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

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

Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)

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

CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture) - Kenya

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

13/01/2023

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 integrated agroforestry system is a self-initiated approach by a land user to implement agroforestry as part of an indigenous practice and has evolved over the years through technical support, training, and supplies of coffee and tree seedlings by the Office of Agriculture and Coffee Improvement Project. Had there been a participatory process throughout it would have helped in design and also in scaling up.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The integrated agroforestry system was independently initiated by land users during the Derg regime (1974-91). During the regime, farmers were failed by two distinct and polar development approaches: socialist and the mainstream local approaches. The earlier one involved the communist approach of communal production and sharing the output according to contribution. The latter ones employed a conventional approach and included non-members of the so-called Farmers Producer Cooperatives. As a non-member of the earlier one, the land user had to develop his farm alone. The solitary agroforestry initiative described here has gradually evolved to a fully-fledged system that currently serves as a model SLM practice for scaling up across similar agroecological and farming system. Thus, there was little participation involved during the early intensification of agroforestry in Ethiopia. Rather, it is considered an indigenous practice that now receives publicity as a form of “regenerative agriculture” with ecological, economic, and social benefits. As it has global significance in terms of emission reduction and sequestration of carbon, it is the favourite technology among the government and other development practitioners.
The farmer started agroforestry by planting enset and coffee. Over time, with emerging technical support, access to training, and supply of coffee seedlings by the agriculture and coffee improvement project offices, the land user has continued intensification of the agroforestry around the homestead by adopting the correct planting space for coffee and enset, and other companion fruit, fodder crops, and shade trees. The former Ministry of Coffee and Tea, and the current Ministry of Agriculture have had an immense contribution by supplying technical support, training, and inputs (notably coffee and tree seedlings), and by ensuring access to fertilizers. The latter was supplied to the farmers on a credit basis through the then Service Cooperative.
As the initiative was the farmer's own, the tendency to plant incompatible crops was not uncommon. Even so, the agroforestry trees and shrubs still had immense ecological and economic value. They ameliorate the extreme temperature experienced during the dry season, improve the microclimate, recharge the surface and groundwater via improving water infiltration, and reduce runoff losses. Improving soil fertility and soil health are among other benefits. Despite the substantial benefit the technology confers on land users, the lack of a participatory approach in planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation at the community level restricts the adoption and scaling up of this beneficial approach. Despite the achievements of the land user, earlier engagement of other smallholders and institutionalizing the approach decades ago might have positively influenced the design as well as wider-scale adoption and application of the technology. However, regardless of any limitations, the technology is evidence-based and inspirational.

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

• traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

A traditional approach was initiated to change the land use/ land cover and optimize the benefit of the degraded land by reducing the negative effects of overgrazing and its consequence.

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	self-mobilization	Land user: Initiated coffee and enset plantation little by little and accessed training and technical support from DAs and Woreda office of Agriculture experts.
planning	self-mobilization	Land user and development agent: In consultation with DAs, the land users plan based on available labor and capital every other year.
implementation	self-mobilization	Land users and family member. They involved in various implementation/management activities.
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	Government development agents, and experts coordinate mobilization of the communities to visit and learn from the ongoing practice.

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:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

The land user was the initial decision maker that later cross-fertilized or complemented by research and development actors.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• Development agents

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

Training is usually provided to literate farmers who are capable of reading, taking notes, and sharing with other peers back home. Women-headed household are inclusive to represent the gender parity.

Form of training:

• public meetings

Form of training:

• Training and visit

Subjects covered:

Coffee production and management such as preparation of planting pits, refilling the soil back to the pit, planting space, fertilizer application, weeding, mulching, planting shade trees, etc.

Comments:

Integrating enset, shade trees, and soil bunds with productive barriers into the farm eventually evolves into the agroforestry system.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

The training used to be given in permanent centers such as development stations in the past and Farmers Training Center since recent a decade ago and was associated with a visit to a farmers field.

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?

No

Comments:

A sort of visit may be organized by development agents to the coffee plantation but not in a way address the role of monitoring and evaluation and documentation.

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

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

Only in kind support such as coffee seedlings and technical support such as advisory service was provide by the government agricultural office through development/extension agents. Otherwise, it is privately financed business with main expense geared toward supplying seedlings and agricultural inputs such as fertilizers.

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):

In the past (during Derg regime) there was subsidy for fertilizers as a country which is entirely removed in the recent years.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• other

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Family labor used to manage the family farm.

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:

Despite the implementation approach employed by the land user, the technology is highly commended by the land users and the public at large. The income generated from the sale of crops adequately supports the livelihoods of family farmers as well as effectively finances the maintenance of the system. However, the new beginners need external support to make sure the technology is properly implemented and scaled out for wider application and use.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Enables improved crop production and productivity and reduces risks of crop failure due to climate change/variability.
Motivate farmers to reduce soil erosion and land degradation and improve soil fertility.
The approach creates an enabling environment to intensify agroforestry and improve the microclimate of the area and ensure sustainability of the system.
Increased land users' status in the community to feel confident as local elites and friendliness to the environment.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The agroforestry system creates economic, ecological, and social benefits for the family farm.
It ensures sustainable land management becomes in place as well as improves land users' understanding of SLM.
Ensure productivity and product stability, and serve as a permanent source of income and insurance for a family farmer.

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?
Failure to promote collective action that end up with shortage of labor with increasing size/ areas of technology.	Establish and promote collective action and labor-sharing techniques.
Lack of participatory planning and decision make to put in place proper trees-crops integration.	Promote participation that enables to select and plant trees and crops with desirable characteristics to the agroforestry system.
Lack of active women participation with clear role and their share of the benefit from the system.	Improve women's participation and share of the benefit.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lower level of mainstreaming the approach and the technology at earlier stage that led to land users lower level of understanding of the multi-storey agroforestry system.	Improve land users understanding of Agroforestry and the SLM through capacity building and exchange visits.
The solitary approach led to relatively lower adoption of the technology.	Improve participation, access to training, technical support, and credit services to optimize the benefit of land users at scale.
Evolving the approach from solitary approach to large mass of land users constrained by shortage of farmland.	Promote intensification through introduction of high - value crops and optimize the return from the smaller holdings.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

An Agroforestry Guide for Field Practitioners. 2013. ISBN 978-92-9059-333-1

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.worldagroforestry.org

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

SUSTAINABLE LAND USE FORUM

URL:

http://publication.eiar.gov.et