1.2 ລາຍລະອຽດ ການຕິດຕໍ່ ຂອງບຸກຄົນທີ່ຊັບພະຍາກອນ ແລະ ສະຖາບັນ ການມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນການປະເມີນຜົນ ແລະ ເອກະສານ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ຊື່ຂອງ ສະຖາບັນການຈັດຕັ້ງ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ ຫຼື ປະເມີນແນວທາງ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) - ເນໂປ

1.3 ເງື່ອນໄຂ ຂອງການນໍາໃຊ້ເອກກະສານຂໍ້ມູນ ຂອງ WOCAT

ຜູ້ສັງລວມ ແລະ ບັນດາຜູ້ຕອບແບບສອບຖາມ ຍອມຮັບໃນເງື່ອນໄຂ ການນໍາໃຊ້ຂໍ້ມູນເອກະສານ ທີ່ສ້າງຂື້ນ ໂດຍຜ່ານ ອົງການ WOCAT:

ແມ່ນ

2.1 ການອະທິບາຍ ໂດຍຫຍໍ້ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

Participatory action research with multiple stakeholders for the demonstration and extension of improved rainfed hill terraces in Nepal

2.2 ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງວິທີທາງ:

The traditional farming practices employed on steep sloping land in Kubinde village in Nepal's midhills led to soil and water erosion and low crop and fodder yields. The People and Resource Dynamics in Mountain Watersheds of the Hindu Kush- Himalayas Project (PARDYP) started work in 2001, with a small group of farmers from this village (who were also members of the local forest user group) and the Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management to identify and test an integrated approach for addressing these constraints. The approach taken was an improved hill terrace for rainfed conditions consisting of structural and vegetative measures. The aim was to demonstrate and test the technologies' potential for overcoming constraints related to farming sloping agricultural land. The specific objectives were, in association with the local farmers, to design a technology that solved soi erosion problems on sloping agricultural lands whilst at the same time increasing the land's nutrient conservation and production capacity. The local line agency office of the Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management was involved in developing the technology to make use of their experiences and to come up with a validated technology that the department could use in its own programmes.
Before implementing the terrace improvement work in Kubinde village, a terrace improvement committee was formed made up of local farmers. The awareness activities began in January 2001. Committee members were trained on subwatershed management and were taken to the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development’s (ICIMOD) Demonstration and Training Centre at Godavari and another ICIMOD site to show them potential soil and water conservation technologies including improved terraces. After the technologies were implemented, a number of farmer exchange, interaction and monitoring programmes were held to assess the technology and to promote it. Indicators were developed for monitoring the activity.
About half of the costs were covered by the participating farmers and the rest by PARDYP. The other incentives were training and extension, allowances for participants, national expert honoraria, and training material such as audio-visual facilities. These were all provided by PARDYP with the help of the line agency.

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

Local farmers collectively solving problems by identifying and using the most appropriate local solutions. Local farmers designing, testing, and disseminating alternative technologies adapted to local conditions. Strengthening joint learning by farmers and development actors
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Weak institutional collaboration for addressing 1) poor soil fertility and land productivity; 2) soil and nutrient loss and excessive water runoff from sloping agricultural land; and 3) fodder scarcity. Lack of on-farm research for developing technologies that attend to farmers' needs.

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	ການບໍ່ປະຕິບັດ	Group discussion; organised with local forest user group; selection of members for training and tours (12 men and 11 women); formation of terrace improvement committee.
ການວາງແຜນ	ການຮ່ວມມື	group discussion; survey , site selection , fodder / grass species selection
ການປະຕິບັດ	ການນໍາໃໍຊ້ເອງ	Terracing activities: measurement, soil excavation, and retaining wall construction
ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ / ການປະເມີນຜົນ	ການຮ່ວມມື	Done in a participatory way involving individual farmers, project staff, and Department of Soil Conservation staff
Research	ການບໍ່ປະຕິບັດ	Assessing performance of planted grasses and advantages and disadvantages of technology

3.3 ແຜນວາດ (ຖ້າມີ)

3.4 ການຕັດສິນໃຈກ່ຽວກັບການຄັດເລືອກເຕັກໂນໂລຢີຂອງການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ລະບຸ ຄົນທີ່ຕັດສິນໃຈ ກ່ຽວກັບການຄັດເລືອກຂອງ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ຈະໄດ້ຮັບການປະຕິບັດ:

• ຜູ້ຊ່ຽວຊານ ຫຼັກດ້ານການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ, ມີການຕິດຕາມປຶກສາຫາລືກັບຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ

ອະທິບາຍ:

The package was initially offered by researchers and later modified and implemented by land users.
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. The landusers are more familiar with their land's capacity and charcteristics.

4.1 ການສ້າງຄວາມສາມາດ / ການຝຶກອົບຮົມ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ຫຼື ພາກສ່ວນກ່ຽວຂ້ອງອື່ນໆ ໄດ້ຮັບການຝຶກອົບຮົມບໍ່?

ແມ່ນ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ຜູ້ໃດທີ່ໄດ້ຮັບການຝຶກອົບຮົມ:

• ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ

• extensionists/trainers, teachers, school children/students, politicians/decision makers, Health volu

ຮູບແບບຂອງການຝຶກອົບຮົມ:

• ຕົວຕໍ່ຕົວ
• ເນື້ອທີ່ສວນທົດລອງ
• ຫຼັກສູດ

ຮູບແບບຂອງການຝຶກອົບຮົມ:

• Audio vidual learning

ໃນຫົວຂໍ້:

Importance of Soil and Water conservation in local level, concept of sub watershed management, activities in other parts of a country regarding SLM, etc.

4.2 ການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ

ເຮັດຜູ້ໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນມີການເຂົ້າເຖິງການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ?

ແມ່ນ

ອະທິບາຍ / ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Name of method used for advisory service: Demnstration/extension of improved terrace technology;
Key elements: Participatory Action Research, Trainigs and Farmer to Farmer visits, Particpatory monitoring and evaluation; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents, government's existing extension system; Extension staff: project employees, govt. staff and farmers. 2) Target groups for extension: land users, technicians/SLM specialists; Activities: Farmer to farmer exchange, demonstration, trainings; Invited to trainigs, field visits
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Various extension service agencies have secured funding for SLM programmes.

4.3 ສະຖາບັນການສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ (ການພັດທະນາອົງການຈັດຕັ້ງ)

ສະຖາບັນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສ້າງຕັ້ງຂື້ນ ຫຼື ໄດ້ຮັບການສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ ໂດຍການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງບໍ່?

• ບໍ່ມີ

4.4 ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ ແລະ ປະເມີນຜົນ

ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ ໄດ້ມີການປະເມີນຜົນ ແລະ ຕິດຕາມບໍ?

ແມ່ນ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: plant heigth, biomass production, usefulness of grass/fodder species
technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: views about technology
socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: species selection, change of agricultural practices
economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: changes in crop yields and patterns and the value of the land
area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: survey, on-site verifications
land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: survey, number of land users applying for SWC
management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: maintenance of terraces and hedgerows
There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: New ideas have been generated but strategies to implement them are yet to be in place.
There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: New varieties of grass, fruit and fodder species have been introduced

4.5 ການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ

ນີ້້ແມ່ນສ່ວນໜຶ່ງ ການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ ຂອງວິທີທາງບໍ່?

ແມ່ນ

ລະບຸ ຫົວຂໍ້:

• ສັງຄົມ
• ລະບົບນິເວດ
• ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ໃຫ້ຂໍ້ມູນ ເພີ່ມເຕີມ ແລະ ກໍານົດ ຜູ້ໃດເຮັດການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ:

Sociology: Looking at scaling up process; Ecology: Looking at the impacts of the technology at subwatershed level; Technology: development process.
Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 ງົບປະມານປະຈໍາປີ ສໍາລັບວິທີທາງ ຂອງການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

ຖ້າຫາກບໍ່ຮູ້ຈັດງົບປະມານທີ່ແນ່ນອນ ແມ່ນໃຫ້ປະມານເອົາ:

• < 2,000

ຄໍາເຫັນ (ຕົວຢ່າງ: ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນຫຼັກ ຂອງການສະໜອງທຶນ / ຜູ້ໃຫ້ທຶນທີ່ສໍາຄັນ):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: national non-government (SDC, IDRC, ICIMOD): 65.0%; local community / land user(s) (Terrace improvement committee): 35.0%

5.2 ການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ສະໜອງໃຫ້ແກ່ຜູ້ນໍາທີ່ດິນ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານ ການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີບໍ?

ແມ່ນ

5.3 ເງິນສົມທົບສໍາລັບການນໍາໃຊ້ສະເພາະປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າໃນການຜະລີດກະສິກໍາ (ລວມທັງແຮງງານ)

• ກະສິກໍາ

ຖ້າແຮງງານ ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າ, ແມ່ນບໍ່:

• ຈ່າຍເປັນເງິນສົດ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

About 50% of total labour costs were met by land users.

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:

More than 60% of the total improved terraces in Kubinde village were built by the land users themselves. Widespread rapid adoption did not happen in other villages due to financial and labour limitations. Land users of Kubinde village continue to maintain the improved terraces.

6.4 ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ / ໂອກາດໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ
Technical knowledge and confidence increased from the training and field visits, interactions, and experience sharing (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Such activities should be continued by incorporating other new ideas)
The approach led to the development of a team spirit among farmers (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: As above)

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຈຸດດີ / ໂອກາດ ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ
The approach is based on building the capacity of farmers (both men and women) by involving multiple stakeholders in the development and adoption of the technology. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Approach should be to strengthen land users' involvement in SWC activities)

6.5 ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍຂອງແນວທາງ ແລະ ວິທີການແກ້ໄຂໃຫ້ເຂົາເຈົ້າ

ຈຸດອ່ອນ ຫຼື ຂໍ້ເສຍ ຫຼື ຄວາມສ່ຽງ ໃນມຸມມອງຂອງ ຜູ້ສັງລວມຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບັນດາຜູ້ຕອບແບບສອບຖາມ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
Due to the conflict, which was on-going at the time, follow-up after a year of implementing technology was not possible and the monitoring was not done. This resulted in the adoption of the technology by other farmers not being carried out properly with, for example, farmers not maintaining the hedgerows as recommended. Also, the new terraces were not as good as they should have been.	The technical experts need to visit the sites and identify gaps and encourage farmers to 'fill them'. For example, the benefit of hedgerow management needs to be demonstrated.

7.1 ວິທີການ / ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນ

7.2 ເອກະສານທົ່ວໄປທີ່ສາມາດໃຊ້ໄດ້

ຫົວຂໍ້, ຜູ້ຂຽນ, ປີ, ISBN:

Mathema, P. (2003) Watershed Management in South Asia. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management

ມີຢູ່ໃສ?ມູນຄ່າເທົ່າໃດ?

Department of soil conservation, Nepal