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)

CSIRO (CSIRO) - أستراليا

1.3 الشروط المتعلقة باستخدام البيانات الموثقة من خلال WOCAT

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

A new expression used by agriculturalists in Australia to explain why farmers change practices: the 'triple bottom line' implies economic, environmental and social concerns.

2.2 وصف تفصيلي للنهج

وصف تفصيلي للنهج:

Aims / objectives: A fundamental change has occurred in farming practice amongst sugar cane growers in the tropics of far north Queensland. Where it was once standard practice to burn cane before harvest (defoliating green canes for easier harvest), tradition has been turned on its head and now almost no-one burns. Instead a 'green cane trash blanket' system has developed, with multiple benefits and few or no drawbacks. There has been no official campaign or punitive sanctions imposed, no enticing financial incentives offered or charismatic environmental leadership - just a quiet technological revolution, based on the principles of the 'triple bottom line' (TBL).

Methods: TBL has recently emerged into common usage amongst agriculturalists in Australia. Rather than attributing farmers' actions as simple responses to economic stimuli ('the bottom line') TBL is a framework that helps explain the complexity of factors that influence farmers to modify their practices. TBL suggests that farmers do indeed respond to money, but also to environmental concerns, and furthermore to social considerations as well. This gives credit to farmers for being responsible stewards of the land. In this particular case, the transition in technology started in 1974, when sugar cane growers in the far north of Queensland were simply unable to burn their cane prior to harvest because of the exceptionally heavy rains. Instead, they had to harvest wet - and green. The technical implications were first, a slower harvest speed because machinery had to cope with a greater load of biomass, and second, a thick residual blanket of trash that covered the soil. The multiple benefits of mulching were recognised by a few growers, who then continued to harvest green cane. Non-burning spread - a technology now described as the 'green cane trash blanket'- until almost every grower adopted it within one generation. While the extension service has supported the transition, growers themselves tookthe initiative to change. There are indeed small financial benefits, chiefly in terms of reduced overall input costs, but growers have simultaneously been motivated by social and environmental considerations. Burning has come to be considered anti-social: a dirty practice, carrying the danger of fire spreading outside the targeted fields. Neither is it a pleasant task, requiring help of family and friends, often at inconvenient times.

Other important information: From an environmental perspective, the benefits of trash mulch are tangible in terms of improved soil quality, and reduced erosion rates. And, equally important, the end result is reduced damage to the close-by Great Barrier Reef with its sediment-sensitive living coral.
The triple bottom line(TBL) is an expression which has evolved in Australia to help explain why farmers act as they do. Its three components of economics, the environment and social aspects cover the considerations that cause farmers to modify technologies. TBL implicitly gives credit to farmer for being sensitive to multiple external signals. In this case the change in practice is from burning sugar cane to harvesting it green in Far North Queensland. This is a case where emerging conservation-friendly farmer practice and the goals of the environmental lobby have neatly coincided.

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

• تقليدي/أصلي

2.8 الغايات/الأهداف الرئيسية للنهج

The Approach focused on SLM only

(1) Demonstration and dissemination. (2) The spread of non-burning practices, specifically the 'green cane trash blanket' technology to promote sustainable and environmentally friendly sugar cane production. (3) Indirectly: to satisfy social concerns associated with burning of sugar cane.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: (1) Anti-social farming practice of burning sugar cane which also has negative environmental impacts, both in situ, and offsite in the coral reef. (2) Resistance to change in traditional farming practice.

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	التعبئة الذاتية	starting up the practice; starting up the practice of green cane trash blanket (GCTB)
التخطيط	غير موجود
التنفيذ	تفاعلي	spreading the word; growers spreading the word, support by extension services
الرصد/التقييم	تفاعلي	growers joining hands with research; formal and informal disseminations of observations
Research	تفاعلي	growers joining hands with research. Quantifying benefits short, long term and downstream

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:

• مستخدمو الأراضي وحدهم (المبادرة الذاتية)

اشرح:

sugar cane growers

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up)

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

حدد ما إذا كانت الخدمة الاستشارية متوفرة:

• في حقول مستخدمي الأراضي

وصف/تعليقات:

Name of method used for advisory service: green cane trash blanket (GCTB) system; Key elements: visits, Field days, publications; (1) Advisory service was carried out through: Bureau of Sugar Experimental Stations (BSES).(2) Advisory service was carried out through: Bureau of Sugar Experimental Stations (BSES).

4.3 تعزيز المؤسسات (التطوير التنظيمي)

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

• لا

4.4 الرصد والتقييم

هل يشكل الرصد والتقييم جزءا من النهج؟:

نعم

التعليقات:

Technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations
There were None changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Not applicable.

4.5 البحوث

هل كانت البحوث جزءًا من النهج؟:

نعم

حدد المواضيع:

• الاقتصاد / التسويق
• علم الايكولوجيا
• تكنولوجيا

أعط تفاصيل إضافية وأشر إلى من قام بالبحوث:

There has been some ad hoc research carried out on technical parameters by both the BSES as well as CSIRO.

5.1 الميزانية السنوية لمكون الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي في النهج المذكور

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national government, Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations): 20.0%; other (growers themselves): 80.0%

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:

By government (national government, Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations)

5.3 إعانات لمدخلات محددة (بما في ذلك العمالة)

• غير موجود

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

• تطوعي

التعليقات:

Farmers themselves provide labour

There are no subsidies connected to GCTB. Australia does not subsidise its sugar cane growers and sugar is sold at the world price.

5.4 الائتمان

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

كلا

6.1 آثار النهج

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:

By definition this is sustainable: it is an internal mechanism amongst farmers.

6.4 نقاط قوة/مزايا النهج

نقاط القوة/ المزايا/ الفرص من وجهة نظر جامع المعلومات أو غيره من الاشخاص الرئيسيين لمصدر المعلومات
Farmers take the responsibility of choosing a land management practice that has a positive 'triple bottom line': environmental, economic and social benefits. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Support awareness raising and give appreciation to the on-site and off-site benefits; acknowledge sugar produced under this system an environmentally friendly and economic product.)
Has successfully stimulated the spread of the green cane trash blanket system. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Outsiders should continue to support farmers' multiple concerns.)
Sugar cane growing has previously had a bad environmental and social reputation, especially here, close to the Great Barrier Reef, which is a World Heritage Site. This change in practice, resulting from the 'triple bottom line' has changed the reputation of sugar cane growers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Make this public.)

6.5 نقاط الضعف/ العيوب في المنهج وطرق التغلب عليها

نقاط الضعف/ المساوىء/ المخاطر من وجهة نظر جامع المعلومات أو غيره من الاشخاص الرئيسيين لمصدر المعلومات	كيف يمكن التغلب عليها؟
The fact that farmers are responsive to environmental and social as well as economic stimuli is covered up by conventional thinking that 'only money matters to them'.	Investigation and documentation of the 'triple bottom line' is required.

7.1 طرق جمع/مصادر المعلومات