1.2 تفاصيل الاتصال بالأشخاص الرئيسيين لمصدر المعلومات والمؤسسات المعنية بتقييم وتوثيق النهج

1.3 الشروط المتعلقة باستخدام البيانات الموثقة من خلال WOCAT

متى تم تجميع البيانات (ميدانيا)؟:

13/12/2013

يوافق جامع المعلومات والشخص (لاشخاص) الرئيسي لمصدر المعلومات على الشروط المتعلقة باستخدام البيانات الموثقة من خلال WOCAT:

نعم

1.4 المراجع الخاصة باستبيان(استبيانات) تقنيات الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي

2.1 وصف موجز للنهج

Farmers are organized to promote adoption of sustainable land management best practices within the community

2.2 وصف تفصيلي للنهج

وصف تفصيلي للنهج:

Aims / objectives: To train farmers in land based technologies that improve productivity, land management and are resilient to climate changes

Methods: Planning meetings, agro-ecosystem analysis (AESA), farmer-to-farmer visits, monitoring and evaluation

Stages of implementation: Farmer Field School (FFS) formation to bring together 30 farmers from a catchment area; training in group dynamics; training in best practices to address land degradation problems; AESA; and action planning

Role of stakeholders: District facilitators: Facilitation of FFS formation, training of trainers for AESA, drawing village land use plans, prioritizing enterprises/challenges, making technical recommendations; Local leaders: Passing and implementing bye-laws.

2.5 البلد/المنطقة/المواقع التي تم تطبيق النهج فيها

2.6 تواريخ بدء وإنهاء تنفيذ النهج

2.7 نوع النهج

• قائم على مشروع/برنامج

2.8 الغايات/الأهداف الرئيسية للنهج

The Approach focused on SLM only (Sustainable Land Management Farmer Cooperative)

To share knowledge, skills and information on establishment of local best practices to improve productivity and biodiversity and reduce soil erosion

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Low soil nutrient levels, vegetation loss and soil erosion on steep slopes

2.9 الظروف التي تمكن أو تعيق تنفيذ التقنية/التقنيات المطبقة بموجب النهج

3.1 أصحاب المصلحة المعنيون بالنهج وأدوارهم

3.2 انخراط مستخدمي الأراضي المحليين/المجتمعات المحلية في المراحل المختلفة للنهج

	انخراط مستخدمي الأراضي المحليين/المجتمعات المحلية	حدد من شارك وصف الأنشطة
المبادرة/التحفيز	تفاعلي	FFS specialist facilitator with prospective FFS members to get farmers organized in FFS (30 members each)
التخطيط	تفاعلي	Farmers in their farmer field schools sketched watershed maps and developed action plans with the help of district facilitators
التنفيذ	تفاعلي	Facilitators helped FFS members in the dynamics that sustained and strengthened the Approach
الرصد/التقييم	سلبي	A few members were co-opted to the monitoring team which comprised local government facilitators, Kagera TAMP Project specialists and the central government Project Steering Committee
Research	تفاعلي	FFS members carried out Agro-ecosystem Analysis (AESA) with training and field support from specialists

3.4 اتخاذ القرار بشأن اختيار تقنية/تقنيات الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي

حدد من الذي قرر اختيار التقنية/التقنيات التي سيتم تنفيذها:

• مستخدمو الأراضي بشكل أساسي، بدعم من متخصصي الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي

اشرح:

The FFS concept and methodology were introduced to the farmers by SLM specialists. The decisions on technology choice were the result of discussions bf the farmers with support from the specialists.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Farmers in the FFS decided how to overcome constraints posed by their hilly terrain and high cost of labor

4.1 بناء القدرات/التدريب

هل تم تقديم التدريب لمستخدمي الأراضي / الأطراف المعنيين الآخرين؟:

نعم

حدد من تم تدريبه:

• مستخدمو الأراضي
• موظفون ميدانيون/ مستشارون

• Politicians/Policy Makers

شكل التدريب:

• في العمل
• من مزارع إلى مزارع
• مناطق العرض
• اجتماعات عامة

المواضيع المغطاة:

Extension Training: use of demonstration plots and AESA to experiment and discover the appropriate methodology for implementation of SLM technologies. A formal session involves a facilitator and farmers. The facilitator guides the farmers on how to investigate a problem using marker-drawn sketches on flip chart. Observations, conclusions and recommendations are reached in a participatory manner.
Extension: FFS members adopt a resolution to carry out the recommended procedures/activities; community members are free to interact with FFS members on field days and copy recommendations. Farmer-to-farmer visits are encouraged and promoted to extend information.
Research: FFS members research together on a given problem/challenge such as soil fertility and arrive at recommendations together. They are guided by facilitators from government or government research institutions with collaborative support from Kagera TAMP/FAO project.
Importance of land use rights: Ownership of land affects land management practices. The attitude towards the recommendation by farmers is usually determined by the FFS members. In Kagera TAMP districts land ownership is customary but the right to use land is governed by national laws.
Incentives:
Labor: Farmer Field School members provide the labor to implement technologies. Hired labor may also be used.
Inputs: Farmers provide the basic tools such as hoes, pick axe etc. Seedlings and seeds may be provided by the project.
Credit: Small amounts may be acquired from the FFS cooperative savings.

4.3 تعزيز المؤسسات (التطوير التنظيمي)

هل تم إنشاء أو تعزيز مؤسسات من خلال هذا النهج؟:

• نعم، إلى حد كبير

حدد المستوى (المستويات) التي تم فيها تعزيز أو إنشاء المؤسسات:

• محلي

حدد نوع الدعم:

• بناء القدرات/التدريب
• معدات

اعط مزيدا من التفاصيل:

Training workshops in Sustainable Land Management (SLM) and Land Degradation Assessment (LADA) both national and international, seminars, and procurement and training in the use of computers, digital cameras and GPS units

4.4 الرصد والتقييم

هل يشكل الرصد والتقييم جزءا من النهج؟:

نعم

التعليقات:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, soil nutrients, biodiversity

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, soil nutrients, biodiversity

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through observations; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, vigor

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, vigor

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through observations; indicators: Measure by attendance, morale

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: Measure by attendance, morale

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were None monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were None monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: FFS constantly refines and improves on what and how to achieve objectives, to discover and archive best practices in the most effective forms possible

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Height of stone lines, width between lines

4.5 البحوث

هل كانت البحوث جزءًا من النهج؟:

نعم

حدد المواضيع:

• علم الايكولوجيا

أعط تفاصيل إضافية وأشر إلى من قام بالبحوث:

Agro-ecosystem Analysis (AESA) by FFS members

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 الميزانية السنوية لمكون الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي في النهج المذكور

إذا لم تكن الميزانية السنوية الدقيقة معروفة، قم بالإشارة إلى نطاقها:

• < 2000

التعليقات (على سبيل المثال المصادر الرئيسية للتمويل/الجهات المانحة الرئيسية):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (Kagera TAMP): 18.95%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (District and Sub-county facilitator time): 11.14%; local community / land user(s) (Land users as FFS members): 69.91%

5.2 الدعم المالي/المادي المقدم لمستخدمي الأراضي

هل حصل مستخدمو الأراضي على دعم مالي/ مادي لتنفيذ التقنية/ التقنيات؟:

كلا

5.3 إعانات لمدخلات محددة (بما في ذلك العمالة)

إذا كان العمل من قبل مستخدمي الأراضي مدخلاً جوهريًا، فهل كان:

• تطوعي

التعليقات:

FFS members were facilitated with information and they carried out the approach without any financial or material support

5.4 الائتمان

هل تم توفير ائتمان في إطار نهج أنشطة الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي؟:

كلا

6.1 آثار النهج

6.2 المحفز الرئيسي لقيام مستخدمي الأراضي بتنفيذ الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي

6.3 استدامة أنشطة النهج

هل يمكن لمستخدمي الأراضي المحافظة على استدامة ما تم تنفيذه من خلال النهج (بدون دعم خارجي)؟:

• نعم