Telling the Story

EVALUATION OF LAND DEGRADATION

Land degradation severity: In the 5 years of project implementation there was no improvement in the severity of land degradation, a function of the degree and extent of land degradation. That has remained the same at level than the initial baseline at project start: 3 Moderate, severity class 3 and 4

Land degradation rate: The rate of degradation remained stable for the first 4 years of project implementation. Then, as SLM measures were implemented towards the end of the project, year 4 and 5, the rate of LD has started to slowly decrease (score 4) in year 5 of project implementation.

EVALUATION OF slm EFFECTIVENESS

Extent of land under SLM: In the first two years of progress, there was no progress towards achieving Project Targets for “ha of land under SLM”. The situation improve slowly from year 2 through demonstration plots and again in the final year of project implementation. But the major concern is the final score of 3, indicating that only up to 60% of the set targets for land under SLM has been achieved. Evidence provided indicated the drought and slow uptake by livestock farmers of improved grazing management systems as main reasons for not achieving these targets.

Effective implementation and maintenance of SLM measures: The landscape initially had no SLM measures in place. From year 3 onwards, SLM measures were implemented either through demonstration or Small Grants. The situation improve from level 1 to 2 in year 3 and 4 and then to level 3 at the end of the project. In this specific landscape, the measures are effective, but additional measures are required to stop land degradation totally in the landscape.

EVALUATION OF THE ENABLING ENVIRONMENT

Willingness score: The farmers in the landscape were initially very reluctant to cooperate and share information (level 2). After project intervention and interaction with fellow-farmers in other landscapes and through the intervention of ‘Champion’ farmers, the situation improve gradually towards level 4 towards the end of the project. By then between 41 and 60% of farmers were willing to corporate (moderate frequency), but in general they had a strong level of willingness demonstrated in the landscape.

Capacity and skills of external stakeholders: For the first 2 years of project implementation, there was anecdotal evidence of capacity and skills towards LD and SLM, awareness and skills to work towards addressing the problem at different levels. Towards year 3, 4 and 5 of project implementation and after exposure to training and awareness programs delivered through project implementation, the capacity and skills score of externa; stakeholders/key actors moved up to 3 in year 3 and 4 and 4 in year 5, indicating capacity and skills within the landscape are well developed, widespread, but not comprehensive. There are still room for improvement.

Capacity and skills of project team (internal): The capacity, skills and their general ability to manage, implement and support the project were at level 3, partially developed. Through good team work, focusing on individual skills and capacities and improving skills and abilities through directed short courses, the level increased in the last 4 years of project implementation to level 4, indicating a strong team ability to implement, monitor and practice adaptive management as they implement the project as Responsible Party.

Access to finance and inputs score: For the first year of the project, farmers within the project landscape had no access to external resources/inputs towards SLM implementation and did not make any internal, of their own, resources available either. Through creating awareness, building capacity and the involvement of Champion Farmers, the situation improve from 1 to 3. Towards year 4 and 5 of project implementation, access to external resources was possible through applying for Small Grant Projects, the score move to 4, sufficient access to resources, but not sustainable, because access to Small Grants will stop when the budget is depleted. It is recommended that alternative additional sources of income need to be investigated and ensured to improve the sustainability of access. For example, applying for LandCare funds beyond project closure to out-scale and maintain existing conservation measures in the landscape.

Governance structures: Initially their was no SLM Governance Structures in place in the landscape. After establishing a Multi-Stakeholder Forum and Voluntary Advisory Board, the score move gradually up from year 2 to 4 from a score of 2 to a score of 4. By year 4 there was satisfactory governance structures in place for SLM at different levels. They were functioning well and had a positive impact on decision making in the landscape. Unfortunately during the last year of project implementation, all this momentum was lost due to poor management and use of these governance and the score fall back to a score of 2 out of 5. Although the structures were still in place, they were not functioning well and had very little impact on decision-making and in the landscape in general.

Overall Progress Score: The overall SLM Progress Score for Landscape X has improved with 14 points in five years of project implementation from an initial score of 16 (35,5%) (out of a possible 45) to 30 (66,6%), an improvement of 31.1%.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse