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

Nombre del proyecto que facilitó la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque (si fuera relevante)

Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)

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

Alliance Bioversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT) - Kenia

1.3 Condiciones referidas al uso de datos documentados mediante WOCAT

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

13/01/2023

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

The integrated agroforestry system is a self-initiated approach by a land user to implement agroforestry as part of an indigenous practice and has evolved over the years through technical support, training, and supplies of coffee and tree seedlings by the Office of Agriculture and Coffee Improvement Project. Had there been a participatory process throughout it would have helped in design and also in scaling up.

2.2 Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST

Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST:

The integrated agroforestry system was independently initiated by land users during the Derg regime (1974-91). During the regime, farmers were failed by two distinct and polar development approaches: socialist and the mainstream local approaches. The earlier one involved the communist approach of communal production and sharing the output according to contribution. The latter ones employed a conventional approach and included non-members of the so-called Farmers Producer Cooperatives. As a non-member of the earlier one, the land user had to develop his farm alone. The solitary agroforestry initiative described here has gradually evolved to a fully-fledged system that currently serves as a model SLM practice for scaling up across similar agroecological and farming system. Thus, there was little participation involved during the early intensification of agroforestry in Ethiopia. Rather, it is considered an indigenous practice that now receives publicity as a form of “regenerative agriculture” with ecological, economic, and social benefits. As it has global significance in terms of emission reduction and sequestration of carbon, it is the favourite technology among the government and other development practitioners.
The farmer started agroforestry by planting enset and coffee. Over time, with emerging technical support, access to training, and supply of coffee seedlings by the agriculture and coffee improvement project offices, the land user has continued intensification of the agroforestry around the homestead by adopting the correct planting space for coffee and enset, and other companion fruit, fodder crops, and shade trees. The former Ministry of Coffee and Tea, and the current Ministry of Agriculture have had an immense contribution by supplying technical support, training, and inputs (notably coffee and tree seedlings), and by ensuring access to fertilizers. The latter was supplied to the farmers on a credit basis through the then Service Cooperative.
As the initiative was the farmer's own, the tendency to plant incompatible crops was not uncommon. Even so, the agroforestry trees and shrubs still had immense ecological and economic value. They ameliorate the extreme temperature experienced during the dry season, improve the microclimate, recharge the surface and groundwater via improving water infiltration, and reduce runoff losses. Improving soil fertility and soil health are among other benefits. Despite the substantial benefit the technology confers on land users, the lack of a participatory approach in planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation at the community level restricts the adoption and scaling up of this beneficial approach. Despite the achievements of the land user, earlier engagement of other smallholders and institutionalizing the approach decades ago might have positively influenced the design as well as wider-scale adoption and application of the technology. However, regardless of any limitations, the technology is evidence-based and inspirational.

2.3 Fotos del Enfoque

2.4 Videos 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

• tradicional/ local

2.8 Propósitos/ objetivos principales del Enfoque

A traditional approach was initiated to change the land use/ land cover and optimize the benefit of the degraded land by reducing the negative effects of overgrazing and its consequence.

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	auto-movilización	Land user: Initiated coffee and enset plantation little by little and accessed training and technical support from DAs and Woreda office of Agriculture experts.
planificación	auto-movilización	Land user and development agent: In consultation with DAs, the land users plan based on available labor and capital every other year.
implementación	auto-movilización	Land users and family member. They involved in various implementation/management activities.
monitoreo y evaluación	pasivo	Government development agents, and experts coordinate mobilization of the communities to visit and learn from the ongoing practice.

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:

• solamente usuarios de tierras (autoiniciativa)

Explique:

The land user was the initial decision maker that later cross-fertilized or complemented by research and development actors.

Especifique las bases que sustentaron la toma de decisiones:

• la experiencia personal y opiniones (no documentadas)

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

• Development agents

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

Training is usually provided to literate farmers who are capable of reading, taking notes, and sharing with other peers back home. Women-headed household are inclusive to represent the gender parity.

Forma de capacitación:

• reuniones públicas

Forma de capacitación:

• Training and visit

Temas avanzados:

Coffee production and management such as preparation of planting pits, refilling the soil back to the pit, planting space, fertilizer application, weeding, mulching, planting shade trees, etc.

Comentarios:

Integrating enset, shade trees, and soil bunds with productive barriers into the farm eventually evolves into the agroforestry system.

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
• en centros permanentes

Describa/ comentarios:

The training used to be given in permanent centers such as development stations in the past and Farmers Training Center since recent a decade ago and was associated with a visit to a farmers field.

4.3 Fortalecimiento institucional (desarrollo institucional)

¿Se establecieron o fortalecieron instituciones mediante el Enfoque?

• no

4.4 Monitoreo y evaluación

¿El monitoreo y la evaluación forman parte del Enfoque?

No

Comentarios:

A sort of visit may be organized by development agents to the coffee plantation but not in a way address the role of monitoring and evaluation and documentation.

4.5 Investigación

¿La investigación formó parte del Enfoque?

No

5.1 Presupuesto anual para el componente MST del Enfoque

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

• < 2,000

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

Only in kind support such as coffee seedlings and technical support such as advisory service was provide by the government agricultural office through development/extension agents. Otherwise, it is privately financed business with main expense geared toward supplying seedlings and agricultural inputs such as fertilizers.

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

Si respondió sí, especifique el tipo o los tipos de apoyo, condiciones y proveedor(es) :

In the past (during Derg regime) there was subsidy for fertilizers as a country which is entirely removed in the recent years.

5.3 Subsidios para insumos específicos (incluyendo mano de obra)

• otro

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

• voluntario?

Comentarios:

Family labor used to manage the family farm.

5.4 Crédito

¿Se proporcionó crédito bajo el Enfoque para actividades MST?

No

5.5 Otros incentivos o instrumentos

¿Se usaron otros incentivos o instrumentos para promover la implementación de Tecnologías 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:

Despite the implementation approach employed by the land user, the technology is highly commended by the land users and the public at large. The income generated from the sale of crops adequately supports the livelihoods of family farmers as well as effectively finances the maintenance of the system. However, the new beginners need external support to make sure the technology is properly implemented and scaled out for wider application and use.

6.4 Fortalezas/ ventajas del Enfoque

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra
Enables improved crop production and productivity and reduces risks of crop failure due to climate change/variability.
Motivate farmers to reduce soil erosion and land degradation and improve soil fertility.
The approach creates an enabling environment to intensify agroforestry and improve the microclimate of the area and ensure sustainability of the system.
Increased land users' status in the community to feel confident as local elites and friendliness to the environment.

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave
The agroforestry system creates economic, ecological, and social benefits for the family farm.
It ensures sustainable land management becomes in place as well as improves land users' understanding of SLM.
Ensure productivity and product stability, and serve as a permanent source of income and insurance for a family farmer.

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?
Failure to promote collective action that end up with shortage of labor with increasing size/ areas of technology.	Establish and promote collective action and labor-sharing techniques.
Lack of participatory planning and decision make to put in place proper trees-crops integration.	Promote participation that enables to select and plant trees and crops with desirable characteristics to the agroforestry system.
Lack of active women participation with clear role and their share of the benefit from the system.	Improve women's participation and share of the benefit.

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave	¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
Lower level of mainstreaming the approach and the technology at earlier stage that led to land users lower level of understanding of the multi-storey agroforestry system.	Improve land users understanding of Agroforestry and the SLM through capacity building and exchange visits.
The solitary approach led to relatively lower adoption of the technology.	Improve participation, access to training, technical support, and credit services to optimize the benefit of land users at scale.
Evolving the approach from solitary approach to large mass of land users constrained by shortage of farmland.	Promote intensification through introduction of high - value crops and optimize the return from the smaller holdings.

7.1 Métodos/ fuentes de información

7.2 Referencias a publicaciones disponibles

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

An Agroforestry Guide for Field Practitioners. 2013. ISBN 978-92-9059-333-1

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

https://www.worldagroforestry.org

7.3 Vínculos a la información relevante disponible en línea

Título/ descripción:

SUSTAINABLE LAND USE FORUM

URL:

http://publication.eiar.gov.et