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)?

22/03/2023

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

Participatory rehabilitation and productive use of dry valleys is an approach employed to rehabilitate degraded and degradable land. It is operationalised through the Lowland Soil Rehabilitation Project with local development partners from kebele, district, regional agricultural bureaus, and other relevant stakeholders.

2.2 Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST

Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST:

Participatory rehabilitation of degraded and degradable dry valleys engages the community at the grassroots through consultation. It is operationalised through the Lowland Soil Rehabilitation Project with local development partners from kebele, district, regional agricultural bureaus, and other relevant stakeholders.
Technical experts from the district and region are involved in reconnaissance, observation and joint selection of the intervention sites. The team conduct a survey, then profile and design the technologies required, along with the project engineer. The approach optimises the participation of the community and agricultural actors, allowing the development of a sense of ownership and accountability through training and awareness-creation exercises. In turn this encourages them to take care of and maintain the structures.
This approach combines top-down and bottom-up methods. At the grassroots, the local agropastoral communities are mobilized by local extension agents and made aware about the SLM intervention that the project and partners strive to put in place – including the physical structures in the farmers' fields and communal lands. The procedures include a site visit, a survey/ observation, and the identification of the intervention site based on the specific topographic features and drainage system of the catchment. Then, detailed field data is collected and a profile analysis is made to develop the design and get approval after stakeholders’ consultation and review of the details of the implementation design. The approach is complemented by satellite imagery and ground truthing. Following this, the next stage is identification of masonry experts, provision of training, and supply of construction materials and tools. Building the masonry works involves both skilled and unskilled labour.
The woreda NRM expert (focal person) facilitate the process at the grassroots through the development agents. The community gives their consent and support to the objectives of the project implementation. Therefore, they are involved in local decision-making and overseeing the technology that is being put in place.
The agropastoral community is the end user and benefits from the positive consequences of the intervention which is a result of better management of soil and water for productive uses of the dry valley. However, because of a lack of awareness, and the agropastoralists conventional livelihoods practice traveling with their livestock, there is a lack of participation in the day-to-day implementation activities. That limits their active contribution in implementation. Of course, local elders value the consultative experience which confirms a sense of self-worth and acknowledges their role in ownership of the land and as the ultimate decision-maker for development intervention operating in their areas.

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

• proyecto/ basado en un programa

2.8 Propósitos/ objetivos principales del Enfoque

To engage the community and other stakeholders in making participatory decisions on the rehabilitation of the dry valley.

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	interactivo	Agropastoralists involve in allowing peers to understand SLM-related intervention.
planificación	interactivo	Land users involve in participatory planning and decision-making exercise.
implementación	apoyo externo	Skilled and unskilled laborers are sources from neighboring urban areas and the intervention kebeles.
monitoreo y evaluación	apoyo externo	SLM experts and extension agents support in monitoring and evaluation of the intervention activities.

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 por especialistas MST en consulta con usuarios de tierras

Explique:

The communities are consulted, however, selection decision is made by the SLM experts of the partner organizations in consultation with the project SLM specialists.

Especifique las bases que sustentaron la toma de decisiones:

• la evaluación de conocimiento MST bien documentado (la toma de decisiones se basa en evidencia)

4.1 Construcción de capacidades / capacitación

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

Sí

Especifique quién fue capacitado:

• personal de campo/ consejeros

Forma de capacitación:

• en el contexto de trabajo
• reuniones públicas

Forma de capacitación:

• Masonry workers

Temas avanzados:

Dry Land Rehabilitation and Produce Use of the rehabilitated land. Basically, the training is on the SLM practices which are suitable for agropastoralist areas with special emphasis on the physical structure.

Comentarios:

SLM experts from partner organizations and masonry workers were trained to assist in the implementation of SLM practices for dry land rehabilitation.

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:

Advisory services related to SLM are infrequently given. As the agropastoralists are mobile looking for feed and water, particularly during the dry period, advisory services have not been provided on regular basis.

4.3 Fortalecimiento institucional (desarrollo institucional)

¿Se establecieron o fortalecieron instituciones mediante el Enfoque?

• sí, un poco

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

• local

Describa la institución, roles y responsabilidades, miembros, etc.

Stakeholders from government and bilateral organization (project) do make ad hoc meeting during planning and evaluation, this brings actors together but need to establish a sustainable institution that stands on its own and can be working beyond the project's lifetime. Particularly, a land users (agropastoralist) group is essential to oversee the technology placed on their land so that sustainability of the intervention can be ensured.

Especifique el tipo de apoyo:

• financiero
• construcción de capacidades/ entrenamiento
• equipo

Proporcione detalles adicionales:

The equipment refers to the technical tools that can be used by the partner experts - but not farm tools. The latter is expected during which the agropastoralist resumes the productive use of the rehabilitated land which is currently in the initial years of implementation and not yet associated with the productive uses of it.

4.4 Monitoreo y evaluación

¿El monitoreo y la evaluación forman parte del Enfoque?

Sí

Comentarios:

The monitoring and evaluation are part of the project implementation that enables the implementers to track the development and engage the end users to enable them to sense the benefits. The land users started to benefit from the structure such as fetching drinking water both for human and their livestock, though, it is an indirect benefit from the intervention.

Si respondió que sí, ¿la documentación se utilizará para monitoreo y evaluación?

Sí

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:

• 2,000-10,000

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

No specific data on budget allocation for SLM at the district level. However, Local Subsidy Contract (LSC) was used to assist the woreda implement and follow-up the development of the intervention.

5.2 Apoyo financiero/material proporcionado a los usuarios de tierras

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

No

5.3 Subsidios para insumos específicos (incluyendo mano de obra)

Comentarios:

There is no subsidy system supplied to the land users. Labor contribution is on a pay basis in cash. As the area is characterized by food insecurity and drought-prone by virtue, free labor is not expected. Basically, skilled and unskilled labor imported from the nearby town. Thus, it is impossible to assign this role to the land users.

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)?

• incierto

Si respondió no o incierto, especifique y comente:

As maintenance of the structure such as in cases of check dam is resource demanding, it is less likely for the land users to maintain/repair on their own. Rather early combining the physical structure by biological barriers or perennial forage or tree planation may ensure sustainability of the technology/land use. Furthermore, it demands time and labor from the agro-pastoralists.

6.4 Fortalezas/ ventajas del Enfoque

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra
Creates stakeholders awareness on SLM, and productive use of rehabilitated dry valley.
Improves coordination between agricultural actors in line offices, and other stakeholders collective action.
Enhances participatory decision making on the development and use of the rehabilitated lands.

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave
It creates evidence based lesson learning to replicate similar practices across the region.
It improves SLM implementation capacity of the development partners (agricultural offices) and the land users at local level.
It encourages the government respective department to allocate matching fund for SLM operationalized by development partners.

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?
Time and energy/labor demanding to integrate efforts of experts from different organizations.	Nurture proper joint planning for collective action.
Shortage of financial and material resources to put the structure in place.	Find and generate sources of resources and promote efficient use of the available budget.
Improper participation of stakeholders (dropout of experts)	Enforce participation through adopting binding by-laws to all.

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave	¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
Recurrent droughts displace the land users while looking for water and feed to their animals.	Ensure representation to the community, and assess enabling environment that reduce temporal displacement of the land users.
Relatively low participation of the land users in the conception and implementation of the approach as well as the technology intended to rehabilitate the dry valley.	Promote land users participation through intensive capacity building and awareness creation by gender and various categories of the community.
Lack of forming agro-pastoralist group who are believed to share knowledge, skills and labor for collective oversee and maintenance of the technology when damage is encountered.	Promote the development of a local institution that allows not only for the use of the land but also to oversee the gaps, report the issues, and involve in participatory fixing activities.

7.1 Métodos/ fuentes de información

7.2 Referencias a publicaciones disponibles

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

Problems and landscape approach for ecological rehabilitation in the dry valleys of Southwest China. Dong, Y. & Liu, S. (Undated)

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shiliang-Liu-5/publication/221354340_Problems_and_Landscape_Approach_for_Ecological_Rehabilitation_in_the_Dry_Valleys_of_Southwest_China/links/574129be08ae9ace84160bec/

7.3 Vínculos a la información relevante disponible en línea

Título/ descripción:

Supporting local planning and the importance of mapping

URL:

https://dream.vandermeijde.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/220620_planningandmapping_Roden.pdf