1.2 ລາຍລະອຽດ ການຕິດຕໍ່ ຂອງບຸກຄົນທີ່ຊັບພະຍາກອນ ແລະ ສະຖາບັນ ການມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນການປະເມີນຜົນ ແລະ ເອກະສານ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ຊື່ຂອງໂຄງການ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ ຫຼື ປະເມີນດ້ານແນວທາງ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

Pilot Program for Climate Resilience, Tajikistan (WB / PPCR)

ຊື່ຂອງ ສະຖາບັນການຈັດຕັ້ງ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ ຫຼື ປະເມີນແນວທາງ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership (CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership) - ກີກັດຕັນ

ຊື່ຂອງ ສະຖາບັນການຈັດຕັ້ງ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ ຫຼື ປະເມີນແນວທາງ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - ສະວິດເຊີແລນ

1.3 ເງື່ອນໄຂ ຂອງການນໍາໃຊ້ເອກກະສານຂໍ້ມູນ ຂອງ WOCAT

ເມື່ອໃດທີ່ໄດ້ສັງລວມຂໍ້ມູນ (ຢູ່ພາກສະໜາມ)?

10/06/2011

ຜູ້ສັງລວມ ແລະ ບັນດາຜູ້ຕອບແບບສອບຖາມ ຍອມຮັບໃນເງື່ອນໄຂ ການນໍາໃຊ້ຂໍ້ມູນເອກະສານ ທີ່ສ້າງຂື້ນ ໂດຍຜ່ານ ອົງການ WOCAT:

ແມ່ນ

1.4 ເອກະສານອ້າງອີງ (ຫຼາຍ) ກັບແບບສອບຖາມ (ຫຼາຍ) ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ຂອງດ້ານການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

2.1 ການອະທິບາຍ ໂດຍຫຍໍ້ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

Community Based Natural Disaster Risk Management Workshops for identification of locations for the implementation of SLM technology to reduce the risk to the village from natural disasters.

2.2 ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງວິທີທາງ:

Aims / objectives: The main objective was to use a community based participatory approach to evaluate the risk from natural hazards and aid in the effective selection of location and types of SLM Technologies that could be implemented. The workshop systematically works through the natural disaster risk assessment process which includes evaluation of the natural and human triggers that can causes and contribute to specific natural disasters and subsequently rank the risk as either high/medium/low based upon a predetermined criteria. The assessment is repeated with the assumption the SLM mitigation has been implemented to evaluate whether the natural disaster risk would be reduced.

Methods: Several methodologies are used in this approach, these include the, display of posters and photos, watching documentary style DVD’s, playing awareness raising training games, and distribution of brochures to educate the communities on the causes and impacts of natural disasters so that they can then complete a systematic risk assessment process. This is undertaken within the community using interactive participatory training modules and experienced teachers. Once the technologies are decided upon a proposal form is completed and copies submitted to funding agencies and the local government. A Memorandum of Understanding is signed with the local government to endorse the approach and any subsequent implementation activities. The proposal is vetted by experts for modification and approval to ensure best practice and sustainable results.

Stages of implementation: The communities are selected based upon natural disaster statistics and a natural disaster workshop conducted for up to twenty members of the community. At the completion of the workshop the community produce several proposals for the implementation of SLM technologies that will reduce the risk from specific natural disasters. The proposals are reviewed by experts from the soil institute and horticulture institute to ensure they are practical, viable and effective before final submission to the donor for funding. The local government remains informed of the activities throughout the process and is provided with copies of the proposals.

Role of stakeholders: NGO CAMP Kuhiston were the overall project managers. CAMP designed and conducted training on Disaster Risk Reduction and developed the natural hazard risk assessment process that leads to the formulation of the SLM mitigation proposals. CAMP are also responsible for engaging the experts and providing information to the local government who are asked to support the process. The community has to actively be involved and design their own proposal and decide how they will contribute to the implementation process.

Other important information: Although this could potentially be a lengthy process it is important that the communities understand why they have chosen a specific SLM technology and the desired impact that will help secure their livelihoods.

2.3 ຮູບພາບຂອງແນວທາງ

2.5 ປະເທດ / ເຂດ / ສະຖານທີ່ບ່ອນທີ່ແນວທາງໄດ້ຖືກນໍາໃຊ້

2.6 ວັນທີເລີ່ມຕົ້ນ ແລະ ສິ້ນສຸດ ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕີບັດ ວິທີທາງ

2.7 ປະເພດຂອງແນວທາງ

• ພາຍໃຕ້ໂຄງການ / ແຜນງານ

2.8 ເປົ້າໝາຍ / ຈຸດປະສົງຫຼັກ ຂອງການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Natural Disaster Risk Mitigation)

The main objective was to educate the communities on the causes and triggers of natural disasters and how these triggers can be combated by SLM technologies. The approach concentrated on making the link between SLM technologies and causes of natural disasters. The risk assessment process helped communities understand how to evaluate the risk to their community from different types natural disasters and how these proposals would help reduce the risk presented by these types of natural disasters and also where is was the most effective and efficient use of time, finance and resources to reduce this risk.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The stabilisation of degraded slopes that increased the risk to communities from natural disaster such as mud flows, landslides, and avalanches.

2.9 ເງື່ອນໄຂອໍານວຍ ຫຼື ຂັດຂວາງການປະຕິບັດຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີການນໍາໃຊ້ຕາມແນວທາງ

3.1 ຜູ້ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນວິທີທາງ ແລະ ພາລະບົດບາດ ຂອງເຂົາເຈົ້າ

3.2 ການມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນໃນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ / ຊຸມຊົນທ້ອງຖິ່ນໃນໄລຍະທີ່ແຕກຕ່າງກັນຂອງແນວທາງ

	ການລວບລວມ ເອົາຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໃນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ / ຊຸມຊົນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ	ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ຜູ້ໃດທີ່ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນແຕ່ລະກິດຈະກໍາ?
ການເລີ່ມຕົ້ນ / ແຮງຈູງໃຈ	ບໍ່ມີ
ການວາງແຜນ	ບໍ່ມີ
ການປະຕິບັດ	ການຮ່ວມມື	Involved in the workshops and the development of the proposals
ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ / ການປະເມີນຜົນ	ບໍ່ມີ
Research	ບໍ່ມີ

3.3 ແຜນວາດ (ຖ້າມີ)

3.4 ການຕັດສິນໃຈກ່ຽວກັບການຄັດເລືອກເຕັກໂນໂລຢີຂອງການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ລະບຸ ຄົນທີ່ຕັດສິນໃຈ ກ່ຽວກັບການຄັດເລືອກຂອງ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ຈະໄດ້ຮັບການປະຕິບັດ:

• ຜູ້ຊ່ຽວຊານ ຫຼັກດ້ານການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ, ມີການຕິດຕາມປຶກສາຫາລືກັບຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ

ອະທິບາຍ:

SLM specialists made the decision on the SLM technology, but consulted with the land users before implementation.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by NGO CAMP Kuhiston. NGO CAMP combined two funded projects to develop the approach for the implementation to the SLM technology with consultation from the Tajik Soil Institute and the Horticultural Institute.

4.1 ການສ້າງຄວາມສາມາດ / ການຝຶກອົບຮົມ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ຫຼື ພາກສ່ວນກ່ຽວຂ້ອງອື່ນໆ ໄດ້ຮັບການຝຶກອົບຮົມບໍ່?

ແມ່ນ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ຜູ້ໃດທີ່ໄດ້ຮັບການຝຶກອົບຮົມ:

• ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ

• 20 members of five communities received training.

ຖ້າເປັນໄປໄດ້, ໃຫ້ລະບຸເພດ, ອາຍຸ, ສະຖານະພາບ, ຊົນເຜົ່າ, ແລະ ອື່ນໆ:

The training on the risk assessment process included all members of the community, although due to the conservative nature of the community some trainings were divided between women and men.

ຮູບແບບຂອງການຝຶກອົບຮົມ:

• ການເຮັດຕົວຈິງ
• ຫຼັກສູດ

ໃນຫົວຂໍ້:

The initial training were on natural disasters, their casues and impacts. Subsequent training is the communites covered soil and water conservation and fruit cultivation.

4.2 ການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ

ເຮັດຜູ້ໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນມີການເຂົ້າເຖິງການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ?

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

4.3 ສະຖາບັນການສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ (ການພັດທະນາອົງການຈັດຕັ້ງ)

ສະຖາບັນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສ້າງຕັ້ງຂື້ນ ຫຼື ໄດ້ຮັບການສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ ໂດຍການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງບໍ່?

• ມີ, ໜ້ອຍໜຶ່ງ

ລະບຸ ທາງສະຖາບັນ ໄດ້ສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ ໃນລະດັບໃດ (ຫຼາຍ):

• ທ້ອງຖິ່ນ

ລະບຸ ປະເພດ ຂອງສະໜັບສະໜູນ:

• ການສ້າງຄວາມອາດສາມາດ / ການຝຶກອົບຮົມ

ໃຫ້ລາຍລະອຽດເພີ່ມເຕີມ:

Two academic institutions were financially supported to undertake the review and evaluation process. Local NGO camp was supported by international finance to implement the approach and subsequent activities.

4.4 ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ ແລະ ປະເມີນຜົນ

ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ ໄດ້ມີການປະເມີນຜົນ ແລະ ຕິດຕາມບໍ?

ແມ່ນ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: The level of involvement in the workshops by the land users.

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: The level of engagement of the government and of the women in the process.

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: International staff provided informal monitoring of the approach.

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through observations; indicators: The academic institutions reviewed the proposals.

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The risk assessment process was simplified and the format of the proposals was made more understandable to the participants.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The monitoring of the SLM technology means that for replication of the technology there would be changes in tree species selected.

4.5 ການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ

ນີ້້ແມ່ນສ່ວນໜຶ່ງ ການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ ຂອງວິທີທາງບໍ່?

ແມ່ນ

5.1 ງົບປະມານປະຈໍາປີ ສໍາລັບວິທີທາງ ຂອງການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

ຖ້າຫາກບໍ່ຮູ້ຈັດງົບປະມານທີ່ແນ່ນອນ ແມ່ນໃຫ້ປະມານເອົາ:

• 10,000-100,000

ຄໍາເຫັນ (ຕົວຢ່າງ: ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນຫຼັກ ຂອງການສະໜອງທຶນ / ຜູ້ໃຫ້ທຶນທີ່ສໍາຄັນ):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international non-government (International Consultants): 5.0%; international (Swiss Coorperation for Development and PAMS): 90.0%; local community / land user(s) (Local community support in kind): 5.0%

5.2 ການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ສະໜອງໃຫ້ແກ່ຜູ້ນໍາທີ່ດິນ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານ ການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີບໍ?

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

5.3 ເງິນສົມທົບສໍາລັບການນໍາໃຊ້ສະເພາະປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າໃນການຜະລີດກະສິກໍາ (ລວມທັງແຮງງານ)

• ການກໍ່ສ້າງ

• ອື່ນໆ

ຖ້າແຮງງານ ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າ, ແມ່ນບໍ່:

• ການອາສາ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

The approach was financed by funds from a donor.

5.4 ສິນເຊື່ອ

ໄດ້ປ່ອຍສິນເຊື່ອ ສະໜອງໃຫ້ພາຍໃຕ້ ວິທີການສໍາລັບກິດຈະກໍາ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນນຍົງບໍ່?

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

5.5 ສິ່ງຈູງໃຈ ຫຼື ເຄື່ອງມືອື່ນໆ

ການສົ່ງເສີມ ຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ໃນການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ ໄດ້ສະໜອງສິ່ງກະຕຸກຊຸກຍູ້ບໍ່?

ແມ່ນ

ຖ້າແມ່ນ, ໃຫ້ລະບຸ:

Two academic institutions were financially supported to undertake the review and evaluation process. Local NGO camp was supported by international finance to implement the approach and subsequent activities.

6.1 ຜົນກະທົບຂອງແນວທາງ

6.2 ແຮງຈູງໃຈຫຼັກຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນໃນການປະຕິບັດການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

6.3 ຄວາມຍືນຍົງຂອງກິດຈະກໍາວິທີທາງ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ ທີ່ດິນ ສາມາດສືບຕໍ່ ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ຜ່ານວິທີທາງໄດ້ບໍ່ (ໂດຍປາດສະຈາກ ການຊ່ວຍເຫຼືອ ຈາກພາກສ່ວນພາຍນອກ)?

• ບໍ່ມີ

ຖ້າ ບໍ່ ຫຼື ບໍ່ແນ່ໃຈ, ໃຫ້ອະທິບາຍ ແລະ ຄໍາເຫັນ:

The land users are not in a position to mobilise all the parties involved in the approach.

6.4 ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ / ໂອກາດໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ
The process allowed me to make decisions concerning my own village.
The training improved my understanding of human and environmental causes of natural disasters.

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຈຸດດີ / ໂອກາດ ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ
The approach involved a range of stakeholders and experts who were all able to actively contribute. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: This could be enhanced by continued collaboration between all parties. )
The approach included a community training element that benefited a broader range than just the land users.
The approach involved mobilisation of local government and community participation. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Further collaboration on technologies between the community and local government. The government to initiate replication in other communities. )
The approach helped link the prevention of natural disaster with SLM practices. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The community developing further proposals for technologies and seeking funding to implement them.)

6.5 ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍຂອງແນວທາງ ແລະ ວິທີການແກ້ໄຂໃຫ້ເຂົາເຈົ້າ

ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍ / ຄວາມສ່ຽງໃນມູມມອງຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
To provide more support on alternatives for SLM technologies. There must be new technologies that we are not aware of.	Further develop the modul to provide further illustrations of best practice.

ຈຸດອ່ອນ ຫຼື ຂໍ້ເສຍ ຫຼື ຄວາມສ່ຽງ ໃນມຸມມອງຂອງ ຜູ້ສັງລວມຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບັນດາຜູ້ຕອບແບບສອບຖາມ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
The approach covers only a one year period, therefore if the SLM technology has difficulties, such as disease which is highly prevalent in this area, the land owner may not be in a financial position to rectify the issue.	A longer monitoring and support period.

7.1 ວິທີການ / ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນ