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

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

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (DEZA / COSUDE / DDC / SDC) - Switzerland

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

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Group is formed based on a common interest such as irrigation to their fileds from the diversion weir.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: 1. To creat village level organisation so that post project maintenance is ensured. 2. To encourage community participation in the programme. 3. To ensure equi-distribution of benefits.

Methods: Common Interest group implements the programme, mobilising resources from the watershed committee.

Stages of implementation: 1. Site selection. 2. Layout. 3. Foundation. 4. Construction of Superstructure. 5. Earthen embankment and guidebunds construction. 6. Turfing. 7. Construction of irrigation channel. 8. User's contribution during the process of implementation.

2.3 Photos 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

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Cropping system, Irrigation)

Oranise community into common interest group; build their capacity, provide financial support and guide them to implement their own programme in a participatory manner so that the post project sustainability is ensured and the benefits from the project reaches to the right people with right propertion.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: natural calamity(drought); Poverty;Illiteracy; Sustainability in agriculture production, Poor socio economic conditio of the people

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	Mainly:rapid/participatory rural appraisal; partly: public meetings; Situational analysis was done using participatory tools like Social map ,Resource map and Transect.
planning	interactive	rapid/participatory rural appraisal
implementation	external support	Mainly: responsibility for major steps; partly: casual labour; Community contribution, Quality control, arraning of materials and labours were the major tasks performed by the land users.
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	Mainly: measurements/observations; partly: public meetings; They were taking measurements as per the estimate while the construction was going on. They were also ensuring proper mix of materials while preparing mixtures of sand, cement, chips.
Research	none

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 land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

The selection of site for the structure was decided by the and users along with the SWC speciality.The positive and negative impact of the structure was discussed while finalising the location.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. SWC specilist helped in making the plan and design of the structure. He also assisted while alyout was given in the field.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• SWC specialists

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

Class room as well as on farm training provided to land users.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Participatory extension methods and exposure to successful sites, demo plots.; Key elements: Learning by Seeing, Learning by doing; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents 2) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents; Extension staff: specifically hired project employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The staff strength in govt is very less, that is why project has hired experts from open markets and also developed community link workers for extension.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

area treated aspects were regular monitored through observations

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Guidebank constructed to increase temporary storage in the structure. Increased participation and ownership. The CIG strengthened. Views of the land users respected and involved in decision making.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Technology is looked with gender lens. Participatory technology development is an inbuilt strategy in the WORLP project.

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (CIG members (50); Watershed Committee/other members (20)): 70.0%; other (Project Support): 30.0%

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

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

• voluntary

Comments:

They contributing their labour for PRA, Planning, meeting etc.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

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:

They are now empowerd to take their own decisions. They are acting as pressure group and leveraging resources from other line departments.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
'We will manage the Diversion weir, cultivate paddy, ground nut, Onion and Brinjal.' (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: We will maintain this structure from our own contribution.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Community Based Organisation are the local institutions which can manage their own. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Limited support as and when required)
Self monitoring by the land users
Ownership (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: User rights ensured, common fund developed)

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?
Since, SWC is a big investment. If, for some natural calamaity, the structure collapse it will be very difficult to reconstruct.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Sometime over ambitious since social change is very slow	Expectation should not be raised while mobilising the community

7.1 Methods/ sources of information