1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

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

The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

18/04/2013

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

Through ULAMP by agricultural extensions ,adopted to conserve land degaradation by practicing grass strips.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: It was initiated by ULAMP through agric extensions, through group working/participation . Training by doing and aimed at land conservation by reducing soil erosion , increasing fodder production , mulches and producing building materials.

Methods: -Demonstrations
-Meetings
-Training /practicing
-Group work/team working

Stages of implementation: Mobilisation-through ULAMP as initiator.
Commencement meeting-by agricultural extension workers as the implementors
Demonstration-Monitors and evaluators(Team work).
Monitoring: Land users as the beneficiaries and at the same time as monitors and evaluators.

Role of stakeholders: Extension staff provided the training and training materials,and participated in monitoring.
Land users provided one demostration site and participated in monitoring
Local leaders participated in monitoring

Other important information: The stakeholders stopped funding on the demonstration site and others just transfered the knowledge and funded themselves with their local implements like hoes , pangas and the species of grass.ie. napier grass.

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 (Grazing,mulching and building materials)

-To reduce soil erosion and conserve land.
-To inrease fodder production
-To increase mulching materials
-To make building materials available
-To give knowledge to farmers on land planning.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The approach wanted to address the problem of soil erosion and fodder production-plus low mulching materials.

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	external support	Local leaders for mobilisation
planning	interactive	group leaders for guiding specialists
implementation	interactive	attending meetings
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Together with specialists
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:

Land users played a big part in decision making and choice making. Specialists gave tehnical guidance.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. The land users through groups decided on the SLM technology implementation.

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.

Training was done for all people.

Form of training:

• on-the-job

Subjects covered:

Group formation,Group dynamics, soil and water management .

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

• Meetings

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Meeting; Key elements: Land management, Fertility mangement, Layout of conservation structures

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; They came like once in a month

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Land users were supported in mobilisation of meetings and on job training.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: attendance lists

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: number of activities done

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: There was inrease in the number of people attending meetings.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: soil erosion has reduced and top cover plus the crops planted haved improved

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• > 1,000,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (in providing training materials or demonstration materials.): 70.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (payment of technical staff): 30.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• other

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Land users were doing their own work(for their own benefit) to check soil loss

Land users were fully supplied with training materials.

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:

household income is still low

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
-It helped in technology implementation -helped in mobilisation of meetings

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It helped in technology implementation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular monitoring of the approach)

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
They are less available to every individual	increasing the number of extension advisory staff

7.1 Methods/ sources of information