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)

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Italy

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

15/04/2015

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Social fencing for rangeland restoration

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Improve livelihoods of targeted community through Sustainable Management of Rangelands for 'Green Economics'

Methods: Social fencing, participatory approach, gender mainstreaming, alternative income generating opportunities

Stages of implementation: Re-classification of the land from forest to rangeland, community mobilization, problem identification through community particpation, capacity building, implementation

Role of stakeholders: Community - mobilization and enforcement of social fencing
IUCN - facilitated dialogue, establishing the association, rent and furnish the building, training
MoA - Technical assistance, training

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 (Income generation (herbal medicines and soap making), revolving funds, grazing management (rotation) and rangeland restoration )

Same as 2.1.1.2

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Land degradation, insufficient grazing for animals, income, and technical capacity.

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
planning	interactive	Particpatory
implementation	interactive	Particpatory
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Particpatory
Research	interactive	Particpatory

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:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

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

Both men and women were fairly represented

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

marketing,processing, packaging, growing and collecting herbal/medicinal plants, rotational grazing, etc.

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

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Vegetation coverage

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

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

land was provided by the State, office space and furniture by IUCN, grants from EU and Arab Women Organization

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?

Yes

Specify conditions (interest rate, payback, etc.):

repayment conditions: The credit was for income generating activities.

Specify credit receivers:

Disadvantaged women

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:

The project was completed at the end of 2014 but IUCN and MoA are still involved in the implementation and monitoring aspects.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
reduces cost of fodder (don't need to buy fodder for their animals), better view, women empowerment, (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continued support)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Rangeland restoration Improved community mobilization Reduced soil erosion Increased technical capacity at the local level (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continued monitoring and lots of patience, increase the area under protection)

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?
no grazing alternative for owners of goats income generation offered only to limited number of women Marketing of the herbs

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Needs to have an impact assessment to analyze the effect and sustainability of the project

7.1 Methods/ sources of information