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)

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)

Ngara District Council (Ngara District Council) - Tanzania, United Republic of

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

10/03/2014

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

Adaptive Agro-ecosystem Micro-catchment Approach.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: SLM knowledge skill generation and capacity building. Improved group and community strength, sustainability, organization and their capacity to benefit and invest in SLM. Motivation of community participation in SLM through use of quick win project, income generating activities, rural micro finance institutions, marketing and active engagement of disadvantaged groups.

Methods: Wider promotion of basket of choice of SLM technologies through SLM Farmer Field School, Demonstration plots and community related activities. Make use and build on already existing and new groups, existing institutions and the community as a whole. Strategic use of easily available and accessible available community institutions/ infrastructures (school and dispensaries sites) to demonstrate and promote basket of choice of SLM technologies. Learning by doing on the job, practical training, adoption and adaptation to local reality.

Stages of implementation: Site characterization through land degradation analysis (LADA) and development of community site specific SLM plan exemplifying SLM interventions needed to address the identified degradation types. Set up and identification of approaches needed to execute identified interventions complementary approaches. Sensitization and awareness creation to the community and actual execution of approaches.

Role of stakeholders: Individual groups: are core implementers and potential beneficiaries of the project.
Extension worker: Advisory and technical backstopping.
Elected and employed leaders at the sub-village, village and ward level: bylaw/law enforcement, supervisory and land provision.
Relief for Development Societies NGO (REDESO): Service provision and development partner in SLM.
Trans boundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project (TAMP): Provision of supportive resources (financial and technical).
Ngara district council: Supervisory, technical, policy interpretation, monitoring and evaluation, documentation, analysis and shairing .
Rugenge/Kirusha Micro catchment Committee: Supervisory, advisory and law enforcement.

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 (Motivating quick win income generation activities, rural microfinance institutions, marketing and HIV/AIDS controll.)

Knowledge/skill generation, demonstration and sustainability of SLM activities.
Motivate active participation of the community.
Inculcate a sense of community ownership/ community take charge of SLM activities.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of technical knowledge
Low investment capacity
Malpractice and mismanagement of local resources (e.g. fire burning, ploughing along the slope).
Adequate supervision, monitoring and law enforcement.

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	Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: participated in sensitization and awareness creation process.
planning	interactive	Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: active participants and decision makers in planning e.g. selection of FFS community facilitators and formation of micro-catchment committee.
implementation	external support	Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: core and key implementers of the approach.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: self mobilized and client interactive monitoring.
Research	interactive	Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: site identification and active implementers of adaptive trials (e.g use of fanya juu/chini terraces, vertivar grass e.t.c). Adopters, users and promoters of the best bets technologies.

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:

Land users working in collaboration with SLM specialist through a participatory dialogue and decision making process.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. During inception of the project, land users were actively involved in deciding on the type of method to adopt e.g. selection of site and test crops for FFS, Demo and community related SLM activities.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• employed and elected leaders

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Both gender, all age (youth and elders)

Form of training:

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

Subjects covered:

SLM related subjects

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: Farmer field schools (FFS); Key elements: Practical training and learning by doing., Basket of choice of Technologies/Demos., Group oriented and site specific; Adoption depends on farmers choice and ability to invest.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; There is limited knowledge and low funding capacity.

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

Give further details:

Training provision to micro-catchment committee.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: hactarage conserved

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: hactarage conserved

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: number of adopters

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: number of adopters

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: % involvement of women

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: % involvement of women

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: % increase in yield and income

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: % increase in yield and income

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: hactarage conserved

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: hactarage conserved

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: number of adopters

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: number of adopters

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Number of FFS, Demos and IGA

management of Approach aspects were monitored through measurements; indicators: umber of FFS, Demos and IGA

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Introduction of FFS farmer facilitators and Micro-catchment committees.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: In the course of implementation adjusting or modifying technologies to suit agro-ecological condition or landforms

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

• adaptive SLM trials

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Adaptive SLM trials run by community/district/ARI Maruku through demos where farmers can select the best bets to apply and try on their own fields.

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: international (TAMP): 50.0%; government (Region/ARI Maruku.): 10.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Ngara district council, Villages and Ward): 20.0%; local community / land user(s) (Local community and groups withi the microcatchment ): 20.0%

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)

• equipment

• agricultural

• other

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

• voluntary

Comments:

labour was largely voluntarily and was rewarded indirectly by introduction of income generating activities.

Some inputs were fully financed, partly financed and not financed. Materials fully financed are those not available at the site or not adequately available or in shortage.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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:

Farmers have realized the benefit of SLM. The village historical track records and experience indicate that farmers in Kirusha village usually continue what ever they come to realize is implemented for their own benefit. Further more, establishment of local human resource in SLM in terms of FFS facilitators and micro-catchment committee and their ope-rationalization into LGA systems is an assure way towards sustainability.
Motivation induced through quick win income generating activities (goat production, chicken, piggery, fruit tree nurseries and apiaries) and easy to manage demo set at Kirushya primary school and dispensary (reachable and easily accessible) are added assurance for project sustainability.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Learning and acquisition of knowledge (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuation of FFS, Demo and community activities.)
Cohesiveness and self help (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue promotion of VICOBA and Market. )
Spread of knowledge within and outside village. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue use of the approach. )

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Improved relationship, unity, cohesiveness and common voice. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue with promotion, strengthening and establishment of IGA, SACCAS and VICOBA.)
More farmers are involved (rapid adoption and expansion) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Up scaling and strengthening of FFS, Demos, and IGA. )
The approach is cost effective (benefit surpass costs) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Promote, expand and continue use of FFS, Demos and IGA.)
Assured and promising elements of sustainability. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Strengthen ope-rationalization and use of micro-catchment committee and FFS facilitators. )
Easy access to supportive resources (Land and financial) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: strengthen and liaise FFS with service providers (Bank, SACCOS and Marketing))

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?
Negative customs and believes (it is believed that one can live longer and reach older age by setting fire and burning of a large area).	Discourage negative custom and believes
Reluctance of household heads especially in patrimonial societies.	Community sensitization to gender (gender be addressed as the basic component of the approach).
Failure and negative experience of past development projects and programmes.	Change of mind set
Shortage of inputs and working facilities	Promote availability and accessibility of inputs and working facilities.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Selfishness, individualism by some untrustworthy politicians and leaders.	Combine SLM promotion with civic education training.
Prone to natural calamities and disastrous events	Introduce and strengthen use of Agro-based insurance.
Largely relies on government or farmer willingness to release and offer land.	Sensitize and encourage use of MOU.
If not done in precaution can perpetuate dependency syndrome	Encourage use of self mobilized farmer groups and their strengthening and ope-rationalization into existing systems.
Reliable external supportive resource needed initially	Reliable and timely supply of supportive resources.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Site characterization report: Kimamba Lyoba,