1.2 ລາຍລະອຽດ ການຕິດຕໍ່ ຂອງບຸກຄົນທີ່ຊັບພະຍາກອນ ແລະ ສະຖາບັນ ການມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນການປະເມີນຜົນ ແລະ ເອກະສານ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ຊື່ຂອງ ສະຖາບັນການຈັດຕັ້ງ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ ຫຼື ປະເມີນແນວທາງ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

Bukoba district council (Bukoba district council) - ຕານຊາເນຍ

ຊື່ຂອງ ສະຖາບັນການຈັດຕັ້ງ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ ຫຼື ປະເມີນແນວທາງ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

Missenyi District Council (Missenyi District Council) - ຕານຊາເນຍ

1.3 ເງື່ອນໄຂ ຂອງການນໍາໃຊ້ເອກກະສານຂໍ້ມູນ ຂອງ WOCAT

ເມື່ອໃດທີ່ໄດ້ສັງລວມຂໍ້ມູນ (ຢູ່ພາກສະໜາມ)?

03/06/2014

ຜູ້ສັງລວມ ແລະ ບັນດາຜູ້ຕອບແບບສອບຖາມ ຍອມຮັບໃນເງື່ອນໄຂ ການນໍາໃຊ້ຂໍ້ມູນເອກະສານ ທີ່ສ້າງຂື້ນ ໂດຍຜ່ານ ອົງການ WOCAT:

ແມ່ນ

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

2.1 ການອະທິບາຍ ໂດຍຫຍໍ້ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

Prevention and mitigation of the grazing land and riverine ecosystems through mandatory grassroots meetings, law enforcement and active participation and empowerment of herder leaders’ (masters of the most resource destructive group)

2.2 ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງວິທີທາງ:

Aims / objectives: Aim/objectives: Empowering the village community, to take charge prevention and rehabilitation of the degraded and endangered grazing land and riverine ecosystem. Enhance SLM sustainability through agenda mainstreaming operationalization and formalization into existing information sharing and decision making forums. SLM be implemented through complementary and concerted efforts of the central government, local governments, grass roots institutions and the community at large. Community exposure to legal and policy framework guiding SLM and actively engaged in making informed decision.

Methods: Methods: The most resource destructive group is actively engaged and empowered to take the leading role in prevention and mitigation of the endangered and degrading riverine and grazing land ecosystems. SLM matters are formalized /operationalized and becomes permanent agenda in mandatory grassroots information sharing and decision making forums (sub village meetings, village assembly, ward development committee). The use of multi-sectorial concerted efforts that involves direct support by the central government in matters relating to SLM peace and tranquility (e.g. communities provided with mobile phone numbers for timely reporting of any destructive fire incidence and other environmental and peace threatening malpractices). Knowledge management and training (farmer capacity building) scaled up through adult learning methods (e.g. SLM demos). Active involvement of the most resource destructive group (herdsmen and their masters) in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, decision making and bylaw formation and reinforcement. Herders who usually suffer rights to information (due to their tight daily activity clock) are informed, lead and guided by their masters.

Stages of implementation: Implementation starts with land degradation analysis and identification of the red spots (land degradation problems) to be addressed. Development of community SLM site specific action plan indicating the degradation type, proposed prevention and mitigation intervention methods, conservation methodology/approach to use, inputs needed, people /stakeholder involvement and time frame, stakeholder awareness raising plan, training, education and capacity building. Roles distribution, joint implementation, monitoring and evaluation of community action plan.

Role of stakeholders: Community: take charge of SLM activities (e.g. land demarcation, planting of tree, reseeding of pasture, e.t.c.), potential informer of malpractices and play a role of grass roots community guard, detectors of SLM crimes are also responsible for up keeping of public order.
Sub and village governments: formation of village environmental committees, taking leading role in inclusion of SLM agendas in mandatory sub village and village meetings, community mobilization and law enforcement.
WAKONDO: forms the core stakeholders in this approach (as experience shows that herders are the major source of uncontrolled fire burning and intruders of riverine ecosystems), participate in decision making and bylaw formation, guide and frequently remind and lead herders how and where to graze, interpreted bylaws to herders so that they make wise and informed decision and liaise herders with sub village and village government.
Environmental committee: law enforcers, environmental patrollers, direct involvement in SLM activities, awareness creation through various means e.g. use of posters.
District council: Awareness creetion, training, education and capacity building and interpreting to the community laws and policy guiding SLM.
Central government: SLM peace and tranquility and law enforcement.



Other important information: The basic principle underlying this approach is facing SLM through multi-sectorial collaboration and active participation of the most resource destructive group of the community. The average annual costs needed in running the approach is > 2000 USD.

2.3 ຮູບພາບຂອງແນວທາງ

2.5 ປະເທດ / ເຂດ / ສະຖານທີ່ບ່ອນທີ່ແນວທາງໄດ້ຖືກນໍາໃຊ້

2.6 ວັນທີເລີ່ມຕົ້ນ ແລະ ສິ້ນສຸດ ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕີບັດ ວິທີທາງ

2.7 ປະເພດຂອງແນວທາງ

• Local initiatives mixed in a comprementary maner with project project initiatives.

2.8 ເປົ້າໝາຍ / ຈຸດປະສົງຫຼັກ ຂອງການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities

Empowering and involvement of the community by building confidence, ownership and capacity to take charge prevention and mitigation of the degraded and endangered grazing land and riverine ecosystem. Establishment of active and reliable environmental committee. Make SLM to be permanent agenda and formalized into existing information sharing and decision making forums.
SLM be implemented through complementary and concerted efforts of the central government, local governments, grass roots institutions and the community at large.


The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Overgrazing and uncontrolled fire burning by herders, who undertake animal caring for WAKONDO (livestock owners), their activity clock is usually occupied and is under the control of their masters, they are voice less, no access to information about SLM, weak and have no power in decision making.
WAKONDO not adequately and effectively engaged in planning and implementing SML activities.
Dormant and inactive environmental committee coupled with lack of SLM technical knowledge.
No clearly defined grassroots forums for developing and dealing permanently with SLM agendas.
Weak, conflicting and disjointed efforts invested to environmental conservation.

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	ການຮ່ວມມື	Village council members and field experts - sensitization and awareness creation meetings.
ການວາງແຜນ	ການຮ່ວມມື	Village government, community and site facilitators - SLM planning meetings.
ການປະຕິບັດ	ການຮ່ວມມື	Village government, community, groups and committees and site facilitators - Actual implementation of community site specific action plan.
ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ / ການປະເມີນຜົນ	ການຮ່ວມມື	Village government, community, groups and committees and site facilitators - Actual monitoring and evaluation of community site specific action plan.
Research	ການຮ່ວມມື	Village government, community, groups and committees and site facilitators - client focused research to deal with undesirable and unintended results (e.g. on how to handle invasive species).

3.4 ການຕັດສິນໃຈກ່ຽວກັບການຄັດເລືອກເຕັກໂນໂລຢີຂອງການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ລະບຸ ຄົນທີ່ຕັດສິນໃຈ ກ່ຽວກັບການຄັດເລືອກຂອງ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ຈະໄດ້ຮັບການປະຕິບັດ:

• ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນຫຼັກ, ການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ໂດຍຜູ້ຊ່ຽວຊານ ການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

ອະທິບາຍ:

Decision over the technology was a resultant of site characterization technically backstopped by SLM specialists and actively participated by the empowered and informed community.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. The method was the resultant of a process phases and steps dialogue, discussion and consensus attained between land user and SLM specialists.

4.1 ການສ້າງຄວາມສາມາດ / ການຝຶກອົບຮົມ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ຫຼື ພາກສ່ວນກ່ຽວຂ້ອງອື່ນໆ ໄດ້ຮັບການຝຶກອົບຮົມບໍ່?

ແມ່ນ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ຜູ້ໃດທີ່ໄດ້ຮັບການຝຶກອົບຮົມ:

• ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ
• ພະນັກງານພາກສະໜາມ / ທີ່ປຶກສາ

• leaders and politicians

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

all gender (male and female), all age (youth and elders), all status (the rich WAKONDO and the poor herders) and all ethnic group

ຮູບແບບຂອງການຝຶກອົບຮົມ:

• ການເຮັດຕົວຈິງ
• ເນື້ອທີ່ສວນທົດລອງ
• ກອງປະຊຸມ

ຮູບແບບຂອງການຝຶກອົບຮົມ:

• special and adhoc serminars

ໃນຫົວຂໍ້:

Fire control, grazing management, forest management, pasture establishment and use of bylaws.

4.2 ການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ

ເຮັດຜູ້ໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນມີການເຂົ້າເຖິງການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ?

ແມ່ນ

ລະບຸວ່າການສະໜອງ ການບໍລິການ ໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ:

• ໃນພື້ນທີ່ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ

ອະທິບາຍ / ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Name of method used for advisory service: Group method ; Key elements: Site vist and stakeholders visit, Group discussion, interaction and concensus building, local knowledge and technical knowledge balanced in a comprementary manner; Land users were visited by the experts and discussions held either on the site or elsewhere.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; There is shortage of staff and the few staff have high workload/are given multiple tasks.

4.3 ສະຖາບັນການສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ (ການພັດທະນາອົງການຈັດຕັ້ງ)

ສະຖາບັນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສ້າງຕັ້ງຂື້ນ ຫຼື ໄດ້ຮັບການສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ ໂດຍການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງບໍ່?

• ມີ, ໜ້ອຍໜຶ່ງ

ລະບຸ ທາງສະຖາບັນ ໄດ້ສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ ໃນລະດັບໃດ (ຫຼາຍ):

• ທ້ອງຖິ່ນ

ລະບຸ ປະເພດ ຂອງສະໜັບສະໜູນ:

• ການສ້າງຄວາມອາດສາມາດ / ການຝຶກອົບຮົມ

ໃຫ້ລາຍລະອຽດເພີ່ມເຕີມ:

Members of environmental committee were provided with various SLM trainings.

4.4 ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ ແລະ ປະເມີນຜົນ

ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ ໄດ້ມີການປະເມີນຜົນ ແລະ ຕິດຕາມບໍ?

ແມ່ນ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: number of pasture growing species

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: percentage increase in vergetation cover

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: incedences of fire burning

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: number of grass bundles harvested

area treated aspects were regular monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: % hacterage protected and harvested

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: number of adopters/participants

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Number of FFS, Demos and IGA, patrols meetings

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: arrangement for the community to find alternative uses of unintended products in pasture establishment (alternative use of invasive species) .

There were several changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring and evaluation revealed the need to integrate SLM quick win project/IGA as stimulus factor to members of environmental committee who spend their valuable time in performing SLM activities.

5.1 ງົບປະມານປະຈໍາປີ ສໍາລັບວິທີທາງ ຂອງການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

ຖ້າຫາກບໍ່ຮູ້ຈັດງົບປະມານທີ່ແນ່ນອນ ແມ່ນໃຫ້ປະມານເອົາ:

• < 2,000

ຄໍາເຫັນ (ຕົວຢ່າງ: ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນຫຼັກ ຂອງການສະໜອງທຶນ / ຜູ້ໃຫ້ທຶນທີ່ສໍາຄັນ):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (Transboundary Agroecosystem project): 25.0%; government (Central Government ): 5.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Village government and District council ): 18.0%; local community / land user(s) (Community, groups, village invironmental commitees ): 52.0%

5.2 ການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ສະໜອງໃຫ້ແກ່ຜູ້ນໍາທີ່ດິນ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານ ການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີບໍ?

ແມ່ນ

5.3 ເງິນສົມທົບສໍາລັບການນໍາໃຊ້ສະເພາະປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າໃນການຜະລີດກະສິກໍາ (ລວມທັງແຮງງານ)

• ກະສິກໍາ

ຖ້າແຮງງານ ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າ, ແມ່ນບໍ່:

• ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ອຸປະກອນດ້ານອື່ນ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

the were rewarded indirectly through IGA and input provision

pasture seeds were supported fully but fertilizer was inadequate due to lean budget.

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)?

• ແມ່ນ

ຖ້າ ໄດ້, ອະທິບາຍເຫດຜົນ:

Because the approach is internationalized and formalized into the existing systems (e.g. SLM becomes permanent agenda in mandatory sub village and village meetings).
The use of goat loan IGA project where farmers are given goats on loan bases and pay goats which are then passed and spread to more of their fellow farmer can continue without support.
Involvement of central government e.g. access of district commissioners and divisional officers phone is a reliable SLM crime control mechanisms which does not require any of external support (a mere text message can save and protect abundant hectare of land).

6.4 ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ / ໂອກາດໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ
Improvement of the natural vegetation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: To continue community education )
Availability of mulching materials (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Controlled harvesting and fire prevention )
Availability of fuel wood (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Permanent and routine guard )

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຈຸດດີ / ໂອກາດ ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ
Incorporation internalization of SLM as permanent agenda in reliable mandatory grassroots forums (sub village and village meetings) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue internalization and SLM promotion through use of existing forums.)
Involvement of the central government (a mere text message can save and rescue abundance of hectare). (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue use of the central government.)
Empowerment and active participation of the the most resource destructive and environmental threatening group (livestock keepers). (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue use of WAKONDO (livestock owners) in planning, implementation and deciding SLM activities. )
Use of self spreading IGA to motivate environmental committee members who spend their valuable time in SLM activities (e.g. goat loan projects). (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue promotion, expansion and sustaining of self spreading IGAs.)
Dialogue and communication takes into consideration the daily activity clock of the stakeholder (through this principle WAKONDO can deliver SLM messages to herdsmen rather than SLM specialist) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Daily activity clock continue to be a criteria for planning SLM dialogue and communication.)

6.5 ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍຂອງແນວທາງ ແລະ ວິທີການແກ້ໄຂໃຫ້ເຂົາເຈົ້າ

ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍ / ຄວາມສ່ຽງໃນມູມມອງຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
shortage of working gears (umbrella, gumboots, raincoats and stationary)	Ensure availability of working gears (e.g. SLM penalties be used to cover the costs of working gears).
Inadequate fund to support IGA	Commit adequate fund to support and expand IGA.
Violation of rules and procedures by some untrustworthy individuals	Strengthen law enforcement (use of penalties, court and ward tribunals)
No reliable transport for village environmental committees.	Ensure reliable transport for the village environmental committee.

ຈຸດອ່ອນ ຫຼື ຂໍ້ເສຍ ຫຼື ຄວາມສ່ຽງ ໃນມຸມມອງຂອງ ຜູ້ສັງລວມຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບັນດາຜູ້ຕອບແບບສອບຖາມ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
Existence of untrained-able and lazy herdsmen and less committed WAKONDO.	Strengthen law enforcement (e.g. use of penalties)
No reliable forum to collaborate with supplier of inputs and research as a results failure to figure out the reasons for unintended results (for this case unpalatable alien/native species overshadowed the palatable pasture and the reasons were not known)	Strengthen collaborations with Research and supplier of inputs (pasture seeds e.t.c.).

7.1 ວິທີການ / ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນ

7.2 ເອກະສານທົ່ວໄປທີ່ສາມາດໃຊ້ໄດ້

ຫົວຂໍ້, ຜູ້ຂຽນ, ປີ, ISBN:

A report on Kyazi Microcatchment Characteriaztion