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)

DESIRE (EU-DES!RE)

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

INIDA (INIDA) - Cape Verde

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

Agriculture and Forestry Directorate Cape Verde (DGASP) - Cape Verde

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

Integration of stakeholders in the implementation of natural resource conservation activities.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Immediately after independence, the Cape Verde government initiated in collaboration with its international partners an unprecedented campaign of afforestation. Its main goal consists of fighting desertification and the drought impacts that previously produced thousands of victims and forced migration of the Cape Verde population.

Methods: Among the specific objectives are: 1) reduction of soil erosion; 2) firewood production improvement for rural families; 3) better land production; and 4) land user vulnerability mitigation.

Stages of implementation: To achieve this objective, the Cape Verde government was in need of labour provided by the population, which was easily accepted. With the financial and technical support of the government, municipalities, international projects of rural development (FAO, GTZ, etc.), NGOs (Platforms of Local and National Associations,), the technical assistance of the Rural Development Ministry (MDR) and the help of the local population, nowadays, more than 20% of the surface area of the archipelago is planted with trees. Several steps have been reached: firstly the population has been prepared (information, awareness raising and training), then reconnaissance, topographical surveys and treatments of watershed were carried out where plantations were established. It was also necessary to import seeds from many countries, to create nurseries, to treat seeds and to train Cape Verde technicians.

Role of stakeholders: The role of the population was to participate in field work, to work in collaboration with the MDR technicians, to operate the nursery and finally to transport the seedlings to the field and plant them. All these steps were achieved with the technical support of the MDR and some fund providers.

Other important information: The village suffers from substantial soil erosion, amounting to 6-10,000 tons per square km per year before the afforestation campaigns. The slopes are very steep (around 20-35 degrees). The main income of local farmers is from orchards.

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 on SLM only

­fight against the desertification and the drought impacts, improvement of the living standards of the local population and particularly of the rural population through vegetation and animal production increase


The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: ­desertification, drought, lack of water, erosion, loss of soil fertility, low soil cover, lack of firewood, loss of biodiversity,
­low take-up by the local population in the management of technologies (soil and water conservation measures), the low education level of some farmers including women, and the degree of land user poverty.

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	accelerated method of participatory research (rapid rural appraisal?), interviews/questionnaires, workshops/seminars
planning	none
implementation	none	intermittent works, responsibilities over small steps
monitoring/ evaluation	none
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 SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

At the beginning, decions came from specialists with consultation of local populations. However, this approach is now quite flexible because of the creation of local associations, NGOs and Municipal Commissions for Environment. Decision taken are now more structured and more consensual. Sometimes the decisions even come from the local associations

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. For the importants works, the decisions concerning the method used are taken by specialists. But due to the excellent job done since 1975, the Ministry of Agriculture is now involved, via its Department for Rural Activities. Local populations are well trained for the implementation of soil and water conservation technologies with minimum technical support from specialists.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• specialists of SLM, students, politician / decision maker

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer

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:

Name of method used for advisory service: ZOPP (German Participative Approach Method); Key elements: Participative, Integrated, Practical; The extension service and rural extension are under the responsibility of delegations of Directorate General for Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock (DGASP), which are distributed over different municipalities. These delegations sometimes act as bridges between farmers and the advisory service. The extension system is very adequate to ensure continuation of activities. Ninety-nine per cent of these practices are achievable by the technicians of the government. However, dams of medium importance require external support.

Advisory service is very adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; 99% of these practices are achievable by the technicians of the government. However, dams of medium importance require external support.

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:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by other through measurements; indicators: Technicians and researchers of the Ministry of Rural Development

area treated aspects were regular monitored by other through measurements; indicators: Technicians and researchers of the Ministry of Rural Development and OASIS

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by other through measurements; indicators: Technicians and Researchers of the Ministry of Rural Development DGASP/ Delegations of Ministry of Rural Development/OASIS/ Platform of local Associations for Rural Development

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

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 (Pays-Bas, France, Belgique, USA): 50.2%; government (MADRRM): 49.8%

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)

• agricultural

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

• paid in cash

Comments:

Because of poverty, labour is paid.

The use of inputs depends on the type of farming system. In other words, with respect to rainfed agriculture, the purchase of seed (800 g costs about 100 escudos, about 1.20 US$) represents a general input and remains the only input that the project introduced in the agricultural fields. However, for irrigated agriculture inputs are more important, in particular fertilizers and pesticides.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Yes

Specify conditions (interest rate, payback, etc.):

repayment conditions: Agricultural credit is one of the lowest in Cape Verde. This idea was born during the 1980s, several years after the Independence of Cape Verde. It all started in the framework of co-operation with the United States, in which an agency worked directly with community-based organizations with support from the government. In the 2000s, the system worked very well. The interest rate was indeed very low (less than 5%) but the amount made available to the associations or direct beneficiaries was quite limited. In 2005, within the project 'Management and Enhancement of the watersheds of Piocs and Engenhos in the Island of Santiago', agricultural credit was introduced with an interest rate of 5% for the livestock sector and irrigated agriculture. Although the number of members was limited, it worked relatively well. However, for the area of rainfed agriculture and forestry, there is no credit for the time being..

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:

The involvement and empowerment of community-based associations in the implementation of rural development actions intended to ensure the sustainability of these actions. Thus, the handling and monitoring of short- and medium-range actions are in the hands of intervention associations. In contrast, far-reaching actions such as hydraulic works are the responsibility of the State regarding their handling.
Some activities can be carried out without any extern support, like in example the tree and fruit species plantation, the construction of small dams, the construction of small importance tanks, the installation of a localized irrigation system.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Their active participation in the process

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Multidisciplinary Team Building
The involvement of grassroots community associations and NGOs in the implementation of
Existing decentralization (Central Authority, Local Power, Delegations of MADRRM)

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?
A lot of speeches and nothing concrete against	More Actions
A certain slowness between the consultation, identification and implementation phases.	Reduce this margin
Not enough money to support their agrarian problems	Synergy and co-operation between rural development programs and projects.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Low exchange between island operators	Creating funds capable of supporting trade between operators of the main agricultural islands
Santiago continues to be the most favored island compared to others.	Programs should be more integrated and inclusive
High rural poverty	Enhancing Poverty Reduction Programs
Lack of land	Establish programs for the conversion of certain lands and forests
Land tenure in place	Integrate the church more into the land issue, as this religious institute has a large share of agricultural land.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

And Emilia, V., 1995. Diagnostico inicial junto da comunidade. Volume II, Guia Para o Formador. Minstério de Agricultura-Projecto GCP/CVI/032/ITA “ Consolidação das actividades do Centro de Formação de São Jorge”, pp 99.

Available from where? Costs?

Bibliothèque INIDA

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Le Sahel en Lutte contre la Désertification, RENE MARCEAU ROCHETTE, 1989

Available from where? Costs?

Bibliothèque INIDA

Title, author, year, ISBN:

ESTUDO DA ABORDAGEM UTILIZADA PELO DESIRE NA PROBLEMÁTICA DE DEGRADAÇÃO E DESERTIFICAÇÃO DAS TERRAS NA BACIA HIDROGRÁFICA DA RIBEIRA SECA

Available from where? Costs?

Bibliothèque CFA_INIDA

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Ciclo de capacitação dos agentes de apoio a reforma agrária, Osvaldo Cruz, 1987

Available from where? Costs?

Bibliothèque INIDA

Title, author, year, ISBN:

www.desire-his.eu/en/ribeira-seca-cape-verde

Available from where? Costs?

Bibliothèque INIDA