1.2 ລາຍລະອຽດ ການຕິດຕໍ່ ຂອງບຸກຄົນທີ່ຊັບພະຍາກອນ ແລະ ສະຖາບັນ ການມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນການປະເມີນຜົນ ແລະ ເອກະສານ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ຊື່ຂອງ ສະຖາບັນການຈັດຕັ້ງ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ ຫຼື ປະເມີນແນວທາງ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

MoA (MoA) - ບູຕານ

ຊື່ຂອງ ສະຖາບັນການຈັດຕັ້ງ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ ຫຼື ປະເມີນແນວທາງ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

National Soil Services Centre (National Soil Services Centre) - ບູຕານ

1.3 ເງື່ອນໄຂ ຂອງການນໍາໃຊ້ເອກກະສານຂໍ້ມູນ ຂອງ WOCAT

ເມື່ອໃດທີ່ໄດ້ສັງລວມຂໍ້ມູນ (ຢູ່ພາກສະໜາມ)?

20/03/2011

ຜູ້ສັງລວມ ແລະ ບັນດາຜູ້ຕອບແບບສອບຖາມ ຍອມຮັບໃນເງື່ອນໄຂ ການນໍາໃຊ້ຂໍ້ມູນເອກະສານ ທີ່ສ້າງຂື້ນ ໂດຍຜ່ານ ອົງການ WOCAT:

ແມ່ນ

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

2.1 ການອະທິບາຍ ໂດຍຫຍໍ້ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

Focused support to a single village community to promote the widespread integrated implementation of SLM interventions.

2.2 ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງວິທີທາງ:

Aims / objectives: A SLM Focal Village is an approach to focus support to a particular village where a whole range of integrated SLM interventions is showcased in order to create visual impact and to serve as a demonstration site. The concept of a SLM Focal Village was developed in order to tackle the concern of dilution of impact caused by inclusion of all the villages and the households that are geographically very scattered and dispersed. Focal villages are selected at geog (block) level based on their accessibility, visibility for visitors and passers-by, severity of land degradation issues and interest shown by the village community.

Methods: Participatory SLM Action Planning is used to identify land-based problems, their causes and to discuss, select and prioritize specific targeted SLM interventions into a chiog (village) SLM action plan. Additional support is given to the village community to convert larger complexes of clustered land to more sustainable use with locally suited SLM practices. Popular interventions are stone bunding, grass hedgerows, bench terracing, bamboo and tree plantation and fodder development. The for-mation of labour-sharing groups is promoted in the SLM Focal Villages to ease high labour requirement for some SLM activities.

Stages of implementation: Where possible, integrated approaches are adopted, linking increasing vegetative cover of degraded or vulnerable areas with fodder development in marginal slope segments. FYM shed construction is combined with breed improvement and transition to stall feeding, providing manure for cropland. The SLM Focal Villages are used as demonstration sites and interested farmer groups on study tours and other visitors can get a quick impression of a variety of SLM activities showcased in a limited geographical area.

Role of stakeholders: The SLM Focal Villages are used as demonstration sites and interested farmer groups on study tours and other visitors can get a quick impression of a variety of SLM activities showcased in a limited geographical area.

Other important information: SLM Focal Villages require more guidance and monitoring by local extension staff and relatively higher budgets as the areas of land converted to SLM practices are often larger and thus related expenses for seeds, seedlings and other incentives like tools. In some focal villages additional labour-saving machinery is supplied, for example maize flour mill, oil expeller, rice huller, cornflake machine, etc. as an incentive to the community for taking up SLM interventions on comparatively larger scale..

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 (Advocay of implementation of various SLM techniques through focus village (chiog) approach)

- Creating a visible and tangible impact at chiog level through widespread implementation of SLM technologies
- Convert present fallow land and former slash-and-burn practice areas to more sustainable cropland with an improved fodder base
- Improve community sense and enhance sustainability of SLM approaches through group support

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - Inclusion of all households at village level in a large and geographically dispersed geog leads to dilution of (visual) impact and benefits.
- Targeting individual households makes it more difficult to create a focused demonstration area to showcase SLM interventions at village level

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	Initial meetings to sensitize farmers and to create awareness of SLM issues
ການວາງແຜນ	ການຮ່ວມມື	Participatory SLM action planning at chiog level; annual planning cycle, repeated for 3 years
ການປະຕິບັດ	ການຮ່ວມມື	Based on the chiog SLM action plan SLM interventions are implemented with input support and incentives; guidance and capacity building by municipality extension staff and geog SLM planners
ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ / ການປະເມີນຜົນ	ການຮ່ວມມື	Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation meetings carried out by geogSLM planning team (GSPT)
Research	ບໍ່ມີ

3.3 ແຜນວາດ (ຖ້າມີ)

3.4 ການຕັດສິນໃຈກ່ຽວກັບການຄັດເລືອກເຕັກໂນໂລຢີຂອງການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ລະບຸ ຄົນທີ່ຕັດສິນໃຈ ກ່ຽວກັບການຄັດເລືອກຂອງ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ຈະໄດ້ຮັບການປະຕິບັດ:

• ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນຫຼັກ, ການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ໂດຍຜູ້ຊ່ຽວຊານ ການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

ອະທິບາຍ:

the annual participatory SLM Action Planning is key approach used to identify and prioritize SLM technologies for implementation at village level.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. based on the SLM Action plan for the village and amended, if necessary, by the findings of M&E meetings

4.1 ການສ້າງຄວາມສາມາດ / ການຝຶກອົບຮົມ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ຫຼື ພາກສ່ວນກ່ຽວຂ້ອງອື່ນໆ ໄດ້ຮັບການຝຶກອົບຮົມບໍ່?

ແມ່ນ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ຜູ້ໃດທີ່ໄດ້ຮັບການຝຶກອົບຮົມ:

• ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ

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

Whole community involved with SLM: inclusive approach to all 44 households

ຮູບແບບຂອງການຝຶກອົບຮົມ:

• ຕົວຕໍ່ຕົວ
• ເນື້ອທີ່ສວນທົດລອງ
• ກອງປະຊຸມ

ໃນຫົວຂໍ້:

A series of awareness raising activities related to identification of local land-based problems, its causes and possible SLM interventions through an annual SLM action planning and following implementation. This is combined with specific technical trainings focused on the SLM activities prioritized in the village SLM action plan.

4.2 ການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ

ເຮັດຜູ້ໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນມີການເຂົ້າເຖິງການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ?

ແມ່ນ

ລະບຸວ່າການສະໜອງ ການບໍລິການ ໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ:

• ໃນພື້ນທີ່ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ

ອະທິບາຍ / ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Name of method used for advisory service: Field visits and meetings; Key elements: technical guidance, awareness raising and group formation support

Advisory service is inadequate 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
• ອຸປະກອນ

ໃຫ້ລາຍລະອຽດເພີ່ມເຕີມ:

Yes, SLM focal village development is a direct form of local institution support.

4.4 ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ ແລະ ປະເມີນຜົນ

ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ ໄດ້ມີການປະເມີນຜົນ ແລະ ຕິດຕາມບໍ?

ແມ່ນ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: terrace area increase and area treated with stone bunds

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: terrace area increase and area treated with stone bunds

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: Regular observations by project staff with land users of specific SLM interventions: progress, problems, areas for improvement

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: Regular observations on community / focal village approach through participatory M&E meetings; community sense, conflicts etc.

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements by project staff and land users: crop yields, income, fodder and animal production

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements by project staff and land users: area of SLM interventions (hedgerows, stone bunds, bench terraces, # of check dams tec.)

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements by project staff and land users: number of households participating in each specific training and event (male/female)

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: Regular observations by project staff and land users during participatory M&E meetings; ad hoc meetings with project management staff

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Adjustment of technical interventions due to farmer feedback during participatory M&E meetings; review of annual SLM action plan leads to readjusted action plans based on evaluation with community on progress and issues.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Adjustment of technical interventions due to farmer feedback during participatory M&E meetings; review of annual SLM action plan leads to readjusted action plans based on evaluation with community on progress and issues.

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 (World Bank GEF): 60.0%; government (RGoB): 20.0%; local community / land user(s): 20.0%

5.2 ການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ສະໜອງໃຫ້ແກ່ຜູ້ນໍາທີ່ດິນ

ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານ ການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີບໍ?

ແມ່ນ

5.3 ເງິນສົມທົບສໍາລັບການນໍາໃຊ້ສະເພາະປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າໃນການຜະລີດກະສິກໍາ (ລວມທັງແຮງງານ)

• ອຸປະກອນ

• ກະສິກໍາ

• ການກໍ່ສ້າງ

• ອື່ນໆ

ຖ້າແຮງງານ ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າ, ແມ່ນບໍ່:

• ການອາສາ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Labour is mainly voluntary contribution by household, but partly compensated with cash and other material support for the more labour-intensive interventions such as stone bunding and hedgerow establishment; labour-saving groups also supported with tool sets

Tool sets partly financed; seeds and seedlings mostly fully financed; CGI sheets, green net and drums for FYM sheds, green net sheds and water collection drums fully financed; some labour-saving machinery fully financed such as maize flour mill as community incentive.

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:

Village communities express commitment to continue focal village approach, but it remains to be seen if they actually are able to continue with various SLM activities without support post-project. The communities are intending to continue to convert ex slash-and-burn area to annual cropland, making use of labour-sharing group. This old traditional system is rejuvenated and therefore is more likely to be sustainable post-project.

6.4 ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ ຂອງວິທີທາງ

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ / ໂອກາດໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ
reduced dependency on forest and tseri (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: maintenance of new annual crop land )
more annual cropland through SLM interventions (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: maintenance of new annual crop land)
better workability of developed cropland (stone bunding / hedgerows etc.) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: maintenance of new annual crop land)
short-term inputs and subsidies enable the poorer households to take up log-term SLM interventions (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: targeted support to vulnerable households to maintain an inclusive approach)

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຈຸດດີ / ໂອກາດ ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ
Holistic integrated village development enabling to showcase a variety of SLM interventions (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular technical guidance and targeted capacity building efforts )
Enables to convert larger areas of previous fallow land, or previously under slash-and-burn practice, to more sustainable cropland and reduces dependency on forest and slash-and-burn (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular technical guidance and targeted capacity building efforts, combined with input support and guidance of labour-saving groups)
Pressure on communities to change land-use through governmental rule to stop slash-and-burn practice makes them very interested in adopting SLM (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular technical guidance and targeted capacity building efforts, combined with short-term incentives)
Group formation process enables labour-sharing approach, which is very well appreciated (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular technical guidance and targeted capacity building efforts)

6.5 ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍຂອງແນວທາງ ແລະ ວິທີການແກ້ໄຂໃຫ້ເຂົາເຈົ້າ

ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍ / ຄວາມສ່ຽງໃນມູມມອງຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
Increase of work load combined with demand for labour of other developmental activities (rural water supply, road construction etc.). Therefore 'underperformance' against set targets	Better seasonal planning, try to avoid busy agricultural season.

ຈຸດອ່ອນ ຫຼື ຂໍ້ເສຍ ຫຼື ຄວາມສ່ຽງ ໃນມຸມມອງຂອງ ຜູ້ສັງລວມຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບັນດາຜູ້ຕອບແບບສອບຖາມ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
Risk of dependency on incentives/inputs: spoon-feeding syndrome	Continued support to community and labour-saving groups to support land conversion efforts
Focus and concentration of efforts to one community might cause dissatisfaction among neighbouring villages	Continue SLM support to other villages as planned; communicate reasons of selection clearly: transparency at municipality level.
Requires considerable input of labour by community, but clashes with other requirement of developmental activities such as drinking water supply, irrigation channel construction, electrification and farm road construction	Labour-sharing group to ease labour constraint

7.1 ວິທີການ / ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນ