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)

Decision Support for Mainstreaming and Scaling out Sustainable Land Management (GEF-FAO / DS-SLM)

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

Integrated Catchment Management Project (Integrated Catchment Management Project) - Lesotho

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

27/05/2018

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

This focus group discussion was composed of 15-20 participants: community elders, youth, (males and females as informed by local beliefs and norms), retired government officials.The aim of community focus group discussion was to find land users’perception and behaviour on land uses and SLM. It was organised by Ministry of Forestry, LADA coordinator and national consultant. The target group was land users, local authorities, youth, small stock owners, retired government officials. The target group mandate was also to draw the community map which also showed the land uses and resources. This focus group discussion gave researchers information on land uses, natural resources, prior SLM interventions, and many more.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

1. Conducted an initial field visit before the focus group discussion (FGD) with the selected villages within the sub-catchment: A tour by road with a few key informants to familiarise officers with the study area, land uses, also the extent and severity of degradation and types and extent of conservation and improved land management measures with the result being a community territorial map.
2. The aim of Focus Group Discussion (FGD) is to obtain information about range of land-users, their individual and communal management regime and the history of their area. This method is used as the first stage of implementation in LADA local level assessment.
3. The FGD representatives consisted of different social groups (i.e. both men and women – and different age groups) between 15-20 members. These members together with technocrats sat at round table set up which enabled free and interactive communication and feedback.
Each study area had its own list of FGD questions and facilitated them accordingly. Field Assessments confining; six (6) study areas in each sub-catchment.
•Vegetation assessment.
•Soil assessments which entail soil erosion and soil properties (2 study areas).
•Water resources assessment with key informant interviews on water resources.
•Household livelihood assessments.
•Land use systems
4. The target group mandate was also to draw the community map which also showed the land uses and resources. This focus group discussion gave researchers information on land uses, natural resources, prior SLM interventions, and many more. This approach enabled land users to present all their views without fear or dominance by other members. They realised that they have their resources in abundance, however, they need to improve their status as their livelihoods entirely depends on their good use.
5. It was organised by Ministry of Forestry, National University of Lesotho, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Water, Ministry of Local Government,LADA coordinator and national consultant. The target group was land users, local authorities, youth, small stock owners, retired government officials.
6. The advantage of FGD was that the land users were taught on income generating activities such as orchard establishment, food processing, vegetable production under shade nets/tunnels (climate smart agriculture). They did not like the timing of FGD because it interfered with their haresting season, it took longer than it was intended and the weather conditions were not condusive as it was too cold and on the second day, snow began to fall.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.4 Videos 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

To find land-users views on their status of their natural resources and if they have indigenous knowledge systems applicable to be used in the management method

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	interactive	key informants as community representatives
planning	interactive	key informants and technocrats working together to produce community maps
implementation	interactive	technocrats tour guided by community elders
monitoring/ evaluation	none
	none

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:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

Technocrats recommend SLM activities to land-users who in turn adopt the suggested technologies attributed to their impact land-users' livelihoods

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

No

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

There are farmer-farmer visits facilitated by extension workers. There are also agriculture resource centres whereby farmers visit to get more information.

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?

No

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:

Each researcher facilitated their area of speciality and this enabled the question-answer session to be easy. community members had bottle-necks which researchers ironed. The challenge in extension services is means of transport to the landusers due to terrain of our country, so extension service is somehow compromised and not acessible at all times.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 2,000-10,000

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

FAO-UN
Government of Lesotho
The money caters for accomodation, meals, transport, refreshments for researchers. This is because reseachers do not reside where the FGD was taking place, after the FGD followed LADA local level assessment, which was conducted for 15 days.

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)

• none

Comments:

N/A

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify:

There are policies and laws which were referred to in order to support SLM such as Forest Act (1998), Range Resources Management policy (2013)

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:

Without external support, farmers are not able to implement activities fully

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Knowledge management
It can easily be implemented
It brings different land user groups together

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view

other key resource persons such as local authorities liked this approach because it them ideas on which resources are available in the catchment and how communities utilise them for survival. The land users on the other hand ound this approach very useful as they were empowered and allowed to say their views without fear or favor as they were informed that there were no wrong answers. everybody participated fully

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?
It is limited to key informants	It should be replicated within the same community but, with different participants (Key)
Some key informants tend to dominate the discussion	The facilitator should be observant and try to control dominating participants
It may become a platform for conflicts	Local authorities should be present in case conflicts arise

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

N/A

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Ministry of Forestry, Range and Soil Conservation

URL:

https://forestry.gov.ls

Title/ description:

Lesotho Soil Information System

URL:

https://lesis.gov.ls