1.2 Detalles de contacto de las personas de referencia e instituciones involucradas en la evaluación y la documentación del Enfoque

Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)

Bukoba district council (Bukoba district council) - Tanzania, República Unida de

Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)

Ngara District Council (Ngara District Council) - Tanzania, República Unida de

1.3 Condiciones referidas al uso de datos documentados mediante WOCAT

¿Cuándo se compilaron los datos (en el campo)?

10/03/2014

El compilador y la/s persona(s) de referencia claves aceptan las condiciones acerca del uso de los datos documentados mediante WOCAT :

Sí

1.4 Referencia/s al/los Cuestionario(s) de Tecnologías MST

2.1 Breve descripción del Enfoque

Adaptive Agro-ecosystem Micro-catchment Approach.

2.2 Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST

Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST:

Aims / objectives: SLM knowledge skill generation and capacity building. Improved group and community strength, sustainability, organization and their capacity to benefit and invest in SLM. Motivation of community participation in SLM through use of quick win project, income generating activities, rural micro finance institutions, marketing and active engagement of disadvantaged groups.

Methods: Wider promotion of basket of choice of SLM technologies through SLM Farmer Field School, Demonstration plots and community related activities. Make use and build on already existing and new groups, existing institutions and the community as a whole. Strategic use of easily available and accessible available community institutions/ infrastructures (school and dispensaries sites) to demonstrate and promote basket of choice of SLM technologies. Learning by doing on the job, practical training, adoption and adaptation to local reality.

Stages of implementation: Site characterization through land degradation analysis (LADA) and development of community site specific SLM plan exemplifying SLM interventions needed to address the identified degradation types. Set up and identification of approaches needed to execute identified interventions complementary approaches. Sensitization and awareness creation to the community and actual execution of approaches.

Role of stakeholders: Individual groups: are core implementers and potential beneficiaries of the project.
Extension worker: Advisory and technical backstopping.
Elected and employed leaders at the sub-village, village and ward level: bylaw/law enforcement, supervisory and land provision.
Relief for Development Societies NGO (REDESO): Service provision and development partner in SLM.
Trans boundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project (TAMP): Provision of supportive resources (financial and technical).
Ngara district council: Supervisory, technical, policy interpretation, monitoring and evaluation, documentation, analysis and shairing .
Rugenge/Kirusha Micro catchment Committee: Supervisory, advisory and law enforcement.

2.3 Fotos del Enfoque

2.5 País/ región/ lugares donde el Enfoque fue aplicado

2.6 Fechas de inicio y conclusión del Enfoque

2.7 Tipo de Enfoque

• proyecto/ basado en un programa

2.8 Propósitos/ objetivos principales del Enfoque

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Motivating quick win income generation activities, rural microfinance institutions, marketing and HIV/AIDS controll.)

Knowledge/skill generation, demonstration and sustainability of SLM activities.
Motivate active participation of the community.
Inculcate a sense of community ownership/ community take charge of SLM activities.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of technical knowledge
Low investment capacity
Malpractice and mismanagement of local resources (e.g. fire burning, ploughing along the slope).
Adequate supervision, monitoring and law enforcement.

2.9 Condiciones que facilitan o impiden la implementación de la/s Tecnología/s aplicadas bajo el Enfoque

3.1 Partes interesadas involucradas en el Enfoque y sus roles

3.2 Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales en las distintas fases del Enfoque

	Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales	Especifique quién se involucró y describa las actividades
iniciación/ motivación	pasivo	Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: participated in sensitization and awareness creation process.
planificación	interactivo	Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: active participants and decision makers in planning e.g. selection of FFS community facilitators and formation of micro-catchment committee.
implementación	apoyo externo	Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: core and key implementers of the approach.
monitoreo y evaluación	interactivo	Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: self mobilized and client interactive monitoring.
Research	interactivo	Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: site identification and active implementers of adaptive trials (e.g use of fanya juu/chini terraces, vertivar grass e.t.c). Adopters, users and promoters of the best bets technologies.

3.3 Flujograma (si estuviera disponible)

3.4 La toma de decisiones en la selección de Tecnología(s) MST

Especifique quién decidió la selección de las Tecnología/ Tecnologías a implementarse:

• principalmente usuarios de tierras con el apoyo de especialistas MST

Explique:

Land users working in collaboration with SLM specialist through a participatory dialogue and decision making process.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. During inception of the project, land users were actively involved in deciding on the type of method to adopt e.g. selection of site and test crops for FFS, Demo and community related SLM activities.

4.1 Construcción de capacidades / capacitación

¿Se proporcionó la capacitación a usuarios de tierras/ otras partes interesadas?

Sí

Especifique quién fue capacitado:

• usuarios de tierras
• personal de campo/ consejeros

• employed and elected leaders

Si fuese relevante, también especifique género, edad, estatus, etnicidad, etc.

Both gender, all age (youth and elders)

Forma de capacitación:

• en el contexto de trabajo
• de agricultor a agricultor
• áreas de demostración

Temas avanzados:

SLM related subjects

4.2 Servicio de asesoría

¿Los usuarios de tierras tienen acceso a un servicio de asesoría?

Sí

Especifique si servicio proporcionado se realizó:

• en los campos de los usuarios de tierras

Describa/ comentarios:

Name of method used for advisory service: Farmer field schools (FFS); Key elements: Practical training and learning by doing., Basket of choice of Technologies/Demos., Group oriented and site specific; Adoption depends on farmers choice and ability to invest.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; There is limited knowledge and low funding capacity.

4.3 Fortalecimiento institucional (desarrollo institucional)

¿Se establecieron o fortalecieron instituciones mediante el Enfoque?

• sí, moderadamente

Especifique el nivel o los niveles en los que se fortalecieron o establecieron las instituciones:

• local

Especifique el tipo de apoyo:

• construcción de capacidades/ entrenamiento

Proporcione detalles adicionales:

Training provision to micro-catchment committee.

4.4 Monitoreo y evaluación

¿El monitoreo y la evaluación forman parte del Enfoque?

Sí

Comentarios:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: hactarage conserved

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: hactarage conserved

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: number of adopters

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: number of adopters

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: % involvement of women

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: % involvement of women

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: % increase in yield and income

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: % increase in yield and income

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: hactarage conserved

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: hactarage conserved

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: number of adopters

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: number of adopters

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Number of FFS, Demos and IGA

management of Approach aspects were monitored through measurements; indicators: umber of FFS, Demos and IGA

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Introduction of FFS farmer facilitators and Micro-catchment committees.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: In the course of implementation adjusting or modifying technologies to suit agro-ecological condition or landforms

4.5 Investigación

¿La investigación formó parte del Enfoque?

Sí

• adaptive SLM trials

Proporcione detalles adicionales e indique quién hizo la investigación:

Adaptive SLM trials run by community/district/ARI Maruku through demos where farmers can select the best bets to apply and try on their own fields.

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Presupuesto anual para el componente MST del Enfoque

Si no se conoce el presupuesto anual preciso, indique el rango:

• 10,000-100,000

Comentarios (ej. fuentes principales de financiamiento/ donantes principales):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (TAMP): 50.0%; government (Region/ARI Maruku.): 10.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Ngara district council, Villages and Ward): 20.0%; local community / land user(s) (Local community and groups withi the microcatchment ): 20.0%

5.2 Apoyo financiero/material proporcionado a los usuarios de tierras

¿Los usuarios de tierras recibieron financiamiento/ apoyo material para implementar la Tecnología/ Tecnologías? :

Sí

5.3 Subsidios para insumos específicos (incluyendo mano de obra)

• equipo

• agrícola

• otro

Si la mano de obra de usuarios de tierras fue un insumo sustancial, ¿fue:

• voluntario?

Comentarios:

labour was largely voluntarily and was rewarded indirectly by introduction of income generating activities.

Some inputs were fully financed, partly financed and not financed. Materials fully financed are those not available at the site or not adequately available or in shortage.

5.4 Crédito

¿Se proporcionó crédito bajo el Enfoque para actividades MST?

No

6.1 Impactos del Enfoque

6.2 Motivación principal del usuario de la tierra para implementar MST

6.3 Sostenibilidad de las actividades del Enfoque

¿Pueden los usuarios de tierras sostener lo que se implementó mediante el Enfoque (sin apoyo externo)?

• sí

Si respondió que sí, describa cómo:

Farmers have realized the benefit of SLM. The village historical track records and experience indicate that farmers in Kirusha village usually continue what ever they come to realize is implemented for their own benefit. Further more, establishment of local human resource in SLM in terms of FFS facilitators and micro-catchment committee and their ope-rationalization into LGA systems is an assure way towards sustainability.
Motivation induced through quick win income generating activities (goat production, chicken, piggery, fruit tree nurseries and apiaries) and easy to manage demo set at Kirushya primary school and dispensary (reachable and easily accessible) are added assurance for project sustainability.

6.4 Fortalezas/ ventajas del Enfoque

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra
Learning and acquisition of knowledge (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuation of FFS, Demo and community activities.)
Cohesiveness and self help (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue promotion of VICOBA and Market. )
Spread of knowledge within and outside village. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue use of the approach. )

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave
Improved relationship, unity, cohesiveness and common voice. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue with promotion, strengthening and establishment of IGA, SACCAS and VICOBA.)
More farmers are involved (rapid adoption and expansion) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Up scaling and strengthening of FFS, Demos, and IGA. )
The approach is cost effective (benefit surpass costs) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Promote, expand and continue use of FFS, Demos and IGA.)
Assured and promising elements of sustainability. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Strengthen ope-rationalization and use of micro-catchment committee and FFS facilitators. )
Easy access to supportive resources (Land and financial) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: strengthen and liaise FFS with service providers (Bank, SACCOS and Marketing))

6.5 Debilidades/ desventajas del Enfoque y formas de sobreponerse a ellos

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra	¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
Negative customs and believes (it is believed that one can live longer and reach older age by setting fire and burning of a large area).	Discourage negative custom and believes
Reluctance of household heads especially in patrimonial societies.	Community sensitization to gender (gender be addressed as the basic component of the approach).
Failure and negative experience of past development projects and programmes.	Change of mind set
Shortage of inputs and working facilities	Promote availability and accessibility of inputs and working facilities.

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave	¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
Selfishness, individualism by some untrustworthy politicians and leaders.	Combine SLM promotion with civic education training.
Prone to natural calamities and disastrous events	Introduce and strengthen use of Agro-based insurance.
Largely relies on government or farmer willingness to release and offer land.	Sensitize and encourage use of MOU.
If not done in precaution can perpetuate dependency syndrome	Encourage use of self mobilized farmer groups and their strengthening and ope-rationalization into existing systems.
Reliable external supportive resource needed initially	Reliable and timely supply of supportive resources.

7.1 Métodos/ fuentes de información

7.2 Referencias a publicaciones disponibles

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

Site characterization report: Kimamba Lyoba,