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

LLPPA is an approach at the local level participatory planing approach that involves community participation at all level.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: To solve problem of food in food difficiet areas by participating the community in implimentation of different development activities relating that are identified to be a reason for their problems, Conservation of soil and water (SWC) in erosion promot areas, participating the community in problem identifying planing decision making & implementation using SWC specialist to facilitate the over all acomplishment of the project, brief description of the project to local adminstration units establishment of project planning and development team problem identification and decision making, socio economic survey, area delination, planning and implementation of development of SWC activities are the stages of the project, convincing the entire community regarding the objectives & participating at all stages of the project, the approach emphasizes more on SWC activities and its implementation continues of for 5(five) consequative years.

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

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

To solve food problems in difficiet areas by increasing the potential of soil productivity through conservation of soil and water.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of manpower, lack of transport facilities, lack of budget for maintenance, the absence of land use policy

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:interviews/questionnaires; partly: rapid/participatory rural appraisal; They were focused on problem identification socio-economic surpes
planning	interactive	interviews/questionnaires; Planning followed by socio-economic interviews with the land users.
implementation	external support	casual labour; Implementation was by causal labour with an incentives of food fore work programme.
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	measurements/observations; Most of the time the evaluation is by asimple field abservation
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 land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

Due to the absence of legalized land classification the achievement of this approach has not fulfil its fargets (goals) but in a certain sites it the same improvements are being achieved now.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. Decisions are made with the entire community before storing implmentation using the planning & development team as a representation.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• SWC specilists, politicians/ decision makers

Form of training:

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

Subjects covered:

Technical standard of physical conservation structures, experience sharings based on field supervisions etc.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Informal extension; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees 2) Target groups for extension: technicians/SWC specialists; Activities: Problem identification, planning, implementation technical follow up.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through observations

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

socio-cultural aspects were monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were monitored through measurements

area treated aspects were monitored

no. of land users involved aspects were monitored

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: international non-government (WFP): 98.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 2.0%

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

• infrastructure

Comments:

Labour inputs were subsidized according to the norm raised by the project.

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)?

• no

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

The awareness/extension has not spread at all community levels equally and the land users experience to wards mass participation on SWC activities are inadequate; wrong expectation of in puts (food) provisions w/s alimitting factor.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Community participation on SWC activities (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: should involve land users of all localities.)
Provision of direct subsides (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: has to be provided on time)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Local level community participation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular participation of the community in monitoring and evaluation.)
Training on technical standards (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Involving all community target groups in gender with the approition age groups)
Awareness creations on objectives of the approach (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continual extension of awareness creation)

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?
Imput/food-provision being late	Need to be provided timely

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Monitoring and evaluation	It has to be performed regularly

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

LLPPA -Quarter report

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Socio-economic-survey plan