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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1189, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Agronomica - United Kingdom', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1189, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Agronomica - United Kingdom', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1189, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Agronomica - United Kingdom', 'template': 'raw'}

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

Spontaneous land users' initiative to meet household needs - especially firewood and timber - through planting Grevillea robusta trees as part of an agroforestry system.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Grevillea robusta is a well-known shade tree, used in coffee and tea plantations in East Africa since the early part of the 20th century. While it originates from Australia, it was brought over from India and Sri Lanka by European settlers. Smallholder farmers in the highlands of Kenya noted that there was little or no competition between grevillea and neighbouring crops. Indeed this is one of the reasons it was so successful as a shade tree amongst plantation crops. Responding to the local lack of timber and firewood, due to the expansion of farmland into previously forested areas, smallholders took to planting grevillea, especially as a boundary tree, from the 1970s onwards. While the immediate effect of grevillea planting was to satisfy those needs for wood, the tree also helps in various ways to conserve land and improve the soil. This too was probably a reason for its spontaneous spread.

Methods: Because planting of grevillea requires few resources other than tools, even poor land users can readily adopt the technology. Although seedlings can be bought from local Government, NGO or private nurseries, it is also possible to collect ‘wildings’ (naturally generated seedlings) and plant these at minimal cost. The management of grevillea trees, once established, is important to their performance in the field, but the skills of thinning, and pollarding (pruning side branches for use) can be easily learned from neighbours. The success of the spontaneous spread of grevillea, basically through farmer-to-farmer exchange of knowledge, demonstrates that tree planting is not something that has always to be ‘pushed’ by outside agencies. Where smallholders perceive a need for trees and tree products - and an appropriate species is available - they will respond positively. However there is still an important ‘pulling’ role to be played by the Ministry of Agriculture’s extension agents and NGOs, especially through support for tree nurseries and for training to establish private tree nurseries.

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

• traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (Fencing, farm boundary marking, ornamental value, fuel wood supply, building materials provision)

- improve availability of tree products (fuelwood and wood for construction). - demarcate own land easily and cheaply (after land registration). - reduce land degradation. - increase land productivity. - improve household income

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - shortage of fuelwood and building materials, environmental degradation. - need for farm boundary marking. - lack of simple, widely applicable agroforestry recommendations

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	self-mobilization	innovative individuals planting grevillea
planning	self-mobilization	informal, individual plans
implementation	self-mobilization
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	ad hoc observations by MoA;
Research	none	no activities

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

Land user-driven initiative by shortages/problems

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). The land user decided on when and how to plant the trees.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Subjects covered:

Some demonstrations of benefits of tree planting by Government at provincial agricultural shows.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

Key elements: Informal farmer-to-farmer exchange of ideas and skills. Additionally, on national tree planting days, the government hands out seedlings. Grevillea planting has been encouraged during national campaigns (involving the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, and NGOs) to encourage soil and w; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: other: individual land users 2) Advisory service was carried out through: other: individual land users

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; There is collaboration between Government extension service and KARI (Kenya Agricultural Research Institute) to further promote the technology

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

economic / production aspects were ad hoc

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

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: government (national - Sponsored national tree planting days): 10.0%; other (Individual land user): 90.0%

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)

• agricultural

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Individual land user. However, labour input was minimal

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)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

As land users developed this approach they can continue activities without support.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Strong land user 'ownership' of the approach.
Adaptability, flexibilityand simplicity since it is user driven

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Incentives not necessary
Valuable lessons from a farmer-driven success for development agencies that promote tree planting and agroforestry systems.
Very low inputs (resources) required. However there is still an important 'pulling' role to be played by the Ministry of Agriculture's extension agents and NGOs (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More support for individual and government tree nurseries.)
Self-driven initiative (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: MoA extension staff and land users to encourage other farmers to be self-reliant.)

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?
Lack of other stakeholders input	Encourage and inform land users on where to seek additional information consultations with SWC extensionists

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Adoption rates under such approaches depend on the number and efforts of innovators to stimulate others	SWC extensionists (Ministry and NGOs) to undertake more community mobilisation and awareness raising.
Approach is dependent on social cohesiveness for dissemination	promote more farmer interaction at community level
Poor collaboration and insitutional linkages	Encourage and create forums where stakeholders can share experiences and inform land users about where to seek additional information and assistance.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

NjiruN.N et al. 1998. PRA report of Kiawanja catchmentSee 'Grevillea agroforestry system' case study (QT KEN16) for technical references

Available from where? Costs?

Nembure district