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)?

12/04/2013

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

Participatory learning approach involves all stakeholders to cooperate with researchers during innovation process

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: To share knowledge and skills about technologies for preventing landslides and floods to land users in Kyantobi village.

Methods: -Consultation
-Meeting
-Demostrations

Stages of implementation: -Land users consulted NGO(ICRAF)at district level
-Groups were formed in Kyantobi village
-Distribution of calliandra seedlings to farmer groups
-planting calliandra seedlings
-monitoring and evaluation

Role of stakeholders: landuser
-provided land
-participate in nursery bed establishment and planting of seedlings
NGO(ICRAF)
-provided calliandra seedlings
-provided technical assistance
-monitoring and evaluation



Other important information: land user usually participate in other NGO's like ICRAF and Africa 2000 Natwork

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 (Improved crops and animal production)

-Control soil erosion and landslide prevention

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	NGO such as ICRAF involved in motivation
planning	interactive	Land users also participated in planning
implementation	self-mobilization	Land users only would implement
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

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:

SLM specialists provided technical assistance to land users

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by SLM specialists alone (top-down). It was by SLMs specialists alone who were experienced about the method of implementation.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

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

Adult males and female.

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

-Soil erosion control.
-Land slide prevention.

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: Training; Key elements: Flip charts, Markers; All interested local community (land users) met for advisory service.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; There is limited technical staff in a community

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

Give further details:

Demostration plots were put up and farmer groups ,local institutions were targeted ,trained and then work on their own plots

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Calliaendra trees properly planted

technical aspects were monitored by project staff through measurements

no. of land users involved aspects were monitored by None through observations

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: -Caliandra trees properly put up.
-Livelihood increased.

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Technology remained constant as it has been designed.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

N/A

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: national non-government (ICRAF): 54.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Local council): 6.0%; local community / land user(s) (Land user): 40.0%

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)

• agricultural

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Land user were self mobilized .

Calliandra seed were fully financed by NGO to all members of the group.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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)?

• no

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Land users need support from government that increases motivation which results from the approach activities being implemented.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Exposure visits on site enable user to learn more. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue such visits from farmer to farmer. )

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
There is sharing of experiences which increases knowledge. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: To continue meeting as a group.)

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?
N/A

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Extension workers are relunctant to respond to land users.	Extention workers to keep on responding to land users.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information