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)

Embu Diocese - Kenya

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Giving cash incentives to farmers for them to undertake soil and water conservation

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Overall purpose of reducing vulnerability to famine and recurrent drought in Mbeere district. Specific objectives were to increase access to cash to meet basic needs of some 2000 most vulnerable households for a period of 4 months and to increase adoption of improved drought tolerant crop varieties for some 2000 most vulnerable households for aperiod of 9 months.

Methods: Methods of delivery were cash for work in construction of SWC structures including rural access road improvement and provision of access to planting seeds, technical knowhow and drought tolerant crop varieties.

Stages of implementation: Stages of implementation were sensitization and awareness creation of key stake holders and land users, Recruitment of technical staff and their training , selection of the beneficiaries and formation of groups ( 10 groups each comprising 20 farmers ) per work site, Election of focal area committees and their training, actual implementation of the agreed activities and finally monitoring and evaluation.

Role of stakeholders: Role of the participants was to provide labour, undertake good crop husbandry practices on the conserved land and participate in meetings, field days and group 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 mainly on SLM with other activities (*Water harvesting for crop productioin *Access roads improvement *Fruit trees establishment *Increased adoption of improved drought tolerant crop varieties)

*Increase access to cash so as to meet basic needs of the most vulnerable households *Consruction of soil and water conservation measures including improvement of access roads in the focal area ( work site ). *Increased adoption of improved drought tolerant crop varieties.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: * low land productivity due to soil erosion and drought *Migration of farmers to look for work during drouht speells *Poor access roads * Lack of seeds for improved drought tolerant crop varieties

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; Series of work site meetings to explain the programme to the land users
planning	interactive	Mainly: public meetings; partly: workshops/seminars; Workshops for key staholders held and training of the programme staff conducted
implementation	external support	Mainly: casual labour; partly: responsibility for major steps; Wor site committees were responsible for organising the farmers day to day activities
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Mainly: measurements/observations; partly: public meetings, reporting; Focal area committees were assisting the technical staff in taking measurements compiling reports
Research	interactive	on-farm; The mother (16 varieties ) and baby (3 varieties) trials were managed by the farmers

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:

Consultative. Meetings were held with the land users where the activities to be undertaken were discussed and agreed on.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. Consultative. The method was chosen by the SWC specialists but discussed and adopted by the farmers

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• extensionists/trainers

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer

Subjects covered:

Methods of soil conservation; Water harvesting for crop production; Lay out of soil conservation structures and tree planting

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: catchment (focal area) approach; Key elements: demonstrations, field days, trial plots and individual farm visits; 1) Mainly: government's existing extension system, Partly: projects own extension structure and agent 2) Mainly: government's existing extension system, Partly: projects own extension structure and agent; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: lay out work, agroforestry, individual tree nurseries establishment

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; proramme used the existing extension staff within the focal areas. These staff arec still in place continously delivering extension services

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

• logistical surpport-transport

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

technical aspects were regular monitored

economic / production aspects were regular monitored

area treated aspects were regular monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: None

no. of land users involved aspects were None monitored by 0 through None; indicators: None

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

adaptive onfarm trials carried out on new drought tolerant crop varieties

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:

• 100,000-1,000,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international non-government (Catholic relief services): 99.0%; local community / land user(s) (Depreciation of farm tools): 1.0%

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):

In addition to the cash the land users were given seeds and fruit tree seedlings

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

• infrastructure

Comments:

In addition to the cash the land users were given seeds and fruit tree seedlings

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
training (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: more field days and farmer tours)
provision of seeds and seedlings (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: setting up of bulking plots and group tree nurseries)
cash provision (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: intensify production of cash generating enterprises especially fruit trees like mangoes and pawpaws)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
group approach (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: training of the committees, encourage more group activities and projects)
involvement and use of locally based extension staff

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?
lack of appropriate tools	provision of suitable tools as the condition of the area dictate

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
use of cash as incentive	should be phased out gradually
low land user involvement in the initial stages	use of participatory methods

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Catchment planning- by E.Mwenda , MOA&RD-Nairobi

Mbeere district development plan 1997-2002