1.2 ລາຍລະອຽດ ການຕິດຕໍ່ ຂອງບຸກຄົນທີ່ຊັບພະຍາກອນ ແລະ ສະຖາບັນ ການມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນການປະເມີນຜົນ ແລະ ເອກະສານ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ຊື່ຂອງໂຄງການ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ ຫຼື ປະເມີນດ້ານແນວທາງ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )

ຊື່ຂອງ ສະຖາບັນການຈັດຕັ້ງ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ ຫຼື ປະເມີນແນວທາງ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

Rwanda Agriculture Board (Rwanda Agriculture Board) - ອາວັນດາ

ຊື່ຂອງ ສະຖາບັນການຈັດຕັ້ງ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ ຫຼື ປະເມີນແນວທາງ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO Food and Agriculture Organization) - ອີຕາລີ

1.3 ເງື່ອນໄຂ ຂອງການນໍາໃຊ້ເອກກະສານຂໍ້ມູນ ຂອງ WOCAT

ເມື່ອໃດທີ່ໄດ້ສັງລວມຂໍ້ມູນ (ຢູ່ພາກສະໜາມ)?

01/01/2011

ຜູ້ສັງລວມ ແລະ ບັນດາຜູ້ຕອບແບບສອບຖາມ ຍອມຮັບໃນເງື່ອນໄຂ ການນໍາໃຊ້ຂໍ້ມູນເອກະສານ ທີ່ສ້າງຂື້ນ ໂດຍຜ່ານ ອົງການ WOCAT:

ແມ່ນ

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

2.1 ການອະທິບາຍ ໂດຍຫຍໍ້ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

This is a top down approach to technology development and dissemination with limited involvement of intended beneficiaries.

2.2 ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງວິທີທາງ:

Aims / objectives: The objective of the top down approach is to assign the state a crucial role to drive a designed rural development and land management master plan that needs people to implement it.

To bring farmers together to address an identified problem such as to improve the socio economic situation of rural areas, to prevent , to conserve and to rehabilitate on-site damages caused by land degradation and erosion.

Methods: The top down approach here refers to the level of farmer participation in relation to shared decision making when establishing bench terraces/soil conservation practices in Rwanda. The focus being particularly on the role of farmers in the decision making process during two major phases of the process of terrace construction including: (1) when and where to construct bench terraces in communities and the criteria for site and beneficiary selection. The level of farmer participation and decision sharing have the potential of in increasing the ownership of the of the existing or future bench terraces, hence to ensure its sustainability. Recent studies assert that most of the terraces that are constructed are supply driven and that farmers do not participate in the decisions regarding where and when to construct them. When farmers do participate, it is mostly only through some consultation and their own efforts to mobilize collective labor for the construction of the terraces.

Stages of implementation: Stage one comprises the analysis of current or initial adoption decisions of soil conservation practices, while stage two assesses farmers’ ability to continue the use of these practices. Stage three analyses future adoption proxied by farmers’ willingness to uptake more soil conservation practices.

Role of stakeholders: The state plays a prime role in bench terraces development and the role of other stakeholders (e.g. extension agents, farmer associations) is marginal. Farmer associations involvement is is limited to mobilizing labor and, sometimes, to identifying land for terracing. Extension agencies/services are involved in providing advice to individual farmers or farmers grouped in cooperatives. Community representatives, whom are members of the farmers’ cooperatives themselves, are trained to provide additional support and advice to farmers.

Other important information: This SLM approach argues for a role of the state with top-down and coercive measures in the development of soil conservation practices, particularly bench terraces. Currently there is a two pronged approach based on the realization that bench terraces are ready made constructions which require substantial financial and institutional investments. Mustering labor and resources for the construction and maintenance of bench terraces remains a key aspect of the state’s conservation drive. State-farmer relationships, therefore, continue to be essential to soil conservation efforts in Rwanda and to bench terrace construction in particular.

2.3 ຮູບພາບຂອງແນວທາງ

2.5 ປະເທດ / ເຂດ / ສະຖານທີ່ບ່ອນທີ່ແນວທາງໄດ້ຖືກນໍາໃຊ້

2.6 ວັນທີເລີ່ມຕົ້ນ ແລະ ສິ້ນສຸດ ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕີບັດ ວິທີທາງ

2.7 ປະເພດຂອງແນວທາງ

• government based

2.8 ເປົ້າໝາຍ / ຈຸດປະສົງຫຼັກ ຂອງການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Increase soil fertility, good practices of land management in general)

To raise awareness to land users for a particular problem and involve them to get to the right solution

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: low agricultural production due to a poor agriculture practice and lack of technical knowledge by farmers

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	Land users and local authorities work together to get to greater result.
ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ / ການປະເມີນຜົນ	ການຮ່ວມມື	Land users are in daily interaction with Sector Agronomist who is in charge of all agricultural activities in the sector.
Research	ບໍ່ມີ

3.3 ແຜນວາດ (ຖ້າມີ)

3.4 ການຕັດສິນໃຈກ່ຽວກັບການຄັດເລືອກເຕັກໂນໂລຢີຂອງການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ລະບຸ ຄົນທີ່ຕັດສິນໃຈ ກ່ຽວກັບການຄັດເລືອກຂອງ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ຈະໄດ້ຮັບການປະຕິບັດ:

• ຊຽ່ວຊານ ສະເພາະດ້ານການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງຜູ້ດຽວ

ອະທິບາຍ:

Decisions were made in the ministry of agriculture after consultation of researchers.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by politicians / leaders. Politicians have decided the way of implementation through community work known as UMUGANDA

4.1 ການສ້າງຄວາມສາມາດ / ການຝຶກອົບຮົມ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ຫຼື ພາກສ່ວນກ່ຽວຂ້ອງອື່ນໆ ໄດ້ຮັບການຝຶກອົບຮົມບໍ່?

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

4.2 ການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ

ເຮັດຜູ້ໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນມີການເຂົ້າເຖິງການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ?

ແມ່ນ

ອະທິບາຍ / ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 ສະຖາບັນການສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ (ການພັດທະນາອົງການຈັດຕັ້ງ)

ສະຖາບັນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສ້າງຕັ້ງຂື້ນ ຫຼື ໄດ້ຮັບການສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ ໂດຍການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງບໍ່?

• ມີ, ພໍສົມຄວນ

ລະບຸ ທາງສະຖາບັນ ໄດ້ສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ ໃນລະດັບໃດ (ຫຼາຍ):

• ທ້ອງຖິ່ນ

ລະບຸ ປະເພດ ຂອງສະໜັບສະໜູນ:

• ທາງດ້ານການເງິນ
• ການສ້າງຄວາມອາດສາມາດ / ການຝຶກອົບຮົມ

4.4 ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ ແລະ ປະເມີນຜົນ

ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ ໄດ້ມີການປະເມີນຜົນ ແລະ ຕິດຕາມບໍ?

ແມ່ນ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: local leadres

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: local agronomist

technical aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: local agronomist

technical aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: local agronomist

socio-cultural aspects were None monitored by government through observations; indicators: local leaders

area treated aspects were None monitored by government through observations; indicators: local agronomist

area treated aspects were None monitored by government through measurements; indicators: all person of 18 years and above are involved

no. of land users involved aspects were None monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

no. of land users involved aspects were None monitored by government through measurements; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were None monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

4.5 ການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ

ນີ້້ແມ່ນສ່ວນໜຶ່ງ ການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ ຂອງວິທີທາງບໍ່?

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

5.1 ງົບປະມານປະຈໍາປີ ສໍາລັບວິທີທາງ ຂອງການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

ຖ້າຫາກບໍ່ຮູ້ຈັດງົບປະມານທີ່ແນ່ນອນ ແມ່ນໃຫ້ປະມານເອົາ:

• 100,000-1,000,000

ຄໍາເຫັນ (ຕົວຢ່າງ: ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນຫຼັກ ຂອງການສະໜອງທຶນ / ຜູ້ໃຫ້ທຶນທີ່ສໍາຄັນ):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (planing): 20.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (sensitization and follow up): 25.0%; local community / land user(s) (implimentation): 55.0%

5.2 ການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ສະໜອງໃຫ້ແກ່ຜູ້ນໍາທີ່ດິນ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານ ການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີບໍ?

ແມ່ນ

ຖ້າແມ່ນ, ໃຫ້ລະບຸປະເພດ (ຫຼາຍ) ຂອງການສະໜັບສະໜູນ, ເງື່ອນໄຂ ແລະ ຜູູ້ສະໜອງ (ຫຼາຍ):

inputs (seeds, fertilizers, etc..) provided by the Government

5.3 ເງິນສົມທົບສໍາລັບການນໍາໃຊ້ສະເພາະປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າໃນການຜະລີດກະສິກໍາ (ລວມທັງແຮງງານ)

• ກະສິກໍາ

• ການກໍ່ສ້າງ

ຖ້າແຮງງານ ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າ, ແມ່ນບໍ່:

• ການອາສາ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

After the sensitization by local leaders, activities are done voluntarily or with food-for-work by farmers.

5.4 ສິນເຊື່ອ

ໄດ້ປ່ອຍສິນເຊື່ອ ສະໜອງໃຫ້ພາຍໃຕ້ ວິທີການສໍາລັບກິດຈະກໍາ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນນຍົງບໍ່?

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

6.1 ຜົນກະທົບຂອງແນວທາງ

6.2 ແຮງຈູງໃຈຫຼັກຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນໃນການປະຕິບັດການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

6.3 ຄວາມຍືນຍົງຂອງກິດຈະກໍາວິທີທາງ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ ທີ່ດິນ ສາມາດສືບຕໍ່ ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ຜ່ານວິທີທາງໄດ້ບໍ່ (ໂດຍປາດສະຈາກ ການຊ່ວຍເຫຼືອ ຈາກພາກສ່ວນພາຍນອກ)?

• ບໍ່ແນ່ນອນ

ຖ້າ ບໍ່ ຫຼື ບໍ່ແນ່ໃຈ, ໃຫ້ອະທິບາຍ ແລະ ຄໍາເຫັນ:

It require a strong follow up

6.4 ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ / ໂອກາດໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ
It help farmers to work together for a common issue. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuous sensitization )

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຈຸດດີ / ໂອກາດ ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ
Improvement of livelihoods (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuous sensitization)
farmers are getting benefits, as it has a direct impact in increasing the soil productivity and improve workability of the land (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuous sensitization )
the approach helped to establish SLM measures which reduced soil erosion and improve soil quality (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuous sensitization)

6.5 ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍຂອງແນວທາງ ແລະ ວິທີການແກ້ໄຂໃຫ້ເຂົາເຈົ້າ

ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍ / ຄວາມສ່ຽງໃນມູມມອງຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
lack of strong link in the farmers association and cooperatives	continuous sensitization

ຈຸດອ່ອນ ຫຼື ຂໍ້ເສຍ ຫຼື ຄວາມສ່ຽງ ໃນມຸມມອງຂອງ ຜູ້ສັງລວມຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບັນດາຜູ້ຕອບແບບສອບຖາມ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
High costs: farmers depend on external support from the government, they are not willing to invest their labour without payments.	To make the working time as short as possible for the community work so that farmer can plan other income activities after this.
lack of land users participation in the design and planing	involve all stakeholders

7.1 ວິທີການ / ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນ