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

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

13/12/2013

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

Farmers are organized to promote adoption of sustainable land management best practices within the community

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: To train farmers in land based technologies that improve productivity, land management and are resilient to climate changes

Methods: Planning meetings, agro-ecosystem analysis (AESA), farmer-to-farmer visits, monitoring and evaluation

Stages of implementation: Farmer Field School (FFS) formation to bring together 30 farmers from a catchment area; training in group dynamics; training in best practices to address land degradation problems; AESA; and action planning

Role of stakeholders: District facilitators: Facilitation of FFS formation, training of trainers for AESA, drawing village land use plans, prioritizing enterprises/challenges, making technical recommendations; Local leaders: Passing and implementing bye-laws.

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 on SLM only (Sustainable Land Management Farmer Cooperative)

To share knowledge, skills and information on establishment of local best practices to improve productivity and biodiversity and reduce soil erosion

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Low soil nutrient levels, vegetation loss and soil erosion on steep slopes

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	FFS specialist facilitator with prospective FFS members to get farmers organized in FFS (30 members each)
planning	interactive	Farmers in their farmer field schools sketched watershed maps and developed action plans with the help of district facilitators
implementation	interactive	Facilitators helped FFS members in the dynamics that sustained and strengthened the Approach
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	A few members were co-opted to the monitoring team which comprised local government facilitators, Kagera TAMP Project specialists and the central government Project Steering Committee
Research	interactive	FFS members carried out Agro-ecosystem Analysis (AESA) with training and field support from specialists

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:

The FFS concept and methodology were introduced to the farmers by SLM specialists. The decisions on technology choice were the result of discussions bf the farmers with support from the specialists.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Farmers in the FFS decided how to overcome constraints posed by their hilly terrain and high cost of labor

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• Politicians/Policy Makers

Form of training:

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

Subjects covered:

Extension Training: use of demonstration plots and AESA to experiment and discover the appropriate methodology for implementation of SLM technologies. A formal session involves a facilitator and farmers. The facilitator guides the farmers on how to investigate a problem using marker-drawn sketches on flip chart. Observations, conclusions and recommendations are reached in a participatory manner.
Extension: FFS members adopt a resolution to carry out the recommended procedures/activities; community members are free to interact with FFS members on field days and copy recommendations. Farmer-to-farmer visits are encouraged and promoted to extend information.
Research: FFS members research together on a given problem/challenge such as soil fertility and arrive at recommendations together. They are guided by facilitators from government or government research institutions with collaborative support from Kagera TAMP/FAO project.
Importance of land use rights: Ownership of land affects land management practices. The attitude towards the recommendation by farmers is usually determined by the FFS members. In Kagera TAMP districts land ownership is customary but the right to use land is governed by national laws.
Incentives:
Labor: Farmer Field School members provide the labor to implement technologies. Hired labor may also be used.
Inputs: Farmers provide the basic tools such as hoes, pick axe etc. Seedlings and seeds may be provided by the project.
Credit: Small amounts may be acquired from the FFS cooperative savings.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

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

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

Training workshops in Sustainable Land Management (SLM) and Land Degradation Assessment (LADA) both national and international, seminars, and procurement and training in the use of computers, digital cameras and GPS units

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, soil nutrients, biodiversity

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, soil nutrients, biodiversity

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through observations; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, vigor

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, vigor

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through observations; indicators: Measure by attendance, morale

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: Measure by attendance, morale

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None

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

management of Approach aspects were None monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were None monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: FFS constantly refines and improves on what and how to achieve objectives, to discover and archive best practices in the most effective forms possible

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Height of stone lines, width between lines

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Agro-ecosystem Analysis (AESA) by FFS members

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: international (Kagera TAMP): 18.95%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (District and Sub-county facilitator time): 11.14%; local community / land user(s) (Land users as FFS members): 69.91%

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)

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

• voluntary

Comments:

FFS members were facilitated with information and they carried out the approach without any financial or material support

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)?

• yes