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

اسم المشروع الذي سهّل توثيق/تقييم النهج (إذا كان ذلك على صلة)

The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )

1.3 الشروط المتعلقة باستخدام البيانات الموثقة من خلال WOCAT

متى تم تجميع البيانات (ميدانيا)؟:

01/01/2011

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

This is a top down approach to technology development and dissemination with limited involvement of intended beneficiaries.

2.2 وصف تفصيلي للنهج

وصف تفصيلي للنهج:

Aims / objectives: The objective of the top down approach is to assign the state a crucial role to drive a designed rural development and land management master plan that needs people to implement it.

To bring farmers together to address an identified problem such as to improve the socio economic situation of rural areas, to prevent , to conserve and to rehabilitate on-site damages caused by land degradation and erosion.

Methods: The top down approach here refers to the level of farmer participation in relation to shared decision making when establishing bench terraces/soil conservation practices in Rwanda. The focus being particularly on the role of farmers in the decision making process during two major phases of the process of terrace construction including: (1) when and where to construct bench terraces in communities and the criteria for site and beneficiary selection. The level of farmer participation and decision sharing have the potential of in increasing the ownership of the of the existing or future bench terraces, hence to ensure its sustainability. Recent studies assert that most of the terraces that are constructed are supply driven and that farmers do not participate in the decisions regarding where and when to construct them. When farmers do participate, it is mostly only through some consultation and their own efforts to mobilize collective labor for the construction of the terraces.

Stages of implementation: Stage one comprises the analysis of current or initial adoption decisions of soil conservation practices, while stage two assesses farmers’ ability to continue the use of these practices. Stage three analyses future adoption proxied by farmers’ willingness to uptake more soil conservation practices.

Role of stakeholders: The state plays a prime role in bench terraces development and the role of other stakeholders (e.g. extension agents, farmer associations) is marginal. Farmer associations involvement is is limited to mobilizing labor and, sometimes, to identifying land for terracing. Extension agencies/services are involved in providing advice to individual farmers or farmers grouped in cooperatives. Community representatives, whom are members of the farmers’ cooperatives themselves, are trained to provide additional support and advice to farmers.

Other important information: This SLM approach argues for a role of the state with top-down and coercive measures in the development of soil conservation practices, particularly bench terraces. Currently there is a two pronged approach based on the realization that bench terraces are ready made constructions which require substantial financial and institutional investments. Mustering labor and resources for the construction and maintenance of bench terraces remains a key aspect of the state’s conservation drive. State-farmer relationships, therefore, continue to be essential to soil conservation efforts in Rwanda and to bench terrace construction in particular.

2.3 صور عن النهج

2.5 البلد/المنطقة/المواقع التي تم تطبيق النهج فيها

2.6 تواريخ بدء وإنهاء تنفيذ النهج

2.7 نوع النهج

• government based

2.8 الغايات/الأهداف الرئيسية للنهج

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Increase soil fertility, good practices of land management in general)

To raise awareness to land users for a particular problem and involve them to get to the right solution

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: low agricultural production due to a poor agriculture practice and lack of technical knowledge by farmers

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	غير موجود
التخطيط	غير موجود
التنفيذ	تفاعلي	Land users and local authorities work together to get to greater result.
الرصد/التقييم	تفاعلي	Land users are in daily interaction with Sector Agronomist who is in charge of all agricultural activities in the sector.
Research	غير موجود

3.3 مخطط التدفق (إذا كان متاحًا)

3.4 اتخاذ القرار بشأن اختيار تقنية/تقنيات الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي

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

• متخصصون في الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي بمفردهم

اشرح:

Decisions were made in the ministry of agriculture after consultation of researchers.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by politicians / leaders. Politicians have decided the way of implementation through community work known as UMUGANDA

4.1 بناء القدرات/التدريب

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

كلا

4.2 خدمة استشارية

هل يملك مستخدمو الأراضي وصولا إلى خدمة استشارية؟:

نعم

وصف/تعليقات:

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 تعزيز المؤسسات (التطوير التنظيمي)

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

• نعم، باعتدال

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

• محلي

حدد نوع الدعم:

• مالي
• بناء القدرات/التدريب

4.4 الرصد والتقييم

هل يشكل الرصد والتقييم جزءا من النهج؟:

نعم

التعليقات:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: local leadres

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: local agronomist

technical aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: local agronomist

technical aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: local agronomist

socio-cultural aspects were None monitored by government through observations; indicators: local leaders

area treated aspects were None monitored by government through observations; indicators: local agronomist

area treated aspects were None monitored by government through measurements; indicators: all person of 18 years and above are involved

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

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

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

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

4.5 البحوث

هل كانت البحوث جزءًا من النهج؟:

كلا

5.1 الميزانية السنوية لمكون الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي في النهج المذكور

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

• 1,000000-100،000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (planing): 20.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (sensitization and follow up): 25.0%; local community / land user(s) (implimentation): 55.0%

5.2 الدعم المالي/المادي المقدم لمستخدمي الأراضي

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

نعم

إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم، حدد نوع (أنواع) الدعم والشروط والمزودين:

inputs (seeds, fertilizers, etc..) provided by the Government

5.3 إعانات لمدخلات محددة (بما في ذلك العمالة)

• زراعة

• بناء

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

• تطوعي

التعليقات:

After the sensitization by local leaders, activities are done voluntarily or with food-for-work by farmers.

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)؟:

• غير مؤكد

إذا كان الجواب لا أو غير متأكد، حدد ذلك وعلق عليه:

It require a strong follow up

6.4 نقاط قوة/مزايا النهج

نقاط القوة/ المزايا/ الفرص من وجهة نظر مستخدمي الأراضي
It help farmers to work together for a common issue. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuous sensitization )

نقاط القوة/ المزايا/ الفرص من وجهة نظر جامع المعلومات أو غيره من الاشخاص الرئيسيين لمصدر المعلومات
Improvement of livelihoods (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuous sensitization)
farmers are getting benefits, as it has a direct impact in increasing the soil productivity and improve workability of the land (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuous sensitization )
the approach helped to establish SLM measures which reduced soil erosion and improve soil quality (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuous sensitization)

6.5 نقاط الضعف/ العيوب في المنهج وطرق التغلب عليها

نقاط الضعف/ المساوىء/ المخاطر من وجهة نظر مستخدم الأراضي	كيف يمكن التغلب عليها؟
lack of strong link in the farmers association and cooperatives	continuous sensitization

نقاط الضعف/ المساوىء/ المخاطر من وجهة نظر جامع المعلومات أو غيره من الاشخاص الرئيسيين لمصدر المعلومات	كيف يمكن التغلب عليها؟
High costs: farmers depend on external support from the government, they are not willing to invest their labour without payments.	To make the working time as short as possible for the community work so that farmer can plan other income activities after this.
lack of land users participation in the design and planing	involve all stakeholders

7.1 طرق جمع/مصادر المعلومات