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

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

The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )

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

Bukoba district council (Bukoba district council) - Tanzania, United Republic of

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

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO Food and Agriculture Organization) - Italy

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

25/05/2012

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

Indigenous knowledge transfer, is a common phenomena in farming societies whereby elders taught younger generations the practical aspects in production and emphasizes the norms and proms in folk story tales.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The main aim of this approach is to improve agricultural production through collaboration of households and the entire community. The approach ensures food security and income with land conservation. The approach is achieved by voluntary learning from the experienced elder farmers. This is achieved by creation of friendly environmental to implement the learning process. The approach is also characterized by traditional prons and norms of the young generation to inherit the elders property.

Methods: The elders spent evening hours to tell farming stories to the younger generation. These stories refer to the success of soil fertility improvement, water resources accessibility and utilization, land use type and farming practices in the community.
Also, practical aspect is attained by involving the younger generation in porting and allocating the land according to land use type.

Stages of implementation: 1. Experienced farmers telling farming stories to the younger while younger listen and ask questions.
2. The elders ask old sayings and elaborate their meaning.
3. Elders demonstrating to the younger, how farming activity are done.
4. The younger implement farming activity and plan for their future.
5.The land is allocated to the younger according to land use type.
6. The younger farmers now are in the position to train their successors.

Role of stakeholders: The major stakeholders are Clan leaders, Head of households, mother, children and hired labour. The roles of Clan leaders are to organize the farming story sessions to the elders and reinforce traditional land norms and proms. The roles of Head of household are to conduct evening farming stories at homestead, encouraging the younger to practice farming by giving incentive according to performance. The roles of the children and hired labour is to work in the head of household farms and ensure proms and proms abides.

Other important information: Nowdays, the approach succeeded to expand cropland beyond grasslands and forestland.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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 mainly on SLM with other activities (Products diversification, livelihood improvements and land resouces inheretence.)

The main aim of the approach is to improve productivity and ensure younger generations productive land ownership and user rights.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of knowledge and skills of farm technologies, collaboration between households and community, eroded/weakened traditional norms, land ownership inequalities.

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	self-mobilization	Household members. To attend and particiapte in appropriate sessions.
planning	self-mobilization	Clan leaders: To identify and select problems and find solutios Head of Household: Children. Siblings: Hired labour:
implementation	self-mobilization	Head of the clan: To organise the sittings. Head of Household:To inform the family and conduct the dialogue Children: To participate in farm production, aceptance of allocated land, Using the located land according to land use type. Siblings: To facilitate divison of labour Hired labor:
monitoring/ evaluation	none	Clan head: To call the meeting Community leaders: To visit farms and other land, To observe and deliver the assessments.
Research	passive	Few farmers participated in adaptive resarch on Kibanja system 1n 1993.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

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:

Indigenous trainings are formalized by extension staffs. Coffee and Vanilla buyers tends to supervise farms for products assurance.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Extension staffs monitor, evaluate and advise the proper methods up scaling.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

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: Train and Visit (T&V); Key elements: Subject Matter Specialist trin field staff on fortnight bases. Field staff visit Progressive farmers and train them, Field Staffs visit Farmers to assess the performance and give feed back to Subject Matter Specialist; The method is very effective under a strong economical situation.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Farmer field schools can't reach farming communities with extension staffs based on Ward level.

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

• Agricultural advisory services.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: activities according to the season.

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: Customary land law, land inheretance protocals.

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Harvesting season

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through measurements

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by None through observations

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by None through measurements

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring and Evaluation component took very minimal attention.

There were no changes in the Technology 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

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• < 2,000

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

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

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)

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Mainly family labour is the major component of input.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify:

Agricultural advisory services.

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

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:

It has been in application for very long time, and no signs of retardation observed.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Local resource person, obedience and committed community.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

http://www.fao.org/nr/kagera/en/

Available from where? Costs?

Kagera TAMP project website