ສະຫຼຸບ

ຄຳອະທິບາຍ

Adaptive Agro-ecosystem Micro-catchment Approach.

Aims / objectives: SLM knowledge skill generation and capacity building. Improved group and community strength, sustainability, organization and their capacity to benefit and invest in SLM. Motivation of community participation in SLM through use of quick win project, income generating activities, rural micro finance institutions, marketing and active engagement of disadvantaged groups.

Methods: Wider promotion of basket of choice of SLM technologies through SLM Farmer Field School, Demonstration plots and community related activities. Make use and build on already existing and new groups, existing institutions and the community as a whole. Strategic use of easily available and accessible available community institutions/ infrastructures (school and dispensaries sites) to demonstrate and promote basket of choice of SLM technologies. Learning by doing on the job, practical training, adoption and adaptation to local reality.

Stages of implementation: Site characterization through land degradation analysis (LADA) and development of community site specific SLM plan exemplifying SLM interventions needed to address the identified degradation types. Set up and identification of approaches needed to execute identified interventions complementary approaches. Sensitization and awareness creation to the community and actual execution of approaches.

Role of stakeholders: Individual groups: are core implementers and potential beneficiaries of the project.
Extension worker: Advisory and technical backstopping.
Elected and employed leaders at the sub-village, village and ward level: bylaw/law enforcement, supervisory and land provision.
Relief for Development Societies NGO (REDESO): Service provision and development partner in SLM.
Trans boundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project (TAMP): Provision of supportive resources (financial and technical).
Ngara district council: Supervisory, technical, policy interpretation, monitoring and evaluation, documentation, analysis and shairing .
Rugenge/Kirusha Micro catchment Committee: Supervisory, advisory and law enforcement.

ສະຖານທີ່

ສະຖານທີ່: Ngara, Tanzania, ຕານຊາເນຍ

ການຄັດເລືອກພື້ນທີ່ ທີ່ອີງໃສ່ຂໍ້ມູນທາງພູມີສາດ

30.56773, -2.4414

ວັນທີເລີ່ມຕົ້ນ: 2010

ປີຂອງການສິ້ນສຸດ: 2014

ປະເພດຂອງແນວທາງ

ພື້ນເມືອງ / ທ້ອງຖີ່ນ
ການລິເລີ່ມ ພາຍໃນປະເທດ ທີ່ຜ່ານມາ / ນະວັດຕະກໍາ
ພາຍໃຕ້ໂຄງການ / ແຜນງານ

ເປົ້າໝາຍຂອງແນວທາງ ແລະ ການປົກປັກຮັກສາສິ່ງແວດລ້ອມ

ເປົ້າໝາຍ / ຈຸດປະສົງຫຼັກໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດແນວທາງ

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Motivating quick win income generation activities, rural microfinance institutions, marketing and HIV/AIDS controll.)

Knowledge/skill generation, demonstration and sustainability of SLM activities.
Motivate active participation of the community.
Inculcate a sense of community ownership/ community take charge of SLM activities.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of technical knowledge
Low investment capacity
Malpractice and mismanagement of local resources (e.g. fire burning, ploughing along the slope).
Adequate supervision, monitoring and law enforcement.

ເງື່ອນໄຂທີ່ສະໜັບສະໜູນໃຫ້ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ບົນພື້ນຖານແນວທາງ

ກ່ຽວກັບກົດໝາຍ (ສິດນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ, ສິດນໍາໃຊ້ນໍ້າ): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights helped a little the approach implementation: Hindrance is usually observant for approaches which need long term commitment of land resources (e.g perennial crops) but is minimal for short term (annuals and biannual). Open access land resources are difficult to manage.

ເງື່ອນໄຂທີ່ເຊື່ອງຊ້ອນໃຫ້ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ບົນພື້ນຖານແນວທາງ

ສັງຄົມ / ວັດທະນະທໍາ / ມາດຕະຖານ ແລະ ຄຸນຄ່າທາງສາສະໜາ: Negative cultural believes that fire burning can lead to one living long or reach older age. Treatment through the SLM Approach: Change of mind set through FFS training, demos and community sensitization.
ມີຄວາມສາມາດ / ເຂັ້າເຖິງຊັບພະຍາກອນດ້ານການເງິນ ແລະ ການບໍລິການ: Low investment capacity and inability to access supportive resources Treatment through the SLM Approach: Easy access to TAMP supportive resources.
ການກໍ່ຕັ້ງສະຖາບັນ: Narrow coverage of the district, local institutions not involved in in SLM. Treatment through the SLM Approach: Higher coverage, ope-rationalization of SLM in LGA system.
ກ່ຽວກັບກົດໝາຍ (ສິດນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ, ສິດນໍາໃຊ້ນໍ້າ): Reluctance of the village to issue land, less protection of open access land resources. Treatment through the SLM Approach: land issuing for FFS/Demo use legally recognized through signing of Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) between the village and land users/SLM groups. Bylaws reinforcement to protect mismanagement of open access land resources.
ຄວາມຮູ້ກ່ຽວກັບການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ, ການເຂົ້າເຖິງການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານວິຊາການ: Inadequate understanding and use of SLM technical knowledge (both scientific and indigenous) to address land degradation problems. Treatment through the SLM Approach: Up scaling use of scientific SLM knowledge. Documentation, evaluation, analysis and sharing of successful indigenous SLM technical knowledge.
ວຽກ, ມີກໍາລັງຄົນ: High workload to extension officers (due to their shortage). Treatment through the SLM Approach: Build a local resource base in facilitating SLM activities through introduction of community SLM facilitators and Micro-catchment committee.
ອື່ນໆ: Low motivation due to long term realization of SLM benefits. Treatment through the SLM Approach: introduce SLM related quick win projects and income generation activities (IGA).

ການມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ແລະ ບົດບາດຂອງພາກສ່ວນທີ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງທີ່ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ

ພາລະບົດບາດຂອງພາກສ່ວນທີ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ ທີ່ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດແນວທາງ

ແມ່ນໃຜ / ພາກສ່ວນໃດ ທີ່ເປັນເຈົ້າການ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີການ?	ລະບຸ ພາກສ່ວນທີ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ	ພັນລະນາ ບົດບາດ ໜ້າທີ່ ຂອງພາກສ່ວນທີ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ
ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນໃນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ / ຊຸມຊົນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ	Core implementors. all gender, youth and elders . Widows, Orphans, People living with HIV/AIDS were actively indiscriminately involved in FFS, Demos and community related activities..
ຜູ້ຊ່ຽວຊານ ການນຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ / ທີ່ປຶກສາດ້ານກະສິກໍາ	all gender, youth and elders
ຄູອາຈານ / ນັກຮຽນ / ນັກສຶກສາ	all gender, youth and elders
ອົງການຈັດຕັ້ງ ທີ່ບໍ່ຂື້ນກັບລັດຖະບານ		dvisory, technical back stopping, supervisory and monitoring.
ອໍານາດ ການປົກຄອງທ້ອງຖິ່ນ		Advisory, technical back stopping, supervisory and monitoring.
ພະນັກງານຂັ້ນສູນກາງ (ຜູ້ວາງແຜນ, ຜູ້ສ້າງນະໂຍບາຍ)		dvisory, technical back stopping, supervisory and monitoring.
ອົງການຈັດຕັ້ງ ສາກົນ		dvisory, supervisory and monitoring.

ອົງການທີ່ເປັນຕົວແທນໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ

Land user (all genders, youth and elders): consulted and made informed decision about the approach to be used. National specialists: potential facilitators in designing and community sensitization. International specialists: consultative and subject matter specialist (e.g. FFS specialist)

ການລວບລວມເອົາຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນໃນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ/ຊຸມຊົນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດແນວທາງ ແຕ່ລະໄລຍະ

ບໍ່ມີ

ການບໍ່ປະຕິບັດ

ການຊ່ວຍເຫຼືອຈາກພາຍນອກ

ການຮ່ວມມື

ການນໍາໃໍຊ້ເອງ

ການເລີ່ມຕົ້ນ / ແຮງຈູງໃຈ

Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: participated in sensitization and awareness creation process.

ການວາງແຜນ

Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: active participants and decision makers in planning e.g. selection of FFS community facilitators and formation of micro-catchment committee.

ການປະຕິບັດ

Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: core and key implementers of the approach.

ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ / ການປະເມີນຜົນ

Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: self mobilized and client interactive monitoring.

Research

Community, groups, employed and elected leaders: site identification and active implementers of adaptive trials (e.g use of fanya juu/chini terraces, vertivar grass e.t.c). Adopters, users and promoters of the best bets technologies.

ແຜ່ນວາດສະແດງ

organization structure of community integrated catchment ecosystem management.

ຜູ້ຂຽນ: Allan Isaka Bubelwa (Box 38 Kyaka Missenyi Kagera Tanzania)

ການຕັດສິນໃຈໃນການເລືອກເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

ການຕັດສິນໃຈໂດຍ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນຜູ້ດຽວ (ການລິເລີ່ມດ້ວຍຕົນເອງ)
ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນຫຼັກ, ການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ໂດຍຜູ້ຊ່ຽວຊານ ການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ
ພາກສ່ວນກ່ຽວຂ້ອງທັງໝົດ, ເປັນສ່ວນໜຶ່ງ ຂອງວິທີທາງແບບມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ
ຜູ້ຊ່ຽວຊານ ຫຼັກດ້ານການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ, ມີການຕິດຕາມປຶກສາຫາລືກັບຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ
ຊຽ່ວຊານ ສະເພາະດ້ານການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງຜູ້ດຽວ
ນັກການເມືອງ / ຜູ້ນໍາ

ການຕັດສິນໃຈບົນພື້ນຖານ

ປະເມີນເອກກະສານ ຄວາມຮູ້ກ່ຽວກັບ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ (ຫຼັກຖານທີ່ຊ່ວຍໃນການຕັດສິນໃຈ)
ຜົນທີ່ໄດ້ຮັບ ຈາກການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ
ປະສົບການສ່ວນບຸກຄົນ ແລະ ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ (ທີ່ບໍ່ເປັນເອກກະສານ)

ການສະໜັບສະໜູນເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ, ການສ້າງຄວາມອາດສາມາດ ແລະ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງຄວາມຮູ້

ກິດຈະກຳ ດັ່ງລຸ່ມນີ້ ແມ່ນເປັນພາກໜຶ່ງຂອງແນວທາງ

ການສ້າງຄວາມສາມາດ / ການຝຶກອົບຮົມ
ການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ
ສະຖາບັນການສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ (ການພັດທະນາອົງການຈັດຕັ້ງ)
ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ ແລະ ປະເມີນຜົນ
ການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ

ການສ້າງຄວາມອາດສາມາດ / ຝຶກອົບຮົມ

ໄດ້ສະໜັບສະໜູນຝຶກອົບຮົມໃຫ້ແກ່ພາກສ່ວນກ່ຽວຂ້ອງດັ່ງລຸ່ມນີ້

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ
ພະນັກງານພາກສະໜາມ / ທີ່ປຶກສາ
employed and elected leaders

ຮູບແບບການຝຶກອົບຮົມ

ການເຮັດຕົວຈິງ
ຕົວຕໍ່ຕົວ
ເນື້ອທີ່ສວນທົດລອງ
ກອງປະຊຸມ
ຫຼັກສູດ

ກວມເອົາຫົວຂໍ້

SLM related subjects

ການບໍລິການທາງດ້ານການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ

ໄດ້ຮັບການບໍລິການທາງດ້ານການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ

ໃນພື້ນທີ່ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ
ສູນຄົ້ນຄວ້າ

Name of method used for advisory service: Farmer field schools (FFS); Key elements: Practical training and learning by doing., Basket of choice of Technologies/Demos., Group oriented and site specific; Adoption depends on farmers choice and ability to invest.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; There is limited knowledge and low funding capacity.

ຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງຂອງສະຖາບັນ

ສະຖາບັນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ

ບໍ່ມີ
ມີ, ໜ້ອຍໜຶ່ງ
ມີ, ພໍສົມຄວນ
ມີ, ຫຼາຍ

ໃນລະດັບດັ່ງລຸ່ມນີ້

ທ້ອງຖິ່ນ
ລະດັບພາກພື້ນ
ແຫ່ງຊາດ

ອະທິບາຍສະຖາບັນ, ພາລະບົດບາດແລະຄວາມຮັບຜິດຊອບ, ສະມາຊິກ, ແລະອື່ນໆ.

ຮູບແບບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ

ທາງດ້ານການເງິນ
ການສ້າງຄວາມອາດສາມາດ / ການຝຶກອົບຮົມ
ອຸປະກອນ

ລາຍລະອຽດເພີ່ມເຕີມ

Training provision to micro-catchment committee.

ການຕິດຕາມ ແລະ ປະເມີນຜົນ

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: hactarage conserved bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: hactarage conserved technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: number of adopters technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: number of adopters socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: % involvement of women socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: % involvement of women economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: % increase in yield and income economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: % increase in yield and income area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: hactarage conserved area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: hactarage conserved no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: number of adopters no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: number of adopters management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Number of FFS, Demos and IGA management of Approach aspects were monitored through measurements; indicators: umber of FFS, Demos and IGA There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Introduction of FFS farmer facilitators and Micro-catchment committees. There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: In the course of implementation adjusting or modifying technologies to suit agro-ecological condition or landforms

ການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ

ການວິໄຈໄດ້ຮັບການຮັກສາຫົວຂໍ້ຕໍ່ໄປນີ້

ສັງຄົມ
ເສດຖະສາດ / ການຕະຫຼາດ
ລະບົບນິເວດ
ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ
adaptive SLM trials

Adaptive SLM trials run by community/district/ARI Maruku through demos where farmers can select the best bets to apply and try on their own fields.

Research was carried out on-farm

ການສະໜັບສະໜູນທາງດ້ານການເງິນ ແລະ ອຸປະກອນຈາກພາຍນອກ

ງົບປະມານປະຈຳປີ ໃນກິດຈະກຳ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ ທີ່ເປັນສະກຸນເງິນໂດລາ

< 2,000
2,000-10,000
10,000-100,000
100,000-1,000,000
> 1,000,000

Precise annual budget: n.a.

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (TAMP): 50.0%; government (Region/ARI Maruku.): 10.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Ngara district council, Villages and Ward): 20.0%; local community / land user(s) (Local community and groups withi the microcatchment ): 20.0%

ການບໍລິການ ຫຼື ສິ່ງກະຕຸກຊຸກຍູ້ ດັ່ງລຸ່ມນີ້ ແມ່ນໄດ້ສະໜອງໂດຍຜູ້ນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນເອງ

ການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ສະໜອງໃຫ້ແກ່ຜູ້ນໍາທີ່ດິນ
ຫຼຸດປັດໃຈນໍາເຂົ້າ
ສິນເຊື່ອ
ສິ່ງຈູງໃຈ ຫຼື ເຄື່ອງມືອື່ນໆ

ເງິນສະໜັບສະໜູນອຸປະກອນ / ສະໜອງໃຫ້ຜູ້ຊົມໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ

ງົບປະມານບາງສ່ວນ

ງົບປະມານເຕັມສ່ວນ

ອຸປະກອນ: ເຄື່ອງມື

Working gears (gun boots, raincoats, T-shirts)

Computers, cameras

ກະສິກໍາ: ແນວພັນ, ແກ່ນພັນ

ກະສິກໍາ: ແນວພັນ, ແກ່ນພັນ: ຝຸ່ນ, ປຸ໋ຍ

Manure

Livestock

Chicken, goats and bees

ແຮງງານຂອງຜູ້ນໍ້າໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ

ການອາສາ
ລ້ຽງເຂົ້າ - ອາຫານ
ຈ່າຍເປັນເງິນສົດ
ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ອຸປະກອນດ້ານອື່ນ

ການວິເຄາະຜົນກະທົບ ແລະ ສະຫຼຸບລວມ

ຜົນກະທົບຂອງການນໍາໃຊ້ແນວທາງ

ບໍ່

ມີ, ໜ້ອຍໜຶ່ງ

ມີ, ພໍສົມຄວນ

ມີ, ຫຼາຍ

ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ ສາມາດຊ່ວຍຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ແລະ ບໍາລຸງຮັກສາ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງໄດ້ບໍ?

Knowledge and skill acquired through FFS, Demos and community related intervention played significant role in improvement of SLM. Bylaw reinforcement significantly prevented malpractices/land resource mismanagement.

ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ ສາມາດສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ ທາງສັງຄົມ ແລະ ເສດຖະກິດບໍ່?

Improved to livelihood mechanism/alternates to widow, orphan and people living with HIV/AIDS

ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ ສາມາດປັບປຸງ ປະເດັນການຖືຄອງທີ່ດິນ / ສິດທິໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ທີ່ເຊື່ອງຊ້ອນໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງໄດ້ບໍ?

The approach involve signing of memorandum of understanding (MOU) over use of land resource between farmer groups running Demos and FFS and the village government. MOU is a strong and reliable legal acquisition of land resource to be used for conservation activities.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

On average each FFS member induced adoption to 2 household farmers.

ສິ່ງກະຕຸກຊຸກຍູ້ໃຫ້ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃນການປະຕິບັດການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

ການຜະລິດເພີ່ມຂຶ້ນ
ກໍາໄລເພີ່ມຂຶ້ນ (ຄວາມສາມາດ), ການປັບປຸງຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ, ຜົນປະໂຫຍດ, ອັດຕາສ່ວນ
ຫຼຸດຜ່ອນດິນເຊື່ອມໂຊມ
ຫຼຸດຜ່ອນຄວາມສ່ຽງຂອງໄພພິບັດ
ການຫຼຸດຜ່ອນພາລະວຽກ
ການຊໍາລະເງິນ / ເງິນອຸດໜູນ
ກົດລະບຽບແລະລະບຽບການ (ລະອຽດ) / ການບັງຄັບໃຊ້
ກຽດສັກສີ, ຄວາມກົດດັນທາງສັງຄົມ / ການຕິດຕໍ່ກັນທາງສັງຄົມ
ລວມເຂົ້ານໍາກັນກັບການເຄື່ອນໄຫວ / ໂຄງການ / ກຸ່ມ / ເຄືອຂ່າຍ
ຄວາມຮັບຮູ້ ທາງສີ່ງແວດລ້ອມ
ພາສີ ແລະ ຄວາມເຊື່ອຖື, ສົມບັດສິນທໍາ
ການປັບປຸງ ຄວາມຮູ້ ແລະ ຄວາມສາມາດ ຂອງການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ
ການປັບປຸງຄວາມງົດງາມ
ການຫຼຸດຜ່ອນຂໍ້ຂັດແຍ່ງ
well-being and livelihoods improvement

ຄວາມຍືນຍົງຂອງການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດກິດຈະກໍາຂອງແນວທາງ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ສາມາດຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດຕາມແນວທາງໄດ້ເອງບໍ່ (ໂດຍປາດສະຈາກການສະໜັບສະໜູນຈາກພາກສ່ວນພາຍນອກ)?

ບໍ່ມີ
ແມ່ນ
ບໍ່ແນ່ນອນ

Farmers have realized the benefit of SLM. The village historical track records and experience indicate that farmers in Kirusha village usually continue what ever they come to realize is implemented for their own benefit. Further more, establishment of local human resource in SLM in terms of FFS facilitators and micro-catchment committee and their ope-rationalization into LGA systems is an assure way towards sustainability. Motivation induced through quick win income generating activities (goat production, chicken, piggery, fruit tree nurseries and apiaries) and easy to manage demo set at Kirushya primary school and dispensary (reachable and easily accessible) are added assurance for project sustainability.

ບົດສະຫຼຸບ ແລະ ບົດຮຽນທີ່ໄດ້ຮັບ

ຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ: ທັດສະນະມູມມອງ ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ

Learning and acquisition of knowledge (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuation of FFS, Demo and community activities.)
Cohesiveness and self help (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue promotion of VICOBA and Market. )
Spread of knowledge within and outside village. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue use of the approach. )

ຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ: ທັດສະນະມຸມມອງ ຂອງຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນເອງ

Improved relationship, unity, cohesiveness and common voice. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue with promotion, strengthening and establishment of IGA, SACCAS and VICOBA.)
More farmers are involved (rapid adoption and expansion) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Up scaling and strengthening of FFS, Demos, and IGA. )
The approach is cost effective (benefit surpass costs) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Promote, expand and continue use of FFS, Demos and IGA.)
Assured and promising elements of sustainability. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Strengthen ope-rationalization and use of micro-catchment committee and FFS facilitators. )
Easy access to supportive resources
(Land and financial) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: strengthen and liaise FFS with service providers
(Bank, SACCOS and Marketing))

ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍ / ຄວາມສ່ຽງ: ທັດສະນະມູມມອງ ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນວິທີການແກ້ໄຂແນວໃດ

Negative customs and believes
(it is believed that one can live longer and reach older age by setting fire and burning of a large area). Discourage negative custom and believes
Reluctance of household heads especially in patrimonial societies. Community sensitization to gender (gender be addressed as the basic component of the approach).
Failure and negative experience of past development projects and programmes. Change of mind set
Shortage of inputs and working facilities Promote availability and accessibility of inputs and working facilities.

ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍ / ຄວາມສ່ຽງ: ທັດສະນະມຸມມອງ ຂອງຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນເອງວິທີການແກ້ໄຂແນວໃດ

Selfishness, individualism by some untrustworthy politicians and leaders. Combine SLM promotion with civic education training.
Prone to natural calamities and disastrous events Introduce and strengthen use of Agro-based insurance.
Largely relies on government or farmer willingness to release and offer land. Sensitize and encourage use of MOU.
If not done in precaution can perpetuate dependency syndrome Encourage use of self mobilized farmer groups and their strengthening and ope-rationalization into existing systems.
Reliable external supportive resource needed initially Reliable and timely supply of supportive resources.

ເອກກະສານອ້າງອີງ

ການລວບລວມ

ALLAN BUBELWA

Editors

ການທົບທວນຄືນ

Fabian Ottiger

ວັນທີຂອງການປະຕິບັດ: March 10, 2014

ປັບປຸງລ່າສຸດ: July 6, 2017

ບຸກຄົນທີ່ສໍາຄັນ

ALLAN BUBELWA (allan.bubelwa@gmail.com) - ຜູ້ຊ່ຽວຊານ ດ້ານການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ
Bertha Munyaga (bkmunyaga@yahoo.com) - ຜູ້ຊ່ຽວຊານ ດ້ານການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ
Philip Ileta (iletaphilip@yahoo.com) - ຜູ້ຊ່ຽວຊານ ດ້ານການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ
Idephonce Mwasikundima - ຜູ້ຊ່ຽວຊານ ດ້ານການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

ການບັນຍາຍລາຍລະອຽດ ໃນຖານຂໍ້ມູນ ຂອງ WOCAT

https://qcat.wocat.net/lo/wocat/approaches/view/approaches_2486/

ຂໍ້ມູນການເຊື່ອມໂຍງຂໍ້ມູນການຄຸ້ມຄອງການນໍາໃຊ້ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

Technologies: Natural forest conservation using apiaries https://qcat.wocat.net/lo/wocat/technologies/view/technologies_1152/
Technologies: Natural forest conservation using apiaries https://qcat.wocat.net/lo/wocat/technologies/view/technologies_1152/

ເອກກະສານ ແມ່ນໄດ້ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກໂດຍ

ສະຖາບັນ

Bukoba district council (Bukoba district council) - ຕານຊາເນຍ
Ngara District Council (Ngara District Council) - ຕານຊາເນຍ

ໂຄງການ

n.a.

ການອ້າງອີງທີ່ສໍາຄັນ

Site characterization report: Kimamba Lyoba, :

Community intergrated catchment ecosystem management (ຕານຊາເນຍ)