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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 9, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 742, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Rwanda Agriculture Board (Rwanda Agriculture Board) - Rwanda', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 742, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Rwanda Agriculture Board (Rwanda Agriculture Board) - Rwanda', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

06/05/2014

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

This approach is a contribution of different stakeholders and land users in the identification and resolution of a particular crop land problems, which implicate at the end different stage of intervention by all stakeholders to resolve the problem.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The main goal of the approach is to plan and implement land management activities with villagers in such a way that sustainability is ensured. The specific objectives of the project are to:
(1) increase the capacity of the villagers to design, implement and self-evaluate Soil and water management activities.(2) improve crop production by limiting the effect of dry season during the critical stage of crop growth at the beginning of dry season.

Methods: This approach is integral to the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry(MINAGRI) through a long-term project, which was initiated in 2005 and has been financed mainly by the government, with two different part of intervention of farmers which can be a voluntary participation and contributions of the local population or based on food for work.

Stages of implementation: Project extension work is carried out by facilitators from MINAGRI and consists of awareness raising and demonstration.
Problem identification and planning of activities takes place in village meetings. The local land users are supported by MINAGRI personnel who also provide technical and other facilities assistance during the implementation of Soil and Water Conservation measures

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

• local government, diferents stakeholders and land user.

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Reduce sedimentation and irrigation)

Design, test and disseminate alternative technologies adapted to local conditions - strengthen local knowledge of soil and water management measures.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The lack of appropriate ways to develop sustainable technologies to remedy loss of runoff water and poor crop growth in the context of low-input agriculture on gentle undulating land in water scarce areas with an absence of soil conservation measures.

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	interactive
planning	interactive
implementation	external support
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive
Research	interactive

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:

Decision were mad by land users and stakeholders.

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
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• demonstration areas

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:

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Land users are 100% willing to upscale the technology but they are financially not strong enough and unstable.

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 ad hoc monitored by government through observations
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements
technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations
technical aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements
socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by government and land users through observations
no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by government and land users through measurements
management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by government through observations
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Land users are trying to organise themselves to implement the technology although it is expensive.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

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: government: 40.0%; international non-government: 40.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc): 15.0%; local community / land user(s): 5.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Care international provided funds (food for work) and the local government provided some equipments (plastic sheets) research staffs and means and training.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• construction

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

• food-for-work

Comments:

Initial stage of implementation were funded by Care and the last stage were done voluntary (maintenance).

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:

It has create good interaction between land users and other stakeholders.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Building of local knowledge (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: strengthen sensitization by the government)
Engagement of researchers with local innovators and thus interaction between scientific and indigenous knowledge (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: This approach can only be sustained if it is mainstreamed into national research and extension services.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Capacity building of both land users and researchers (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: strengthen the interaction between SLM specialist and land uses by the government)

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?
Appropriate facilitating skills required	Mainstreaming facilitation skills.
Time demanding	Less time needed after the first steps of implementation

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Kagera TAMP Project website

URL:

http://www.fao.org/in-action/kagera/home/en/