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 )

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

Ntungamo District - Uganda

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

Kabale District Local Government (Kabale District Local Government) - Uganda

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

Kitwe Town Council - Uganda

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

19/04/2013

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

Tree planting carried out by individual land users on hilly slopes to improve soil cover ,reduce wind strength , provide wood fuel & household income.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: -To conserve the degraded hill by planting trees and reduce soil erosion.
-To reduce wind strength.
-To increase sources of fuel wood.
-To diversify sources of future household income.

Methods: -Mobilization of farmer field members to participate in tree planting , to increase tree cover in the area.
-Facilitation of planning meetings for farmer field school members in identifying tree planting needs.
-Purchase and raising of tree seedlings and tree nursery beds for tree seedlings.
-Distribution of tree seedlings to willing farmer school members for planting.
-Provision of training in tree planting technologies prior to distribution.
-Tree planting and management.


Stages of implementation: -Planning of tree planting needs.
-Purchase of tree seedlings and raising of indigenous tree seedlings.
-identification of planting sites.
-capacity building in tree planting technologies.
-making of holes for planting tree seedlings.
-Making of holes for tree planting seedlings.
-Planting of tree seedlings.

Role of stakeholders: -Mobilization of farmer field school members by service providers.
-Training the beneficiary members in tree planting by service providers/facilitators.
-Provision of funds for purchase of tree seedlings by FAO under the Kagera TAMP project.

Other important information: The land users and the farmer field school members had seen tree planting activities in neighbouring areas but they had thought that such activities could only be done by government.

But through mobilization farmers have realized the importance and possibility of farmers benefiting from tree planting.

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 (Reduction of wind strength ,provision of wood fuel and contribute to household income. )

-To conserve degraded hill slopes against erosion due to overstocking.
-To reduce wind strength in the area by increasing tree cover in the area.
-To increase source of wood fuel in the area.
-To diversify the future source of household incomes in the area among the communities.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: -To reduce soil erosion on degraded hill slopes.
-To reduce the strength of which wind affect the area in rainy seasons.
-To increase access to wood fuel sources.
-To diversify future household income.
-To get cheap timber for staking bananas.

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	The land users were mobilized by national project coordinator.
planning	external support	The land users were mobilized and facilitated to identify their problems related to environmental degradation & priorities were made.
implementation	self-mobilization	Land users were responsible for tree planting.
monitoring/ evaluation	external support	Project officials are to undertake M&E.
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:

After mobilization and sensitization of the land users in farmer field schools ,the land users decided to under take tree planting.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Land users made decision on the technology alone.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas

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: Training and awareness.; Key elements: mobilization, identification of problems related to land degradation. , Ranking of severity of land degradation types. SLM approaches were then selected by land users after analysis & synthesis of the problems.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Land use needs continuous follow-up and little support provided in terms of financial & advisory.

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 regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Progress of tree growth.

There were few 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

• Baseline survey on the needs assessment.

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Trainers of farmer field schools mobilized farmer field school land users ,who identified their problems and how they can be solved.

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 (FAO): 70.0%; local community / land user(s) (mobilization,facilitation of meals during trainings.etc): 30.0%

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

• agricultural

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

• food-for-work

Comments:

Food for work, paid in cash and rewarded with other material support
Shs 5000 each person per day.

most funds provided by FAO and small proportion by land users.

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

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
1. Green environment (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plant more trees. )
2. Reduce global warming (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plant more trees for carbon absorption.)
3. Cool environment (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plant more trees on the bare hills.)
4. Increase productivity. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Better monitoring and evaluation. )

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
1. Control of soil erosion. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plant more trees. )
2.Improved soil cover. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plant more trees. )
3. Reduction of wind speed. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plant more trees in wind prone areas.)
4. Increase wood fuel in future.

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?
1. It is costly.	Subsidize land users.
2. Long term returns.	Plant some quick maturing trees.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
1. It is costly to plant trees.	Provide subsides to land users who are practicing the technology.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

1. Managemenrt plan for sawlog production ,Project proposal by Tibesigwa Mukasa,2006.