Enfoques

Participatory SLM Action Planning [Bután]

Creación: 03/07/2014 00:00
Actualización: 03/08/2017 09:22
Compilador: Karma Dorji
Editor: –
Revisor: Fabian Ottiger

approaches_2489 - Bután

Visualizar secciones

Expandir todo

Completado: 89%

1. Información general

1.2 Detalles de contacto de las personas de referencia e instituciones involucradas en la evaluación y la documentación del Enfoque

Persona(s) de referencia clave/s

Especialista MST:

karma dorji

Especialista MST:

Wangdi Tashi

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB

Bután

Especialista MST:

Dorji Tshering

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB

Bután

Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)

National Soil Services Centre (National Soil Services Centre) - Bután

Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)

MoA (MoA) - Bután

1.3 Condiciones referidas al uso de datos documentados mediante WOCAT

¿Cuándo se compilaron los datos (en el campo)?

14/03/2011

El compilador y la/s persona(s) de referencia claves aceptan las condiciones acerca del uso de los datos documentados mediante WOCAT :

Sí

2. Descripción del Enfoque MST

2.1 Breve descripción del Enfoque

A methodology to identify in a participatory manner at village level land-based problems, its causal factors and mitigation measures to reduce land degradation and enhance rural livelihoods

2.2 Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST

Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST:

Aims / objectives: Participatory SLM Action Planning (SLM AP) is a methodology that aims at prioritiz-ing possible SLM interventions to mitigate the most critical land degradation issues. Priorities are based on the identification of land-based livelihoods and livelihood resources, the key area-based problems and their causes. SLM AP is carried out in the SLMP geogs (block) at chiog (village) level, including all community households. It involves elements of PRA/PLA such as problem census, cropping calendars, history lines, natural resource mapping and builds on the in-depth knowledge and understanding of farming households of their land, their problems and opportunities. The process is highly visual to include the illiterate and very interactive by giving the communities the lead in prioritizing their problems and deciding on SLM interventions.

Methods: The SLM AP is an iterative process, starting with building and training SLM planning teams (GSPTs) at geog level, comprising of extension staff and locally recruited geog SLM planners (GSPs) and geog administration staff. The GSPTs start awareness and mobilization activities in the first year at geog council level. This is followed by a 3 day SLM AP in each and every chiog of the geog to compile a chiog SLM action plan. The village SLM APs are combined into a geog SLM AP and discussed, amended and endorsed in a public meeting by the geog council. The necessary budget is allocated by SLMP project and implementation of the planned activities takes place at chiog level.

Stages of implementation: Implementation is preceded by intensive training and capacity building of the communities in SLM activities. In the second year a new SLM AP round is made, lasting only one day, with review of the previous SLM AP at chiog level. Potential new activities are identified, based on field experiences, to complete the new SLM AP for year 2. In the final year 3, a last SLM AP round is made in all chiogs to compile chiog and ultimately a geog SLM AP.

Role of stakeholders: SLM AP is an inclusive process and gender sensitive, with focus on vulnerable households. The approach includes participatory Natural Resource mapping at chiog level and participatory Monitoring & Evaluation to track implementation progress and impact and to get feedback of the communities.

Other important information: Environmental and social screening procedures are applied to exclude any negative impact on the land or on social groups. SLM AP was piloted in 3 geogs in 3 Dzongkhags since 2006 and has been rolled out to more than 130 chiogs in 9 geogs.

2.3 Fotos del Enfoque

Galería de medios

2.5 País/ región/ lugares donde el Enfoque fue aplicado

País:

Bután

Región/ Estado/ Provincia:

Chhukha, Trashigang and Zhemgang Dzongkhags

Especifique más el lugar :

9 separate geogs

2.6 Fechas de inicio y conclusión del Enfoque

Indique año del inicio:

2006

Año de conclusión (si el Enfoque ya no se aplica):

2012

2.7 Tipo de Enfoque

proyecto/ basado en un programa

2.8 Propósitos/ objetivos principales del Enfoque

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (livelihoods, cash income, food security, capacity building, awareness raising)

- To build community capacity to assess land degradation and identify and prioritize mitigation measures
- Enhancement of rural livelihoods

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - Lack of awareness of land degradation processes, combined with limited technical knowledge to tackle its causes.
- Planning procedures are top-down and do not incorporate land-based issues adequately and fail to build local ownership and sustainability.

2.9 Condiciones que facilitan o impiden la implementación de la/s Tecnología/s aplicadas bajo el Enfoque

disponibilidad/ acceso a recursos y servicios financieros

impiden

Large amount of cash to handle at municipality level

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Training, monitoring and limitation of cash amounts

entorno institucional

impiden

Delays in financial releases to decentralised level because of lengthy/complicated administrative chain

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Training of key financial staff to shorten procedure and minimize frequency of budget releases

marco de trabajo legal (tenencia de tierra, derechos de uso de tierra y agua)

facilitan

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights helped a little the approach implementation: Individual land titles of households favour greatly the planning and implementation of SLM activities

impiden

Lack of efforts in implementing SLM technologies on land without ownership and living as tenants

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Awareness on the importance of proper management to prevent decline in productivity and their own livelihoods through loss of soil fertility and or loss of land physically due to landslides and mass movements.

conocimiento de MST, acceso a apoyo técnico

impiden

Awaraness of communities and technical confidence of teams

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Training and capacity buidling

carga de trabajo, disponibilidad de mano de obra

impiden

Large volume of work, especially in growing season

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Make of use of lean winter season for labour-intensive SLM interventions

otros

impiden

Small land holding sizes to spare a portion for SLM technologies

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Awareness on the advantages of SLM

3. Participación y roles de las partes interesadas involucradas

3.1 Partes interesadas involucradas en el Enfoque y sus roles

usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales

communities of all chiogs

In all villages the most vulnerable community members were identified (wealth / well-being ranking), ranked and specific effort made to include them in most interventions, where possible.

especialistas MST/consejeros agrícolas

profesores/ niños en edad escolar/ estudiantes

gobierno local

GSPT and Dzongkhag staff (Local government)

gobierno nacional (planificadores, autoridades)

RGoB, MoAF, DoA

organización internacional

GEF, World Bank

monk body

3.2 Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales en las distintas fases del Enfoque

	Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales	Especifique quién se involucró y describa las actividades
iniciación/ motivación	interactivo	National level stakeholders in consultation with district and municipality staff developed the methodology through an iterative consultation process
planificación	interactivo	Decentralised training and planning of SLM interventions at chiog level (130+ chiogs) in 9 geogs in 3 Dzongkhags
implementación	interactivo	Range of SLM and livelihood activities at chiog level (130+ villages) during 6 year project period
monitoreo y evaluación	interactivo	Regular participatory M&E at chiog and geog level
Research	pasivo	Few focused SLM related research topics commissioned to governmental research institutions

3.3 Flujograma (si estuviera disponible)

Descripción:

Overview of network of Stakeholders at chiog (village), geog and district level

Autor:

Hans van Noord (Schoutenkamp 43 Heteren The Netherlands)

3.4 La toma de decisiones en la selección de Tecnología(s) MST

Especifique quién decidió la selección de las Tecnología/ Tecnologías a implementarse:

principalmente usuarios de tierras con el apoyo de especialistas MST

Explique:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. The SLM planning was done in a very participatory manner with the land users as they best know the problems in their land i.e. where, how, when, etc. Planning done using participatory planning tools and field visits. Based on the problems at the site (site specific problems) then SLM Specialists make problem specific recommendations of SLM technologies. The main Monitoring and Evaluation was done after every six months when comprehensive information was collected with structured questionnaires along with site visits and meeting with the communities. M&E was also done as frequently as possible even while visiting the site for other purposes during the year without compulsory group meetings.

4. Apoyo técnico, fortalecimiento institucional y gestión del conocimiento

4.1 Construcción de capacidades / capacitación

¿Se proporcionó la capacitación a usuarios de tierras/ otras partes interesadas?

Sí

Especifique quién fue capacitado:

usuarios de tierras
personal de campo/ consejeros

Project management staff

Forma de capacitación:

en el contexto de trabajo
de agricultor a agricultor
áreas de demostración
reuniones públicas
cursos

Temas avanzados:

Extensive training programmes for project management staff and field coordinators and the decentralised extension staff (forestry, livestock and agriculture) at geog level together with the geog administration staff and finally to all chiog communities (130+). Initial training was on SLM action planning and Natural Resource mapping; later on a range of technical intervention such as hedgerow establishment, check dam construction, bioengineering, afforestation, community forestry, fodder development, bamboo plantation, bench terracing etc.

4.2 Servicio de asesoría

¿Los usuarios de tierras tienen acceso a un servicio de asesoría?

Sí

Especifique si servicio proporcionado se realizó:

en los campos de los usuarios de tierras

Describa/ comentarios:

Name of method used for advisory service: SLM planning knowledge transfer; Key elements: participatory planning, capacity and skills building of RNR extension staff; Whole range of extension advisory services by all extension teams related to SLM, cash generation and group formation

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Capacity built, awareness raised, institutions supported. Adequate human and institutional capacities and awareness have been created during the GEF/World Bank SLM Project period and the effort is still being continued. The actual implementation of the SLM technologies in the field is constrained by inadequate fund support and small land holdings.

4.3 Fortalecimiento institucional (desarrollo institucional)

¿Se establecieron o fortalecieron instituciones mediante el Enfoque?

sí, un poco

Especifique el nivel o los niveles en los que se fortalecieron o establecieron las instituciones:

local

Especifique el tipo de apoyo:

construcción de capacidades/ entrenamiento
equipo

curriculum development support, seeds, seedlings

Proporcione detalles adicionales:

Moderate support to monk body, schools, Non-Formal Education and geog administrations

4.4 Monitoreo y evaluación

¿El monitoreo y la evaluación forman parte del Enfoque?

Sí

Comentarios:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Regular measurements and observations of acreage of improved vulnerable land through SLM interventions; annual soil erosion plot measurements

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements and observations of acreage of improved vulnerable land through SLM interventions; annual soil erosion plot measurements

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Regular measurements and observations of acreage and properties of specific areas of improved vulnerable land

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements and observations of acreage and properties of specific areas of improved vulnerable land

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: Regular observations through participatory M&E meetings

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Regular observations and measurements by field extension staff (crop cut, animal production, volume of bamboo marketed; CBA study to establish economic viability

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Regular observations and measurements by field extension staff (crop cut, animal production, volume of bamboo marketed; CBA study to establish economic viability

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements of area treated: range of project indicators for vulnerable land improved

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements of households and farmers (male/female) participating

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by None through observations; indicators: WB, MTAC, Regular reviews with key stakeholders (Annual Review Workshops)

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Two-tier approach: combination of inclusion of all household combined with limited areal focus; vulnerable households focus; financial disbursement system; ch more cash-generating activities; more group/community focus; labour-saving machinery

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: change of type and variety of seeds and seedlings

4.5 Investigación

¿La investigación formó parte del Enfoque?

Sí

Especifique los temas:

sociología
economía/ marketing
ecología

Proporcione detalles adicionales e indique quién hizo la investigación:

Little involvement, apart from some focused research on group formation at chiog level and studies on CBA, SLM-poverty linkage, rangeland management, rural-urban transition etc.

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5. Financiamiento y apoyo material externo

5.1 Presupuesto anual para el componente MST del Enfoque

Si no se conoce el presupuesto anual preciso, indique el rango:

> 1,000,000

Comentarios (ej. fuentes principales de financiamiento/ donantes principales):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (GEF-World Bank): 70.0%; government (RGoB): 20.0%; local community / land user(s): 10.0%

5.2 Apoyo financiero/material proporcionado a los usuarios de tierras

¿Los usuarios de tierras recibieron financiamiento/ apoyo material para implementar la Tecnología/ Tecnologías? :

Sí

Si respondió sí, especifique el tipo o los tipos de apoyo, condiciones y proveedor(es) :

Incentives for specific SLM interventions per area and through short-term input support (seeds and seedlings)

5.3 Subsidios para insumos específicos (incluyendo mano de obra)

equipo

Especifique qué insumos se subsidiaron	En qué grado	Especifique los subsidios

herramientas	parcialmente financiado

agrícola

Especifique qué insumos se subsidiaron	En qué grado	Especifique los subsidios
semillas	parcialmente financiado

Seedlings	parcialmente financiado

construcción

Especifique qué insumos se subsidiaron	En qué grado	Especifique los subsidios


for fencing and dams	parcialmente financiado

infraestructura

Especifique qué insumos se subsidiaron	En qué grado	Especifique los subsidios


FYM sheds, irrigation channel renovation	parcialmente financiado

Comentarios:

Mostly voluntary and some paid in cash (for labour-intensive SLM interventions) and limited other material support such as tools and seeds and seedlings

Not financed: roads, fertilizers, schools

5.4 Crédito

¿Se proporcionó crédito bajo el Enfoque para actividades MST?

6. Análisis de impacto y comentarios de conclusión

6.1 Impactos del Enfoque

¿El Enfoque ayudó a los usuarios de tierras a implementar y mantener Tecnologías MST?

No
Sí, un poco
Sí, moderadamente
Sí, mucho

Considerable area of vulnerable land brought under SLM, reduction of loss of land, improved yields, improved income, improved animal production, improved fodder base

¿El Enfoque empoderó a grupos en desventaja social y económica?

No
Sí, un poco
Sí, moderadamente
Sí, mucho

Moderate improvement of vulnerable households (poorest and single-headed households) through targeted interventions and pro-active inclusion. The labour sharing approach in implementing SLM activities greatly benefited the resource (human and capital) constrained household.

¿El Enfoque mejoró cuestiones de tenencia de tierra/ derechos de usuarios que obstaculizaron la implementación de la Tecnologías MST?

No
Sí, un poco
Sí, moderadamente
Sí, mucho

The problem is unlikely to be overcome in the near future. Individual land titles of households favour greatly the planning and implementation of SLM activities

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

No
Sí, un poco
Sí, moderadamente
Sí, mucho

Other government and donor-funded projects have adopted elements of the participatory SLM action planning methodology (DANIDA, REAP)

Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?

No
Sí, un poco
Sí, moderadamente
Sí, mucho

cash income, food self-sufficiency, community sense/bonding, reduced exposure to natural hazards related to land degradation/flooding

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?

No
Sí, un poco
Sí, moderadamente
Sí, mucho

Improvement of food self-sufficiency and cash generation opportunities

6.2 Motivación principal del usuario de la tierra para implementar MST

producción incrementada

carga de trabajo reducida

pagos/ subsidios

prestigio, presión social/ cohesión social

afiliación al movimiento/ proyecto/ grupo/ redes

conciencia medioambiental

well-being and livelihoods improvement

6.3 Sostenibilidad de las actividades del Enfoque

¿Pueden los usuarios de tierras sostener lo que se implementó mediante el Enfoque (sin apoyo externo)?

incierto

Si respondió no o incierto, especifique y comente:

Rural communities will need continued support by government staff through advice, finance and other support.

6.4 Fortalezas/ ventajas del Enfoque

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave
Decentralised, village level bottom-up planning and implementation ensures capacity building, ownership and empowerment of rural land users Participatory character gives a voice to farmers with in-depth knowledge of land-based issues and its causes and history Inclusiveness of approach, reaching to all households Helps to build community sense (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continued annual AP Continued annual AP; add with NR mapping and ITK studies and participatory M&E Continued annual AP; targeted focus on most vulnerable households Additional group formation and community group support )

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave

Decentralised, village level bottom-up planning and implementation ensures capacity building, ownership and empowerment of rural land users
Participatory character gives a voice to farmers with in-depth knowledge of land-based issues and its causes and history
Inclusiveness of approach, reaching to all households
Helps to build community sense
(How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continued annual AP

Continued annual AP; add with NR mapping and ITK studies and participatory M&E
Continued annual AP; targeted focus on most vulnerable households
Additional group formation and community group support
)

6.5 Debilidades/ desventajas del Enfoque y formas de sobreponerse a ellos

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave	¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
Time-consuming and resource demanding Requires large workload of both extension staff and farmers Costly as the approach also covers actual implementation of all of planned SLM activities and reaches more than 130 villages for 3 year period	Combine and align with Five Year Plan planning procedures; mainstreaming into governmental decentralised planning procedures Mainstreaming into regular planning and budgeting Spread over calendar year; labour-intensive SLM activities in lean winter season.

7. Referencias y vínculos

7.1 Métodos/ fuentes de información

visitas de campo, encuestas de campo

entrevistas con usuarios de tierras

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB, A consultancy report

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

Review of Mainstreaming of sustainable Land Management in Government Policies and Plans in Bhutan 2008