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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 50, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Book project: Guidelines to Rangeland Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rangeland Management)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 50, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Book project: Guidelines to Rangeland Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rangeland Management)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6129, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Italy', '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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has been using a participatory approach to implement large-scale restoration of degraded land in the Sahel. Communities have been central to the programme. In the framework of the Great Green Wall initiative, adapted and useful native tree species, shrubs, and fodder grasses are planted in agro-sylvo-pastoral land. This is response to community needs and preferences while ensuring that the species and varieties are all ecologically suitable.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The approach is implemented under FAO's Action against Desertification (AAD) programme in the Great Green Wall for the Sahara and the Sahel Initiative (GGWSSI). This is Africa's flagship initiative to combat the effects of climate change and desertification, and to address food insecurity and poverty. It brings together more than 20 African countries with international agencies, research institutes, civil society and grassroots organizations. Through the GGWSSI, the vision is a mosaic of sustainable land use practices and productive landscapes stretching across North Africa, the Sahel and the Horn.
Community participation in the Great Green Wall restoration initiative is through a people-centred approach to rangeland management that puts communities at the heart of efforts. It focusses on plant species that support their livelihoods. Specifically these are a selection of well-adapted indigenous trees, shrubs and fodder grasses with proven resilience to drought and usefulness in restoration. Village communities decide on which areas to plant and on the species that they can utilise for food, for fodder, and for medicines. There are also plants that produce economically valuable goods for local, national and even international markets, such as gum arabic (from Acacia senegal) for example.
Technically, AAD supports the implementation of land restoration activities through provision of equipment, and by strengthening the technical and functional capacities of individuals, communities, and organizations in restoration techniques and sustainable land management.
The three main objectives of this approach are:
a) Poverty alleviation;
b) Ending hunger; and
c) Improving resilience to climate change.
The restoration approach is based on a five-step model:
• Communities: needs and requirements for restoration are determined through in-depth consultations with communities.
• Research: good quality seed is made available for the propagation of economically viable, locally adapted and biodiverse vegetation.
• Operational procedure: efficient operational restoration processes are ensured, including land preparation and management, assisted natural regeneration and planting.
• Monitoring: field performance of species are evaluated, as well as communal activities such as maintenance and management of restored areas.
• Capacity development: village technicians’ capacities are upgraded in forest seed collecting and nursery techniques, planting, maintenance and management of restored areas, and development of plant products, marketing, and local business management.

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

Key elements and aims of this approach include:
• Planting the right species in the right place.
• Promoting the use of quality native forest and fodder seeds for restoration.
• Ensuring that a wide range of useful plant species is made available.
• Managing natural regeneration of species and planted areas through village management committees.
• Updating a species database for gene-pool traceability, monitoring, reporting and for future uses of data and information.

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	Communities’ local knowledge, needs and aspirations were the backbone of the project. Communities were extensively consulted on species identification and prioritization based on needs, including speed of production, personal knowledge and aspirations. This was through questionnaires and village workshops. Commitment and buy-in from the community was also a prerequisite for activities to start, as they had to commit to contribute land and in-kind labour. Selection of villages for restoration was based on, amongst other things, motivation and commitment by communities to participate in restoration activities, and community-based structures and organizations.
planning	interactive	Extensive planning was done with communities before implementation, e.g. to agree on planting times, use of traditional techniques and land preparation.
implementation	interactive	Implementation was done actively with communities who volunteered traditional knowledge as well as labour to the activities. This built on the initial procedures where species were selected and prioritized; planning of activities; and later labour in preparation of land, setting-up nurseries and transplanting.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Monitoring and field data collection of survival and growth of seedlings were carried out by trained village technicians in collaboration with the communities and technical institutions.

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:

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

Explain:

This is a local initiative that uses traditional ecological knowledge and multi-purpose plant species (of known benefits to the local communities) for restoration.
Community participation, lifestyles and preferences and a careful analysis of ecological landscapes are carefully considered and then matched to suitable interventions. This similar approach has been applied by other projects in the GGWSSI region however although has not often been formally disseminated to wider audiences.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• research findings
• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

100 small-scale farmers were trained in 2017, in Natural Assisted Regeneration techniques and 40 farmers were trained in forest and fodder seed collection and the production of seedlings in village nurseries and in the management of planted sites.

Form of training:

• courses

Subjects covered:

Technical training was provided to villages through formal modules in how to collect quality seeds in defined seed zones. The training was provided by the national forest seed centres. The training was in seedling production and participatory forest management. Other areas covered included; added-value and the development of plant products (non-timber forest products), marketing and local business management to support income generation.

Comments:

Apart from the restoration technical areas covered above, additional areas of training included; improving adult literacy, family health and nutritional standards. This was done together with specialized rural sector developers.

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

• workshops

Describe/ comments:

To re-introduce plants for large-scale restoration, effective use of seeds of wild species demands sufficient biological and technical knowledge about a large number of species to allow for collection, storage and germination of seeds and establishment of seedlings. In this approach therefore, use was made of the technical know-how of RBG Kew and their partnership with forest seed centres that guided collection of quality seeds.

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
• regional
• national

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Institutions: National government; NGOs, CBOs.
Support to the national government which is the national agency for the GGW is the entry point. Through them and based on national objectives, the project progresses to a decentralized level. At the national level, capacities have been improved on monitoring and evaluation techniques; seed identification and selection and handling.
Local level: these are the implementing partners and work on the ground. Their capacities have been improved on seed selection and restoration techniques, and on data collection
Regional level: more collaboration, coordination and knowledge sharing on the GGW initiatives as well as peer-to-peer learning.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

Equipment: mainly for land preparation for planting and non-timber forest product processing.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Regular monitoring is carried out by village communities involved in the restoration exercise. The activities include assessing seedling survival and growth, and the area planted.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

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:

Through a questionnaire, communities define their needs and preferences for species, and the objectives of land restoration in their selected agro-sylvo-pastoral degraded lands. Results of this consultation are fed back to them after analyses by the project team (researchers, plant experts, seed centres) for the feasibility, suitability and availability of the requested species. This creates common agreement on interventions, priorities and implementation plans, with roles and responsibilities from the communities as well as from the technical teams.
1. Sociology: prior research was done on social diversity of village communities in areas such as gender, age, and professions to decide on village selection, but also to ensure balance.
2. Economics/marketing: this was multi-faceted - on the one hand looking at community economic needs and priorities, but also on how to add value to non-timber forest products. The plant-use data received from respondents were classified according to the Economic Botany Data Collection.
These helped in deciding and prioritizing species according to community needs.
3. Ecology: the GGW initiative is typically aimed at drylands with challenges of aridity. Thus the ecology was studied to identify suitable plant species that would thrive under these conditions - in combination with traditional SLM/ water harvesting technologies that have been developed to overcome moisture deficits.
The selected species was further examined in laboratories to check their suitability for dryland environments and thereafter to ensure good quality and genetically diverse seeds are used.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 100,000-1,000,000

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

Action Against Desertification is implemented by FAO and partners with funding from the European Union in the framework of the 10th European Development Fund (EDF). The GGWI under AAD in Niger is funded up to around 1.5m USD for the four years of the project.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Finances are needed for purchasing equipment; seeds were also provided; seed testing was carried out to establish appropriate type/species of those chosen by the communities.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• labour

• equipment

• agricultural

• construction

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

• rewarded with other material support

Comments:

In partnership with WFP there was collaboration on food for assets and incentives from the project such as trainings on preparation of vegetable gardens..

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:

Functional capacity building village communities for example in management of restoration sites and development of forest products

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

If yes, describe how:

The capacity being developed should help farmers continue without external intervention e.g. training in collecting planting material, planting techniques and in managing the plots enables continuity, and the capacities developed stay within the community – for example: the trained village technicians.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Builds on existing knowledge such as the use of zaï (pit planting).
Income generation e.g. from selling of seeds to governments and other land users.
Helping achieve communities specifics objectives such as increasing tree cover.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The consultation process and the mutual trust built over time, which helps people “buy into” the programme and feel ownership of the activities on the ground.
The technical and scientific feedback answers to priorities and preoccupation of land users in terms of restoration objectives.
The involvement of people in monitoring and management of their planted sites as they contribute their lands and labour.

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?
Inability to adequately influence donor plans.	Frequent consultations.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Inability to address all the needs of the beneficiaries: for example demand for water supply in dry seasons while the project focusses on rainfed restoration.	Increased dialogue on interventions across sectors, such as with donors for a more systematic and integrated approach.
Lack of flexibility in implementation to consider some of the upcoming demands of communities.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

FAO. 2015. Global guidelines for the restoration of degraded forests and landscapes in drylands: building resilience and benefitting livelihoods. Forestry Paper No. 175. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Available from where? Costs?

UN-FAO

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Community participation at the heart of Africa’s Great Green Wall Restoration model. Authors: M. Sacande, N. Berahmouni and S. Hargreaves. In Unasylva. Volume 66 2015/3

Available from where? Costs?

UN-FAO

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Action Against Desertification (FAO)

URL:

http://www.fao.org/in-action/action-against-desertification/en/

Title/ description:

Building Africa’s Great Green Wall: Restoring degraded drylands for stronger and more resilient communities

URL:

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6476e.pdf

Title/ description:

Forest and Landscape Restoration Approach

URL:

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5212e.pdf