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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 2, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Book project: where people and their land are safer - A Compendium of Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (where people and their land are safer)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 557, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'CARITAS (Switzerland) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

14/10/2016

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

The approach focuses on community engagement on a partnership basis. The model is a departure from the traditional approaches where the community mostly is reduced to being a beneficiary of project services without substantive responsibility.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The Approach is hinged on community empowerment and partnership. The model is a departure from the traditional approaches where the community is reduced to a mere beneficiary of project services without substantive responsibility.

The main purpose of the approach is to enhance ownership, while fostering needed capacity for management of project outcomes. Ultimately, it is estimated that sustainability of project results is achievable with good community empowerment and meaningful participation. The approach also aims at cost effectiveness as the community is required to substantially contribute locally available materials, labour and sometimes cash.

Community mobilisation and capacity building is central to ensure that the community is prepared to undertake their roles and responsibilities. Mobilisation happens through discussions, sometimes aided by applying participatory tools and methods. Capacity building is done through workshop-type and/or on-the-job training. It is noteworthy that the communities do have indigenous knowledge and skills which are useful in processes of development at the community level. These skills and knowledge inform the project design, planning and implementation of activities. To enhance local skills, selected community members are trained as they work alongside the hired skilled artisans during the construction of the rock catchment system. The aim is to prepare and equip the locals with basic skills for operations and maintenance of the rock catchment system. Others are trained to get equipped with skills on hygiene and sanitation promotion.

The project was designed based on pre-project assessment. The assessment, besides identifying water and hygiene needs, also identified three areas/communities which had rock catchment potential - Ndikir, Manyatta Lengima and Mpagas. Initial meetings were done with support from community leaders and the local government administrators (chiefs). During the meetings the project was explained and discussed in view of the community needs and the roles for all stakeholders - Caritas Switzerland (CACH), the community, government and leaders. Agreed roles and responsibilities were drafted and formed the main part of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between CACH and the community. The MOU was signed before the entire community for collective ownership and formalise the relationship between CACH and the project.

At the county and sub-county level, the stakeholders are provided with progress updates, engaging with government and other leaders. The local leaders were useful in helping in community mobilisation and addressing areas of concern wherever issues arose.

The approach left the community more motivated with a desire to manage the project benefits for posterity. The community has appreciated that the project ended with a number of community members having acquired basic skills for operations and maintenance. Above all, they were proud that they significantly contributed to the successful implementation of the project. Initially the community were opposed to the idea that they had to contribute so much, since before they had mostly received assistance without any requirement on their side to contribute.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.4 Videos 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

1. Community mobilisation
2. Active community participation and ownership of the project and outcomes
3. Sustainability of the project outcomes
4. Enhanced skills and capacity to manage the Technology

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 for project activities was jointly planned between the community and the project staff specialists
planning	interactive	More technical planning was done as advised by the technical project team. Planning for day to day field activities during implementation was jointly done with the community
implementation	interactive	Community participation was more interactive in planning for specific project activities. However, there were specific tasks which required hired labour and by common agreement the community provided such labour for payment.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Monitoring with community was mainly done during project reflection/review meetings. Monitoring in this respect was more limited to evaluation of project activities progress and timeliness with which the activities were being achieved.

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:

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

Explain:

The project was designed initially without direct community involvement other than the pre-project information collected.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• research findings
• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

• Government policies

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:

• on-the-job
• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

Basic construction skills, management of water system (rock catchment), hygiene and sanitation promotion

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:

The community has (in theory) access to government advisory services. However, the nearest government offices are about 20-50 kilometres away without reliable means of transport. The technical staff of the county government is often unable to offer quality and effective extension work, mostly due to transport limitations but also due to low motivation. However, this gap is being bridged through the work of various NGOs operating in the region who provide advisory services in addition to other interventions such as in water, health, livelihoods, and education.

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

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

The Approach led to establishment of Water Management Committees. The committees have been trained and equipped to manage the systems.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

One key lesson from this and other projects is that one-off trainings are rarely effective even if properly done. A continuous support/follow-up is necessary to maintain the skills and knowledge acquired.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

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):

Internal organisational funding and external donors

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):

Caritas procured the bulk of construction materials whereas the community contributed locally available materials - sand and hardcore stones

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

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

• voluntary

Comments:

The labour contribution was split between the organisation and the community. Caritas paid 3 USD per day whereas the standard amount per day is 5 USD. This was discussed and agreed at the inception of the project. The consideration was that those who work on site will not have any other time for other work for their household daily needs.

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?

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:

The Approach greatly focused on capacity building, community empowerment and strengthened institutions. It is expected therefore that they will sustainably manage the Technologies that have been constructed.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The Approach leads to greater ownership of the technology thus leading to better equipped community groups with skills for operations and maintenance. The Approach galvanises a community towards a common goal hence promotes cohesion and better organisation.

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?
It takes time to achieve the community´s buy-in so that they can adequately fulfil their obligations. This is particularly the case in a region where varied development approaches have been implemented, most of which create dependency and discouraged self-initiative.	This can be changed through long terms engagement processes with all stakeholders such as county government and NGOs to advocate for approaches that foster community empowerment.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

A Handbook of gravity-flow water systems for small communities; Thomas D. Jordan Junior; 1980; 978 0 94668 850 0

Available from where? Costs?

Caritas Switzerland office, Nairobi