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

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

food-for-work programm with distribution of grains and oil

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Overall purpose: contribute to the SWC of the area; Specific objectives: build the level bunds, reforestation and the cut-off drains

Methods: Incentives for work

Stages of implementation: Collect farmers, tell them about the conservation, they formed groups/units who worked under a unit leader (capo=chief)

Role of stakeholders: Farmers carried out the work, the construction of the level bunds, the planting of trees. The technician told them what to do. Passive role of the farmers.

Other important information: Discussion started after implementation when farmers came to eht research station to get advice what they could do about the narrow terraces on the steep steep slopes and against the rats. Together they found a solution.

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 (1984 construction of water channel for water pump for an irrigation project (outside of described catchment, but affectsuing people within catchment as well), road from main road Dessie-Jemme-Borana down to lake was constructed through the same approach)

give food and get work for it; not just getting the food even though there was a drought, but the people received only food if they worked for it

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: drought, to improve the field qualities, prevention of erosion, to give the hungry farmers food because they were suffering from shortage of food

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	none
planning	passive	information
implementation	external support	Mainly: casual labour; partly: responsibility for major steps; the capo has a greater responsibility
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	passive	on-station

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:

• SLM specialists alone

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by SLM specialists alone (top-down)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• SWC specialists

Form of training:

• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

the cattle should not enter the cultivated land until bund is established; how to maintain the bunds was also demonstrated

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:

1) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents; Extension staff: mainly government employees 2) Target groups for extension: land users

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; they need new, different technologies, another training to give to the people

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

it was especially undertaken for the environment

Research was carried out on station

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

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

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

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)

• equipment

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

• food-for-work

Comments:

grains and oil

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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:

only some of them can because it needs lots of labor and time

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
incentives are good to start the project (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: give food, material)
they learned a lot from the project (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: give them more information, train them)
they were happy to get some food

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
pass on information, trainings (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: give more information and trainings)

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?
payment was fixed, but because of the drought, the farmers were too weak to work	payment should be flexible
top-down	more bottom-up

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
not having asked the farmers; top-down approach	involve farmers from the beginning, so they feel needed and useful
local knowledge has not been considered	ask the farmers and integrate their knowledge
incentive food should be reconsidered especially because it was not flexible and there was a drought and they strictly distributed it according to their measures and not according to the situation	no strict calulation formula of the food, so there is space to give more food if needed as it would have been the case here since there was a serious drought at the stage of implementation

7.1 Methods/ sources of information