implementation	external support	responsibility for major steps
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

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:

consultative

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. consultative

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• SWC specialists

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer

Subjects covered:

Planning, skill upgrading and technical training on SWC

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; in relation to SWC the extension is weak and it is crop biased

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 ad hoc monitored through observations

technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

area treated aspects were monitored through observations

no. of land users involved aspects were monitored through measurements

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: As a result of monitoring and evaluation the quality of work improved. Exotic SWC techniques which fits to the local conditions has been incorporated.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (UN-FFW Ethiopia): 70.0%; government (national Ethiopian Government): 30.0%

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

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?

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)?

• uncertain

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Better acess to decision making (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By empowering)
Skill upgrading (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: more training)
FFW incentive

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Participatory nature (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By further empowering the local community)
Capacity builiding efforts (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By giving more training and skill upgrading)
Awarness raising (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By giving more training and skill upgrading)

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?
FFW orientation	Gradually decreasing the food aid by increasing the productivity and self help activities

7.1 Methods/ sources of information