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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 682, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'HELVETAS (Swiss Intercooperation)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 682, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'HELVETAS (Swiss Intercooperation)', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/07/2012

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

This practice makes it possible to bring actors with differing interests around the same table to discuss the ways in which the scheme’s facilities and lands will be accessed and exploited.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

This practice aims to establish a consensual agreement on the access to and management of schemes and developed lands among the farmers of a given site. Through the facilitation process, it is possible to transfer management responsibility and ensure the peaceful farming of schemes. The social engineering approach focuses on developing the diversifying potential of agro-sylvo-pastoral systems by involving all actors concerned, guarantees the sustainability of investments and prevents farming-related conflicts from arising on scheme sites. The establishment and support of multi-stakeholder platforms fosters a collective dynamic in hydro-agricultural schemes.The multi-stakeholder platform (MSP) brings stakeholders together and involves them in analysing the location assessment and determining any changes required to respond to environmental constraints and needs.
The approach centres on creating MSPs and then strengthening their organisational and institutional capacities to ensure that collaborative and best-fit infrastructure management is delivered by the different user groups, whose interests in the scheme’s easement area may diverge. The management standards and regulations and the roles and responsibilities of all social and user groups are determined by the actors collectively. The first stage involves initiating an internal and critical reflection and discussion process with the different scheme user groups. In the second stage, a consensual agreement is reached on accessing and managing the scheme and lands developed under it. Associations or cooperative structures are set up for each economic sector involved in the scheme’s easement area.
Workshops are prepared for drawing up agreements on the management and exploitation of resources in the scheme’s easement area. It is important to ensure information is provided in a timely manner and that it reaches the widest possible audience. Workshops for drawing up agreements on the management and exploitation of the scheme’s easement area are held, involving:a workshop of at least two days; a general meeting to open the event held in plenary (delivered in the local language); an initial round of sub-group workshops; a second round of group work mixing two or three Groups to tease out potentially conflicting interests; the provision of clear instructions in plenary prior to the group work sessions and of spatial support materials (maps and current and future occupancy charts); clarification of the rights of former occupants and the plot allocation quota for women; summarising proceedings during the general meeting. Organisational structures are formalised. The management/ development plan for the scheme is drawn up. The agreements and rules settled upon are formalised (in writing) and then deliberated by the commune council. A mid-term evaluation of the implementation of local agreements on scheme management and exploitation is carried out along with an assessment of the implementation of the management/development plan for the scheme easement area.
Farmers and village authorities participate in workshops and express their interests and they set out the traditional rules and social mechanisms that should be considered. The commune organises the workshop and participates in the diagnostic exercise by taking part in the discussions. It also deliberates the final agreements established by the actors. Service providers and technical services facilitate the process of drawing up an agreement on the access to and management of the scheme easement area and on the scheme development plan. They organise users into formal associations and support the formalisation of collaboration between the association, users and commune in terms of management delegation. The programme establishes the approach and trains service providers. It contributes to developing the visual aids required for communicating information and for spatial visualisation, and co-funds development action plans by sector.

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

This practice aims to establish a consensual agreement on the access to and management of schemes and developed lands among the farmers of a given site. Through the facilitation process, it is possible to transfer management responsibility and ensure the peaceful farming of schemes. This practice makes it possible to bring actors with differing interests around the same table to discuss the ways in which the scheme’s facilities and lands will be accessed and exploited. The different scheme user groups discuss the delivery of the process and determine the different roles and responsibilities
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: no consensual agreement on the access to and management of schemes and developed lands among the farmers, conflicts on land resources

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
planning	interactive
implementation	interactive
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive
Research	passive

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:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• public meetings

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: bring actors with differing interests around the same table; Key elements: different scheme user groups discuss the delivery of the process and determine the different roles and responsibilities
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

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:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through measurements
technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through observations
socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through observations
management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• ecology
• technology

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international non-government: 100.0%

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):

The programme contributes to developing the visual aids required for communicating information and for spatial visualisation, and co-funds development action plans by sector.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

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

• voluntary

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)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Involving actors from different sectors of society can lend the project a strong dynamic. Setting up formal relationships between the commune and professional groups helps ensure the sustainability of public-private partnerships. Agreements must, however, be closely monitored; indeed, it is essential to review their implementation and functioning regularly. Agreements can be challenged and modified so that they adapt to changing contexts.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The commune ensures the participation of the whole population in analysing the existing situation. Social groups begin thinking about the modes of accessing lowland plots and study the relationships between different groups; they consider practices that are detrimental to the sustainability of the scheme and those that could trigger conflict among farmers; they think about ways to prevent and manage conflicts among farmers and about the practices that need to be regulated; and so on. In this way, the instrument enables the relevant actors to assess the overall management of the lowland scheme in a way which takes each stakeholder into account.
promotion of local government and the good management of scheme easement area resources.
reduction of site-related conflicts and the setting of a benchmark for the local resolution of such issues (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The level to which farmers’ objectives for the scheme are satisfied engenders strong interest in the process, so the facilitator must be constantly available to listen to and deal with individual requirements and constraints.)
development and strengthening of a spirit of partnership among MSP members
increased participation in activities that contribute to the area’s socio-economic development. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Involving actors from different sectors of society can lend the project a strong dynamic. Setting up formal relationships between the commune and professional groups helps ensure the sustainability of public-private partnerships. Agreements must, however, be closely monitored; indeed, it is essential to review their implementation and functioning regularly. Agreements can be challenged and modified so that they adapt to changing contexts.)
maintenance of soil fertility, along with the prevention of environmental degradation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The facilitation plan must take into account local people’s agricultural calendar (June, July, August and September are not recommended for process facilitation activities). Carrying out initial processes of reflection in interest groups serves to enhance future negotiations. This method enables the specific issues for each type of use to be clarified. The subsequent process of finding consensus is made possible through the involvement of local and traditional authorities, in addition to Moderation.)
This practice makes it possible to bring actors with differing interests around the same table to discuss the ways in which the scheme’s facilities and lands will be accessed and exploited. The different scheme user groups discuss the delivery of the process and determine the different roles and responsibilities (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: In light of the issues and sensitivities involved (land tenure, authority and governance issues, etc.), the commune must ensure that delivery is strategic and that operational duties are delegated to the MSP, which is, itself, governed by the traditional village authority. A facilitator leads the process.)

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?
Covering the consultation and meeting costs can be an issue. However, these costs are relatively low (750,000 to 900,000 CFA francs per site (1712 Dollar)) considering the benefits.
Social divides within village communities can cause major problems.	Land tenure, authority and governance issues must be considered and analysed throughout the process to ensure that the resulting propositions are relevant.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Manual of Good Practices in Small Scale Irrigation in the Sahel. Experiences from Mali. Published by GIZ in 2014

Available from where? Costs?

http://star-www.giz.de/starweb/giz/pub/servlet.starweb

Title, author, year, ISBN:

HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation/BACIL, Rapports de prestation de services et d’accompagnement [Reports on service provision and support activities] 2010, 2011, 2012

Title, author, year, ISBN:

HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation/CADEL, Rapports de prestation de services et d’accompagnement [Reports on service provision and support activities] 2010, 2011, 2012