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

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

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development of Kenya (MoA) - 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

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

A focused approach to integrated land and water management, including soil and water conservation, where the active participation of the villagers - often organised through common interest groups - is central.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The catchment approach promotes sustainable land management systems by conservation of a defined area (so-called micro-environments) through the active participation of the communities living there. It was launched in Kenya in 1988 to achieve greater technical and social impact - and at a more rapid pace - than the previous focus on individual farmers. This case focuses on a single catchment in a subhumid area of Central Kenya. The emphasis is on structural measures - especially fanya juu terraces - but vegetative systems are promoted also. Other activities are supported such as spring protection, improved crop and animal husbandry, agroforestry, fodder production, fish ponds and others. The specific objectives are to stimulate the implementation of a variety of SWC measures leading simultaneously to improved production. Each approach area is defined by cultural/administrative boundaries rather than strict hydrological watersheds or catchments (as its name confusingly implies).

A conservation committee is elected from amongst the focal community before problem identification begins. Technical staff from relevant government and non-government agencies (NGOs) are co-opted onto the committee. The approach then involves participatory methods of appraisal and planning of solutions. Land users, together with the co-opted subject matter specialists, pool their knowledge and resources. Common Interest Groups (CIGs) are formed, with the aim of self-help promotion of specific farm enterprises. Training is given to the members of the CIGs by the Ministry of Agriculture. The farmers carry out the majority of the work themselves: monetary or other tangible incentives are few. The end result is the micro-environment (catchment area) conserved for improved production, and left in the hands of the community to maintain and sustain.

The catchment approach was developed under the National Soil and Water Conservation Programme - supported by (Swedish) Sida - and continues to be promoted as the Focal Area Approach (FAA) under the National Agricultural and Livestock Extension Programme (NALEP), which is again supported by Sida. However, under NALEP there is less emphasis on soil and water conservation than the previous programme, and more focus on promotion of productive enterprises.

The catchment approach is linked to cultural or administrative boundaries, rather than to hydrological watersheds. This emphasis on social units and integrated land management is becoming more common worldwide. In Kenya the approach is constantly evolving and has recently been renamed the 'Focal Area Approach'.

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 (The approach also included other activities like energy saving technologies and Agroforestry. It also involved collaboration with othe sectors like public health, fisheries, water. Also new technologies were introduced like water prospecting.) The main aims are to contribute to increased production among farmers and pastrolist through advise on sound land husbandry, conserve agricultural lands affected by erosion, create awareness on importance of soil conservation and introduce on-farm tree planting practices.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: lack of tangible and assessable impact of SWC activities, technically or socially, slow implementation of SWC, underlying problems of poverty, declining soil fertility, soil erosion and fuelwood shortage.

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; they were involved in making decisions on boundaries.
planning	interactive	rapid/participatory rural appraisal, public meetings, interviews/questionnaires; they were involved in providing information during the PRA and also the formulation of the community action plan
implementation	self-mobilization	responsibility for major steps; they were invoved in the actual work in the farms. implemented by community members
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	Mainly: interviews/questionnaires; partly: reporting;
Research	none	only during trainings

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:

Land user driven (bottom-up). The choice on the technology to use is made primarily by the technical specialists based on the prevalent type of erosion on each farm and farmers preference.
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Land user driven (bottom-up). The method of implementation is decided based on the farmers capabilities and resources at his disposal e.g. where labour is a constraint and finances limiting, biological conservation measures would be considered more.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• extensionists/trainers, school children/students (2), teachers (3)

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings
• courses

Subjects covered:

including layout of measures; agroforestry; soil erosion and measures to control it; energy conservation; food preservation - as well as for specific farm enterprises. Carried out mainly through farm visits by Ministry of Agriculture agents.

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: Catchment Approach: Formation of Conservation Committees. Implementation of techniques/technologies, Training on techniques/technologies, farm visits, field demonstrations, field days.
Advisory service was carried out through: Government's existing extension system (Both generalists and SWC specialists.) Extension staff: Mainly government employees.
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; There are extension staff posted at locational level who are well trained.

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 regular monitored through observations
technical aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements
socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations
area treated aspects were regular monitored through observations

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

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: There have been few changes, but there is some enhanced collaboration between agencies, and - more income generating activities have been identified and implemented through common interest groups for crop production, marketing and livestock.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Specific problems are researched as they arise. A strong research-extension linkage is being built up. Monitoring of the progress of the overall programme also takes place.

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: international (SIDA/trainnig, transport allowances etc): 70.0%; government (national - Office, personell): 20.0%; local community / land user(s) (Labour, materials): 10.0%

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

Comments:

All labour is provided on a voluntary basis.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Yes

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

This is not provided directly, though a savings and credit 'stakeholder kitty' revolving fund is being promoted and developed.

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

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Interventions are likely to continue and be maintained, but this depends on common interest groups continuing to function actively.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Much improved extension/training - research linkages have been forged (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue focussed training/strengthen research-extension linkage.)
New and productive farm enterprises have been promoted under the catchment approach alongside better SWC (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue to introduce/support where appropriate through Common Interest Groups.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Genuine community participation has been achieved under this approach (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue with participatory training.)
There is evidence of 'ownership' by the community which implies a feeling that what has been achieved is due to communal efforts and belongs to them (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Further training is more effective when benefits are appreciated in this way.)

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 material incentives like seeds and fertilizers	Assist the farmers with the credit.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
In many places there is a lack of availability of inputs	Provide better credit facilities for CIGs/farmers generally.
Technologies tend to be implemented uniformly, not site-specifically	SWC practices should be matched to each particular situation, eg structural measures such as fanya juu terraces should be promoted only where necessary, that is where agronomic and vegetative measures do not provide sufficient protection.
As yet uncertainty about continuation in specific areas if direct support stops after only one year	Don't abruptly terminate this support after one year: continue approach for at least two or three years in each catchment (approach area).
inadequate funding	Increase the funding.
Too small an area (of the country) is currently covered by NALEP	More staff required: more effective use of staff.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

The catchment approach is linked to cultural or administrative boundaries, rather than to hydrological watersheds. This emphasis on social units and integrated land management is becoming more common worldwide. In Kenya the approach is constantly evolving and has recently been renamed the 'Focal Area Approach'.