Approaches

Participatory and Inovative ideas [Bangladesh]

approaches_2402 - Bangladesh

Completeness: 78%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
The Village Common Forest Project, Bangladesh (VCF) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 354, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Animation Liberate For Organize (ALO) - Bangladesh', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 354, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Animation Liberate For Organize (ALO) - Bangladesh', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 354, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Animation Liberate For Organize (ALO) - Bangladesh', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

Hill Agroforestry
technologies

Hill Agroforestry [Bangladesh]

Mixed fruits gardening on hill slope with forest trees on hill top and bamboo at the lower part of the hill.

  • Compiler: Jalal Uddin Md. Shoaib

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Active participation with innovative ideas to change livelihood adapting parmanent farming in hill region.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: (1) To show/demonstrate how to live on hill farming and sustain livelihood in degraded situation and (2) To show how to utilize hill slopes for better production system.

Methods: Contact with line agencies after having land ownership. Discussion among the members. Collection of planting materials from BARI. Gradual and sequential implementation in selected area. Adaption to cope with the labor shortage and capital.

Stages of implementation: Ensure credit from bank (Agricultural Bank). Planting seedlings and /or grafted planting materials collected from BARI, Watch and ward.

Role of stakeholders: Active participation of both male and female members of the family.

Other important information: Asisstance from other agencies like Directorate of Agricultural Extension (DAE), Chittagong Hill Tracts Development Board (CHTDB) and District adminstration to get the land ownership and technolgy adoption enhances the initiative.

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Bangladesh

Region/ State/ Province:

Khagrachari Hill District

Further specification of location:

Comilla

Comments:

There are originally 4 families with 5 acres of leased land and 9 families setlled afterwards purshing 20 acres and leased 5 acres. But the total area was treated as 100 acres.

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2001

Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):

2003

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (Pineapples along the contour, inter-cropping with long-term fruit trees, forest on top and bamboo at lower part of the hill slopes.)

Better livelihood, more income, self employment and utilization of degreded hiill areas.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Technical: Layout of pineapple along the contour; choice fruit trees suitable for the area, aspect and position on slope. Financial: Lack of fund for plantation, fertilizer, seed or seedlings, labor.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Inadequate and peek period unavailabilty of fund hinder implementation of the program.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Timely and easy funding option.

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation: They took as their own land to be managed.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Lack of appropriate technical know-how.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Strong training and motivation/stowardship.

markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices
  • enabling

They took as their own land to be managed.

  • hindering

No body will care about SWC if the land is not owned by themselves.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

The inhabitants of the study area are of same ethnic group form cooperative for managing their problems.

Incidently all households are from same community, where work is equally divided between men and women. Woman is the care taker of the family and men are employed.

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
  • researchers

Research organization

  • private sector

Bank

  • local government
  • national government (planners, decision-makers)
3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation self-mobilization Mainly:Training, rapid/participatory rural appraisal; partly: public meetings; Initative from BARI was implemented through motivating and training the target farmers.
planning interactive Motivation, local knowledge; One to one and group approach.
implementation interactive casual labour; Labor shortage in peek period is one of the major constraints. To overcome the gap they share each other. Labor cost about $1.5/mandays. Wman labor paid less than the male labor.
monitoring/ evaluation interactive Mainly: interviews/questionnaires; partly: measurements/observations; Poor monitoring and evaluation of the farming system. Casual staff visit insufficient for having feed back.
Research none on-farm; Data collection and feedback.

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
Explain:

Better land use supported to reseach and development issues on hill farming

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. By imparting training and input support

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
Form of training:
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • courses
Subjects covered:

How to plan, planting in contour and maintaining

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Participatory and innovation; Key elements: 1 to 1, Emphasis on demonstration and documentation; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents 2) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: Mostly male members are included for motivating.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Very weak linkage among the line organization

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, a little
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Sometime they visit the farmer for backup support of research.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Data collection through observation or estimation. Basic reseach findings are absent.

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (Loan from bank): 80.0%; other (Input): 20.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds fully financed
fertilizers fully financed
seedlings fully financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Yes

Specify conditions (interest rate, payback, etc.):

Interest rate charged: 6.0%; repayment conditions: To be paid in one year otherwise compound interest is charged..

Interest was lower than market rate.

Specify credit receivers:

Woman are not illegible to get loan.

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Contour planting, Slope management, inter cropping.

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

No body will care about SWC if the land is not owned by themselves.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

There are some hamlets took the technogy. Such as Kiran Karbari para, Kulpara and Esa para.

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes
If yes, describe how:

Fund constraints, inadequate marketing facilities. Weak marketing facilities may disrupt their wishes.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Permanent profession. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More materials, biocides and equipment support.)
Awarness developed. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Strenthening training and motivation.)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Training and supportive inputs were provided. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Timely and adequate inputs should be provided.)
Monitoring and suppervision by BARI. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More frequent and structured.)
Changes in attitude of the farmer. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Promotion of marketing specially agro base industry for pershable produces.)

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
Lack of fund. Fund from local bank should be provided.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Gender issues weakly addressed. More female members should be included.
Soil health preservation. Awarness to lookafter soil health improvement issues.
Uncertain marketing system. Establishment of agrobase industry.
Inacessibility to the marketing due peek production piriod. Dimand driven production.
Input base farming(lack of biocides). ensure all inputs.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules