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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Self help

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: To develop his doing of activity by himself in order to manage his land., By consulting, Survey, Contain, bund for mation, embankment, Doing of terracing, Transporting of stones.

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.7 Type of Approach

• traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

The objective of self help approach is only to motivate every one should have done in his own land than on others land.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: He couldn't do his duties of the right time due to so many causes.

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	passive	Mainly:public meetings; partly: workshops/seminars; Training
planning	interactive	Mainly: workshops/seminars; partly: public meetings; With watershed committees
implementation	self-mobilization	Mainly: responsibility for minor steps; partly: casual labour; By using family labour for every activities.
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	interviews/questionnaires, measurements/observations;
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:

• SLM specialists alone

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• planners (1), politicians/decision makers (2), extensionists/trainers (3)

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: PADETS; Key elements: Demonstration, Training system; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The SWC activities left for some one else, no body, ensure sWC activities. The gov't do nothing for cont neuation of SWC wherever.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

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

• local

• by contributing labour

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

technical aspects were regular monitored through observations

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored hrough observations

management of Approach aspects were monitored through observations

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was carried out on station

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (For commarical work): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• agricultural

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

• voluntary

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

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Motivate self help activities than mass mobilization (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By giving training.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It gives right to do on his land
One man do more in his own land than others land
The activiries have had quality wise

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Starting time were delayed	Motivating & regulating to do so.
Making continious of SWC activities eg. Cut of drain on different pieces of land	By giving training and regulating the group activities.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information