SLM Focal Village [بوتان]
- تاريخ الإنشاء:
- تحديث:
- جامع المعلومات: Karma Dorji
- المحرر: –
- المُراجع: Fabian Ottiger
approaches_2490 - بوتان
عرض الأقسام
توسيع الكل طي الكل1. معلومات عامة
1.2 تفاصيل الاتصال بالأشخاص الرئيسيين لمصدر المعلومات والمؤسسات المعنية بتقييم وتوثيق النهج
اسم المؤسسة (المؤسسات) التي سهلت توثيق/تقييم النهج (إذا كان ذلك على صلة)
MoA (MoA) - بوتاناسم المؤسسة (المؤسسات) التي سهلت توثيق/تقييم النهج (إذا كان ذلك على صلة)
National Soil Services Centre (National Soil Services Centre) - بوتان1.3 الشروط المتعلقة باستخدام البيانات الموثقة من خلال WOCAT
متى تم تجميع البيانات (ميدانيا)؟:
20/03/2011
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. وصف نهج الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي
2.1 وصف موجز للنهج
Focused support to a single village community to promote the widespread integrated implementation of SLM interventions.
2.2 وصف تفصيلي للنهج
وصف تفصيلي للنهج:
Aims / objectives: A SLM Focal Village is an approach to focus support to a particular village where a whole range of integrated SLM interventions is showcased in order to create visual impact and to serve as a demonstration site. The concept of a SLM Focal Village was developed in order to tackle the concern of dilution of impact caused by inclusion of all the villages and the households that are geographically very scattered and dispersed. Focal villages are selected at geog (block) level based on their accessibility, visibility for visitors and passers-by, severity of land degradation issues and interest shown by the village community.
Methods: Participatory SLM Action Planning is used to identify land-based problems, their causes and to discuss, select and prioritize specific targeted SLM interventions into a chiog (village) SLM action plan. Additional support is given to the village community to convert larger complexes of clustered land to more sustainable use with locally suited SLM practices. Popular interventions are stone bunding, grass hedgerows, bench terracing, bamboo and tree plantation and fodder development. The for-mation of labour-sharing groups is promoted in the SLM Focal Villages to ease high labour requirement for some SLM activities.
Stages of implementation: Where possible, integrated approaches are adopted, linking increasing vegetative cover of degraded or vulnerable areas with fodder development in marginal slope segments. FYM shed construction is combined with breed improvement and transition to stall feeding, providing manure for cropland. The SLM Focal Villages are used as demonstration sites and interested farmer groups on study tours and other visitors can get a quick impression of a variety of SLM activities showcased in a limited geographical area.
Role of stakeholders: The SLM Focal Villages are used as demonstration sites and interested farmer groups on study tours and other visitors can get a quick impression of a variety of SLM activities showcased in a limited geographical area.
Other important information: SLM Focal Villages require more guidance and monitoring by local extension staff and relatively higher budgets as the areas of land converted to SLM practices are often larger and thus related expenses for seeds, seedlings and other incentives like tools. In some focal villages additional labour-saving machinery is supplied, for example maize flour mill, oil expeller, rice huller, cornflake machine, etc. as an incentive to the community for taking up SLM interventions on comparatively larger scale..
2.3 صور عن النهج
2.5 البلد/المنطقة/المواقع التي تم تطبيق النهج فيها
البلد:
بوتان
المنطقة/الولاية/المحافظة:
Chhukha Dzongkhag
مزيد من التفاصيل حول الموقع:
Phuntsholing geog, Serina chiog
Map
×2.6 تواريخ بدء وإنهاء تنفيذ النهج
أشر إلى سنة البدء:
2009
سنة الإنهاء (إذا لم يعد النهج مطبقًا):
2012
2.7 نوع النهج
- قائم على مشروع/برنامج
2.8 الغايات/الأهداف الرئيسية للنهج
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Advocay of implementation of various SLM techniques through focus village (chiog) approach)
- Creating a visible and tangible impact at chiog level through widespread implementation of SLM technologies
- Convert present fallow land and former slash-and-burn practice areas to more sustainable cropland with an improved fodder base
- Improve community sense and enhance sustainability of SLM approaches through group support
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - Inclusion of all households at village level in a large and geographically dispersed geog leads to dilution of (visual) impact and benefits.
- Targeting individual households makes it more difficult to create a focused demonstration area to showcase SLM interventions at village level
2.9 الظروف التي تمكن أو تعيق تنفيذ التقنية/التقنيات المطبقة بموجب النهج
الإطار المؤسساتي
- معيق
Transition of focus from individual household approach to labour-sharing approach, uniting lager groups of community members
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Group support, targeted training and guidance/monitoring
الإطار القانوني (حيازة الأراضي، وحقوق استخدام الأراضي والمياه)
- تمكين/تمكيني
The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation: Individual titled land tenure greatly help implementation of SLM activities as the land users have great commitment and feeling of ownership, getting direct benefits and leading in decision-making process.
عبء العمل، توفر القوى العاملة
- معيق
Larger areas to be treated with SLM interventions requires substantial work load of all households
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Labour-sharing groups to ease labour constraint and promote/enhance community bonding/sense
غير ذلك
- معيق
Lack of direct tangible impact of long-term SLM interventions
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Combining long-term SLM activities with short-term inputs and incentives and additional capacity building / awareness raising
3. المشاركة وأدوار الأطراف المعنية
3.1 أصحاب المصلحة المعنيون بالنهج وأدوارهم
- مستخدمو الأراضي المحليون/المجتمعات المحلية
Serina chiog community
Households from vulnerable groups (lower “well-being class” after chiog “well-being ranking”) are involved as much as possible in SLM interventions.
- متخصصون في الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي / مستشارون زراعيون
- الحكومة المحلية
Dzongkhag, geog and chiog administration together with the RNR extension staff and GSPs
- الحكومة الوطنية (المخططون، صانعو القرار)
RGoB, MoAF, DoA, NSSC, SLMP
- منظمة دولية
إذا كان هناك العديد من الأطراف المعنية، قم بالإشارة إلى الوكالة الرائدة:
developed as result of internal review of project progress and impact
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 | Initial meetings to sensitize farmers and to create awareness of SLM issues |
التخطيط | تفاعلي | Participatory SLM action planning at chiog level; annual planning cycle, repeated for 3 years |
التنفيذ | تفاعلي | Based on the chiog SLM action plan SLM interventions are implemented with input support and incentives; guidance and capacity building by municipality extension staff and geog SLM planners |
الرصد/التقييم | تفاعلي | Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation meetings carried out by geogSLM planning team (GSPT) |
Research | غير موجود |
3.3 مخطط التدفق (إذا كان متاحًا)
الوصف:
SLM focal village and its linkage with support providers
المؤلف:
Hans van Noord (Schoutenkamp 43 Heteren The Netherlands)
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 annual participatory SLM Action Planning is key approach used to identify and prioritize SLM technologies for implementation at village level.
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. based on the SLM Action plan for the village and amended, if necessary, by the findings of M&E meetings
4. الدعم الفني وبناء القدرات وإدارة المعرفة
4.1 بناء القدرات/التدريب
هل تم تقديم التدريب لمستخدمي الأراضي / الأطراف المعنيين الآخرين؟:
نعم
حدد من تم تدريبه:
- مستخدمو الأراضي
إذا كان ذلك على صلة، حدد الجنس والعمر والوضع والعرق وما إلى ذلك.
Whole community involved with SLM: inclusive approach to all 44 households
شكل التدريب:
- من مزارع إلى مزارع
- مناطق العرض
- اجتماعات عامة
المواضيع المغطاة:
A series of awareness raising activities related to identification of local land-based problems, its causes and possible SLM interventions through an annual SLM action planning and following implementation. This is combined with specific technical trainings focused on the SLM activities prioritized in the village SLM action plan.
4.2 خدمة استشارية
هل يملك مستخدمو الأراضي وصولا إلى خدمة استشارية؟:
نعم
حدد ما إذا كانت الخدمة الاستشارية متوفرة:
- في حقول مستخدمي الأراضي
وصف/تعليقات:
Name of method used for advisory service: Field visits and meetings; Key elements: technical guidance, awareness raising and group formation support
Advisory service is inadequate 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
- معدات
اعط مزيدا من التفاصيل:
Yes, SLM focal village development is a direct form of local institution support.
4.4 الرصد والتقييم
هل يشكل الرصد والتقييم جزءا من النهج؟:
نعم
التعليقات:
bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: terrace area increase and area treated with stone bunds
bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: terrace area increase and area treated with stone bunds
technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: Regular observations by project staff with land users of specific SLM interventions: progress, problems, areas for improvement
socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: Regular observations on community / focal village approach through participatory M&E meetings; community sense, conflicts etc.
economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements by project staff and land users: crop yields, income, fodder and animal production
area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements by project staff and land users: area of SLM interventions (hedgerows, stone bunds, bench terraces, # of check dams tec.)
no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements by project staff and land users: number of households participating in each specific training and event (male/female)
management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: Regular observations by project staff and land users during participatory M&E meetings; ad hoc meetings with project management staff
There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Adjustment of technical interventions due to farmer feedback during participatory M&E meetings; review of annual SLM action plan leads to readjusted action plans based on evaluation with community on progress and issues.
There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Adjustment of technical interventions due to farmer feedback during participatory M&E meetings; review of annual SLM action plan leads to readjusted action plans based on evaluation with community on progress and issues.
5. التمويل والدعم المادي الخارجي
5.1 الميزانية السنوية لمكون الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي في النهج المذكور
إذا لم تكن الميزانية السنوية الدقيقة معروفة، قم بالإشارة إلى نطاقها:
- 100,000-10,000
التعليقات (على سبيل المثال المصادر الرئيسية للتمويل/الجهات المانحة الرئيسية):
Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (World Bank GEF): 60.0%; government (RGoB): 20.0%; local community / land user(s): 20.0%
5.2 الدعم المالي/المادي المقدم لمستخدمي الأراضي
هل حصل مستخدمو الأراضي على دعم مالي/ مادي لتنفيذ التقنية/ التقنيات؟:
نعم
5.3 إعانات لمدخلات محددة (بما في ذلك العمالة)
- معدات
حدد المدخلات التي تم دعمها | إلى أي مدى | حدد الإعانات |
---|---|---|
maize floor mill, green net sheds, water drums | ممول جزئيا | |
- زراعة
حدد المدخلات التي تم دعمها | إلى أي مدى | حدد الإعانات |
---|---|---|
بذور | ممول بالكامل | maize, paddy, vegetables |
- بناء
حدد المدخلات التي تم دعمها | إلى أي مدى | حدد الإعانات |
---|---|---|
CGI sjeets, water drums and houses | ممول بالكامل | |
- غير ذلك
غير ذلك(حدد) | إلى أي مدى | حدد الإعانات |
---|---|---|
incentive payment | ممول جزئيا | per unit area of hedge row and stone bunding |
إذا كان العمل من قبل مستخدمي الأراضي مدخلاً جوهريًا، فهل كان:
- تطوعي
التعليقات:
Labour is mainly voluntary contribution by household, but partly compensated with cash and other material support for the more labour-intensive interventions such as stone bunding and hedgerow establishment; labour-saving groups also supported with tool sets
Tool sets partly financed; seeds and seedlings mostly fully financed; CGI sheets, green net and drums for FYM sheds, green net sheds and water collection drums fully financed; some labour-saving machinery fully financed such as maize flour mill as community incentive.
5.4 الائتمان
هل تم توفير ائتمان في إطار نهج أنشطة الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي؟:
كلا
6. تحليل الأثر والتصريحات الختامية
6.1 آثار النهج
هل ساعد النهج مستخدمي الأراضي على تنفيذ وصيانة تقنيات الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي؟:
- لا
- نعم، قليلا
- نعم، باعتدال
- نعم، إلى حد كبير
Increased area under SLM treatment with improved fodder availability and formation of SLM related groups (labour-saving group etc.); former slash-and-burn practice area now converted into more sustainable land use; water sources protected and degraded areas afforested.
هل أدى النهج إلى تحسن في مسائل حيازة الأراضي / حقوق المستخدمين التي أعاقت تنفيذ تقنيات الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي؟:
- لا
- نعم، قليلا
- نعم، باعتدال
- نعم، إلى حد كبير
Absentee land owners can complicate a full coverage of SLM interventions. The problem is unlikely to be overcome in the near future. Land ownership is a private matter, which is difficult to change land use without permission of abent land owner
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
- لا
- نعم، قليلا
- نعم، باعتدال
- نعم، إلى حد كبير
Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
- لا
- نعم، قليلا
- نعم، باعتدال
- نعم، إلى حد كبير
In terms of increased yield, improved fodder availability and quality and increased production area; enhanced community bonding through group activities and related easing of labour constraints (labour-saving groups).
Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
- لا
- نعم، قليلا
- نعم، باعتدال
- نعم، إلى حد كبير
Through inclusion in labour-sharing groups labour constraint of vulnerable households addressed. Focus of hands-on training on land of most vulnerable households to give them first benefit and ensure inclusion.
6.2 المحفز الرئيسي لقيام مستخدمي الأراضي بتنفيذ الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي
- زيادة الإنتاج
Small immediate increase, but good increase in long-term
- زيادة الربح (القدرة)، وتحسين نسبة التكلفة إلى العائد
- انخفاض عبء العمل
labour-sharing groups: Reduced workload through improved land (with hedgerows, stone b
- المدفوعات/ الإعانات
incentives and inputs
- القواعد واللوائح (الغرامات) / الإنفاذ
enforcement through GSPT/community
- الوعي البيئي
environmental awareness
- well-being and livelihoods improvement
wish to improve food self-sufficiency and increase of continuous cropping area
6.3 استدامة أنشطة النهج
هل يمكن لمستخدمي الأراضي المحافظة على استدامة ما تم تنفيذه من خلال النهج (بدون دعم خارجي)؟:
- نعم
إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم، صف كيف:
Village communities express commitment to continue focal village approach, but it remains to be seen if they actually are able to continue with various SLM activities without support post-project. The communities are intending to continue to convert ex slash-and-burn area to annual cropland, making use of labour-sharing group. This old traditional system is rejuvenated and therefore is more likely to be sustainable post-project.
6.4 نقاط قوة/مزايا النهج
نقاط القوة/ المزايا/ الفرص من وجهة نظر مستخدمي الأراضي |
---|
reduced dependency on forest and tseri (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: maintenance of new annual crop land ) |
more annual cropland through SLM interventions (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: maintenance of new annual crop land) |
better workability of developed cropland (stone bunding / hedgerows etc.) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: maintenance of new annual crop land) |
short-term inputs and subsidies enable the poorer households to take up log-term SLM interventions (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: targeted support to vulnerable households to maintain an inclusive approach) |
نقاط القوة/ المزايا/ الفرص من وجهة نظر جامع المعلومات أو غيره من الاشخاص الرئيسيين لمصدر المعلومات |
---|
Holistic integrated village development enabling to showcase a variety of SLM interventions (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular technical guidance and targeted capacity building efforts ) |
Enables to convert larger areas of previous fallow land, or previously under slash-and-burn practice, to more sustainable cropland and reduces dependency on forest and slash-and-burn (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular technical guidance and targeted capacity building efforts, combined with input support and guidance of labour-saving groups) |
Pressure on communities to change land-use through governmental rule to stop slash-and-burn practice makes them very interested in adopting SLM (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular technical guidance and targeted capacity building efforts, combined with short-term incentives) |
Group formation process enables labour-sharing approach, which is very well appreciated (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular technical guidance and targeted capacity building efforts) |
6.5 نقاط الضعف/ العيوب في المنهج وطرق التغلب عليها
نقاط الضعف/ المساوىء/ المخاطر من وجهة نظر مستخدم الأراضي | كيف يمكن التغلب عليها؟ |
---|---|
Increase of work load combined with demand for labour of other developmental activities (rural water supply, road construction etc.). Therefore 'underperformance' against set targets | Better seasonal planning, try to avoid busy agricultural season. |
نقاط الضعف/ المساوىء/ المخاطر من وجهة نظر جامع المعلومات أو غيره من الاشخاص الرئيسيين لمصدر المعلومات | كيف يمكن التغلب عليها؟ |
---|---|
Risk of dependency on incentives/inputs: spoon-feeding syndrome |
Continued support to community and labour-saving groups to support land conversion efforts |
Focus and concentration of efforts to one community might cause dissatisfaction among neighbouring villages |
Continue SLM support to other villages as planned; communicate reasons of selection clearly: transparency at municipality level. |
Requires considerable input of labour by community, but clashes with other requirement of developmental activities such as drinking water supply, irrigation channel construction, electrification and farm road construction | Labour-sharing group to ease labour constraint |
7. المراجع والروابط
7.1 طرق جمع/مصادر المعلومات
- زيارات ميدانية، مسوحات ميدانية
- مقابلات مع مستخدمي الأراضي
الروابط والوحدات المواضيعية
توسيع الكل طي الكلالروابط
لا يوجد روابط
الوحدات المواضيعية
لا يوجد وحدات مواضيعية