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)

HELVETAS (Swiss Intercooperation)

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

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) - Germany

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/07/2012

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

The desired objectives are to identify the priority actions for investment that have been agreed by local actors within the framework of the pastoral scheme, and to develop lowland areas.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The approach aims (i) to ensure that all actors involved in developing lowland areas participate in the planning process and (ii) to prepare the ground for the self-management of the lowland scheme from the outset of the process. The goal is to gear the identification and prioritisation processes for schemes being carried out by local authorities (regional council, intermunicipal body, circle) towards the actual needs of local people.
This is achieved by preparing actors and organising multi-stakeholder meetings so that the visions of the different parties can be aligned in an inclusive way. This joint approach ensures investments are more relevant and well founded.
This practice was implemented in the four circles participating the AVAL programme: Kadiolo,
Sikasso, Yorosso and Koutiala. The practice led to the identification of around 10 priority investment sites in each of the four circles concerned. The sites are agricultural (dams, ponds) or pastoral (rangeland, cattle market, route marking). At the beginning of the process, the terms of reference (ToR) and data collection sheets are drawn up and presented to all the actors to ensure they are equally informed and to demonstrate the relevance of the approach across the regional council. The first workshop promotes a common understanding of the objectives and outcomes of the good practice.
Data on actual investment needs is collected by the commune (using data collection sheets) from actors in each village. An initial proposal for the identification and prioritisation criteria for scheme sites is put together by the regional council and its staff. The criteria are submitted for the approval of local actors in forums organised at the circle level with the support of the technical services. Following a first sift based on predefined criteria, the select committee judges the commitments and budgets of each and allocates scores for each criteria ranging from zero to five. Compulsory criteria (initial selection stage): 1)Absence of land ownership disputes, 2)Membership of PDESC, 3)Opening up the area – distance to a road or track that is accessible in all seasons, 4)The number of beneficiaries, 5)Farming of lowland areas–area of farmed land in relation to the possible farmable area. Optional criteria (second-stage sift for projects that have cleared the initial stage): 1)Diversification–number of products or farms, 2)Gender–number of women in relation to men, 3)Capacity of actors to contribute. On this basis, the actors from each circle identify the sites that offer the greatest potential from among the development projects undertaken by communes in the area in the context of their development programmes. Local authorities are then tasked with ensuring the supervision of the development process and the management of works and developed land. At the prioritisation workshop, each commune in the circle takes turn presenting and making the case for its completed data sheet to the plenary.
The regional council initiates the process, defines the identification and prioritisation criteria, undertakes the regional consolidation of projects for delivery at the local level and acts as mediator between communities.
The circle councils organise the information and consultation workshops and the decision-making/prioritisation workshop, and they set up the moderation team with the support of technical services.
Communes pre-select projects at the commune level, assessing them in terms of their relevance to PDESC and the criteria put forward; they ensure data collection sheets are completed in collaboration with beneficiaries, and they take part in the prioritisation process by making the case for their projects.
The support structure (AVAL) provides training and advisory support to actors.
Technical services provide technical support and make sure activities are coherent and in line with national programmes. Consultants facilitate the process and train the actors.

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

The approach aims (i) to ensure that all actors involved in developing lowland areas participate in the planning process and (ii) to prepare the ground for the self-management of the lowland scheme from the outset of the process. The goal is to gear the identification and prioritisation processes for schemes being carried out by local authorities (regional council, intermunicipal body, circle) towards the actual needs of local people.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: lack of involvement of stakeholders in developing lowland areas

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
planning	interactive
implementation	interactive
monitoring/ evaluation	passive
Research	passive

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 SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

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

Form of training:

• public meetings

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:

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The planning capacity of local authorities is strengthened, and this expertise in the planning process can be applied to other sectors

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

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:

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations;
economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations
management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• technology

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 2,000-10,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international non-government: 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)

• none

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

6.2 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

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The links between the different levels in local authorities are reinforced and a shared development vision is jointly owned by all actors. Each actor comes to understand their importance as part of the implementation of the investment programme. Moreover, strong levels of community engagement are seen to arise. Investment decisions and funding awards are not carried out in secret deliberations or project offices.
The moderate costs also help towards making this practice sustainable.
The planning capacity of local authorities is strengthened, and this expertise in the planning process can be applied to other sectors. The inclusive approach and the local availability of facilitation skills are factors that make the practice sustainable. When outcomes are accepted by all actors, the uptake and sustainability of the practice become more likely. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: It is essential to prepare thoroughly before beginning work: criteria must be clear and relevant; communes must describe and document their scheme propositions and back them up with appropriate arguments; and moderation teams must be objective. Ensuring actors are informed is a major factor for success: all parties have the right to timely information. Elected representatives must have a good understanding of their roles within the context of decentralisation and rural sector development; communities must be closely involved in the process. Inclusive participation requires the involvement of actors across the board. )

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?
A major constraint in delivering this practice is the requirement that territorial communities contribute their own funds, as this forms part of the selection criteria

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Manual of Good Practices in Small Scale Irrigation in the Sahel. Experiences from Mali. Published by GIZ in 2014.

Available from where? Costs?

http://star-www.giz.de/starweb/giz/pub/servlet.starweb

Title, author, year, ISBN:

HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation (2009), Rapport du forum de priorisation des investissements hydro-agricoles et pastoraux. [Report of the hydro-agricultural and pastoral investment prioritisation forum]

Title, author, year, ISBN:

HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation (2010), Convention du partenariat local des cercles de Kadiolo, Sikasso, Koutiala, Yorosso. [Local partnership agreement between the Kadiolo, Sikasso, Koutiala and Yorosso circles]