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)

Centre for Training and Integrated Research in ASAL Development (CETRAD) - Kenya

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

University of Bern, Institute of Geography (GIUB) - Switzerland

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

Agronomica - United Kingdom

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

Small-scale farmers forming self-help groups to provide mutual support for adopting and promoting conservation agriculture.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The self-help group approach described here is an initiative which grew from the local land users themselves. Farmers with common interests and goals came together, formed and registered groups and developed constitutions. Conservation agriculture groups started forming in 1997: within two years, five groups had been set up in the study area with over 150 members. The Ministry of Social Services facilitated the registration process. Groups have liased with technology promoters from the Ministry of Agriculture, KENDAT (Kenya Network for Draught Animal Technology), and research and development projects, to gain access to technical knowledge. These organisations have set up research and monitoring projects to assess the impact of conservation agriculture in this area. The groups receive more attention from local development partners than individuals would. The overall purpose behind the formation of the groups is to improve household food security and raise income. More specific objectives include: (1) mutual adoption of the technology, enabling group members to improve their farm operations and yields, and thereby; (2) creation of opportunities for additional income to help and support each other; (3) sharing knowledge, and conservation tillage equipment.

Role of stakeholders: Groups involve themselves in farmer-to-farmer training. They develop training modules which cover all aspects of conservation agriculture as well as practical training of the animals. Meetings are held once a month to plan group activities. The groups also solicit loans from local development partners for equipment, and they access training on technology from national institutions. Further collaboration with national institutes is planned to facilitate availability of droughttolerant crop varieties. The members of the self-help groups make various contributions including time, money, animals and some equipment - for joint group activities. Farmers with equipment contract their services to those without, but this is provided at a 20% discount to members.

Other important information: High adoption levels of conservation agriculture have been achieved through the self-help groups, due to the sharing of resources for technology development and mutual support. The interest in conservation agriculture and demand for equipment is high and growing. Group members are also diversifying their activities into, for example, agroforestry, water harvesting and bee-keeping.

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 (poverty alleviation, collective bargaining for procuring services, joint produce marketing, on-farm diversification, off-farm opportunities)

- increase household food security and raise income within the group. - provide mutual support and thereby develop collective bargaining power - an example is the ability to attract technology training from national organisations. - seek possible ways of acquiring equipment for all members of the group, through securing donor support or sponsorship. - all cropland to be under conservation tillage, with all members being fully trained in the technology and having the necessary equipment

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - insufficient individual resources to invest in/or learn about new technology. - underlying problems of (1) food security and (2) insecure water supply for rainfed crop production due to insufficient and poorly distributed rainfall

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	public meetings; Creating awareness of technological development through open forums undertaken by agricultural extension staff. Meetings were held to plan organisational development . Farmers received information about an innovation that could be beneficial to them; they then mobilised themselves
planning	interactive	public meetings; The group plans its own agenda in meetings
implementation	interactive	responsibility for major steps; The group is responsible for procuring equipment and inputs; they train their animals, while training on technology is provided by specialists
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	Mainly: measurements/observations; partly: public meetings; Group members keep yield records which are reported and discussed at meetings (without participation of specialists)
Research	interactive	on-farm; Farmers themselves compare cultivation methods; in addition, some research plots by KENDAT, the extension services (MoA) and students have also been set up in farmers' fields.

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:

Supported by the National Soil and Water Conservation programme under the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). SWC specialists created awareness of the technology in the local community, with land users independently deciding to adopt.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). Farmers adopted the technology with modifications so that they could use their animals for draught power. However, there was a degree of follow-up by SWC specialists.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• group members, SWC specialists (2), extensionists/trainers (3)

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• courses

Subjects covered:

The main element is farmer-to-farmer training within the group on use of appropriate equipment, equipment maintenance, animal health and care. Members attend training courses organised by extension staff and NGOs including KENDAT and Operation Comfort (from Central Kenya). Apart from courses, there are demonstration areas on research sites and group plots, as well as farm visits amongst and betwee

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:

Name of method used for advisory service: Innovative farmers support; Key elements: Identify innovative farmers in an area, Supporting them to come together, Providing new technology training; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: Other: governmental, non-governmental and group members 2) Advisory service was carried out through: Other: governmental, non-governmental and group members; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: Training on use of appropriate equipment, equipment maintenance, animal health and care etc

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The performance of the technology is very impressive and rapidly adopted by group members. However this is dependent on the group ie 2-3 enthusiastic and innovative members are required for a successful group. Further expansion is limited by weak extension support.

Extension is carried out through governmental and non-governmental specialists, equipment sales person and well-informed group members. This is facilitated by the way groups formed and tapped into the extension advice, and also shared information amongst themselves.Extension is carried out through governmental and non-governmental specialists, equipment sales person and well-informed group members. This is facilitated by the way groups formed and tapped into the extension advice, and also shared information amongst themselves.

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:

• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored. Indicators: work undertaken

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored. Indicators: rate of adoption, attitudinal changes

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: yield/area with the data from research station being occasionally analysed and results shared out

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements; indicators: acreage

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements; indicators: as membership feedback af meetings

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The success of the technology - conservation agriculture - has strengthened group collective bargaining power to attract further extension input support, regular visitation and advice on best agronomic practices. There has also been a move to encourage women's uptake of the technology.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

On-farm research is carried out by KENDAT, who conduct field trials to investigate the best technological practices. The data is collected in collaboration with participating farmers. The field research activities have included long-term experiments, demonstration sites and field days.

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:

• < 2,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (Self-help group members): 100.0%

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):

Two year loans are available from international development partners (SNV).

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• other

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.):

Two year loans are available from international development partners (SNV). Generally 50% is repaid in the 1st year, 50% in the 2nd year. These loans are used to purchase equipment, with group members acting as guarantors for each other.

Specify credit providers:

The community contributed a considerable percentage (through labour and time). KENDAT (NGO,Kenya) mainly provided training and extension, whereas SNV (NGO, Netherlands) gave credits. Details of the breakdown are not available.

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:

Land users can continue group formation and the associated activities without external support because they can seek technical support for the specific activities.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Collective bargaining power is achieved through good accounting and positive group financial status. This tends to attract donor support for further collective activities.
Sharing of technological knowledge, as well as equipment, within the groups and exchange between groups.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Easier for extension services to target a group of like-minded farmers than individuals (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Encourage further self-help group formation)
Self-help groups are self-sustaining (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ensure continual success by providing refresher courses on technology by extensionists, introduce innovations to keep group interest alive.)

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?
Greater time and energy input from the innovative farmers, because they pass on their knowledge without direct reward	Farmers gain confidence and status in the group or area as leaders.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Self-help groups are not optimal where some individuals are relatively poor and cannot afford contributions	modify arrangements to permit higher contributions by more financially able members who then get a greater share of the profits.

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Liniger HP and Thomas DB (1998) GRASS - Ground Cover for Restoration of Arid and Semi-arid Soils. Advances in

Ngigi SN (2003) Rainwater Harvesting for improved land productivity in the Greater Horn of Africa. Kenya

Mutunga CN (1995) The influence of vegetation cover on runoff and soil loss - a study in Mukogodo, Laikipia district Kenya. MSc

Kihara FI (1999) An investigation into the soil loss problem in the Upper Ewaso Ng'iro basin, Kenya. MSc. Thesis. University of