The 'Triple bottom line' [ອອດສະເຕເລຍ]
- ການສ້າງ:
- ປັບປູງ:
- ຜູ້ສັງລວມຂໍ້ມູນ: Anthony J. Webster
- ບັນນາທິການ: –
- ຜູ້ທົບທວນຄືນ: David Streiff
approaches_2668 - ອອດສະເຕເລຍ
ເບິ່ງພາກສ່ວນ
ຂະຫຍາຍທັງໝົດ ຍຸບທັງໝົດ1. ຂໍ້ມູນທົ່ວໄປ
1.2 ລາຍລະອຽດ ການຕິດຕໍ່ ຂອງບຸກຄົນທີ່ຊັບພະຍາກອນ ແລະ ສະຖາບັນ ການມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນການປະເມີນຜົນ ແລະ ເອກະສານ ຂອງວິທີທາງ
ຊື່ຂອງ ສະຖາບັນການຈັດຕັ້ງ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ ຫຼື ປະເມີນແນວທາງ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)
CSIRO (CSIRO) - ອອດສະເຕເລຍ1.3 ເງື່ອນໄຂ ຂອງການນໍາໃຊ້ເອກກະສານຂໍ້ມູນ ຂອງ WOCAT
ຜູ້ສັງລວມ ແລະ ບັນດາຜູ້ຕອບແບບສອບຖາມ ຍອມຮັບໃນເງື່ອນໄຂ ການນໍາໃຊ້ຂໍ້ມູນເອກະສານ ທີ່ສ້າງຂື້ນ ໂດຍຜ່ານ ອົງການ WOCAT:
ແມ່ນ
1.4 ເອກະສານອ້າງອີງ (ຫຼາຍ) ກັບແບບສອບຖາມ (ຫຼາຍ) ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ຂອງດ້ານການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ
2. ພັນລະນາ ແນວທາງການຄຸ້ມຄອງນໍາໃຊ້ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ
2.1 ການອະທິບາຍ ໂດຍຫຍໍ້ ຂອງວິທີທາງ
A new expression used by agriculturalists in Australia to explain why farmers change practices: the 'triple bottom line' implies economic, environmental and social concerns.
2.2 ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງວິທີທາງ
ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງວິທີທາງ:
Aims / objectives: A fundamental change has occurred in farming practice amongst sugar cane growers in the tropics of far north Queensland. Where it was once standard practice to burn cane before harvest (defoliating green canes for easier harvest), tradition has been turned on its head and now almost no-one burns. Instead a 'green cane trash blanket' system has developed, with multiple benefits and few or no drawbacks. There has been no official campaign or punitive sanctions imposed, no enticing financial incentives offered or charismatic environmental leadership - just a quiet technological revolution, based on the principles of the 'triple bottom line' (TBL).
Methods: TBL has recently emerged into common usage amongst agriculturalists in Australia. Rather than attributing farmers' actions as simple responses to economic stimuli ('the bottom line') TBL is a framework that helps explain the complexity of factors that influence farmers to modify their practices. TBL suggests that farmers do indeed respond to money, but also to environmental concerns, and furthermore to social considerations as well. This gives credit to farmers for being responsible stewards of the land. In this particular case, the transition in technology started in 1974, when sugar cane growers in the far north of Queensland were simply unable to burn their cane prior to harvest because of the exceptionally heavy rains. Instead, they had to harvest wet - and green. The technical implications were first, a slower harvest speed because machinery had to cope with a greater load of biomass, and second, a thick residual blanket of trash that covered the soil. The multiple benefits of mulching were recognised by a few growers, who then continued to harvest green cane. Non-burning spread - a technology now described as the 'green cane trash blanket'- until almost every grower adopted it within one generation. While the extension service has supported the transition, growers themselves tookthe initiative to change. There are indeed small financial benefits, chiefly in terms of reduced overall input costs, but growers have simultaneously been motivated by social and environmental considerations. Burning has come to be considered anti-social: a dirty practice, carrying the danger of fire spreading outside the targeted fields. Neither is it a pleasant task, requiring help of family and friends, often at inconvenient times.
Other important information: From an environmental perspective, the benefits of trash mulch are tangible in terms of improved soil quality, and reduced erosion rates. And, equally important, the end result is reduced damage to the close-by Great Barrier Reef with its sediment-sensitive living coral.
The triple bottom line(TBL) is an expression which has evolved in Australia to help explain why farmers act as they do. Its three components of economics, the environment and social aspects cover the considerations that cause farmers to modify technologies. TBL implicitly gives credit to farmer for being sensitive to multiple external signals. In this case the change in practice is from burning sugar cane to harvesting it green in Far North Queensland. This is a case where emerging conservation-friendly farmer practice and the goals of the environmental lobby have neatly coincided.
2.3 ຮູບພາບຂອງແນວທາງ
2.5 ປະເທດ / ເຂດ / ສະຖານທີ່ບ່ອນທີ່ແນວທາງໄດ້ຖືກນໍາໃຊ້
ປະເທດ:
ອອດສະເຕເລຍ
ພາກພື້ນ / ລັດ / ແຂວງ:
Queensland
Map
×2.6 ວັນທີເລີ່ມຕົ້ນ ແລະ ສິ້ນສຸດ ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕີບັດ ວິທີທາງ
ສະແດງປີຂອງການເລີ່ມຕົ້ນ:
1974
2.7 ປະເພດຂອງແນວທາງ
- ພື້ນເມືອງ / ທ້ອງຖີ່ນ
2.8 ເປົ້າໝາຍ / ຈຸດປະສົງຫຼັກ ຂອງການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ
The Approach focused on SLM only
(1) Demonstration and dissemination. (2) The spread of non-burning practices, specifically the 'green cane trash blanket' technology to promote sustainable and environmentally friendly sugar cane production. (3) Indirectly: to satisfy social concerns associated with burning of sugar cane.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: (1) Anti-social farming practice of burning sugar cane which also has negative environmental impacts, both in situ, and offsite in the coral reef. (2) Resistance to change in traditional farming practice.
2.9 ເງື່ອນໄຂອໍານວຍ ຫຼື ຂັດຂວາງການປະຕິບັດຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີການນໍາໃຊ້ຕາມແນວທາງ
ສັງຄົມ / ວັດທະນະທໍາ / ມາດຕະຖານ ແລະ ຄຸນຄ່າທາງສາສະໜາ
- ເຊື່ອງຊ້ອນ
traditional way of doing things/social resistance
Treatment through the SLM Approach: demonstration and dissemination of benefits
ມີຄວາມສາມາດ / ເຂັ້າເຖິງຊັບພະຍາກອນດ້ານການເງິນ ແລະ ການບໍລິການ
- ເຊື່ອງຊ້ອນ
Higher costs of harvesting (a small premium charged by contractors per tonne of green cane harvested).
Treatment through the SLM Approach: These costs are offset by lower tillage input, no costs associated with burning, and lower inputs of agrochemicals also.
ກ່ຽວກັບກົດໝາຍ (ສິດນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ, ສິດນໍາໃຊ້ນໍ້າ)
- ອໍານວຍ
- ເຊື່ອງຊ້ອນ
ຄວາມຮູ້ກ່ຽວກັບການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ, ການເຂົ້າເຖິງການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານວິຊາການ
- ເຊື່ອງຊ້ອນ
Harvesting machines at first were not so well able to cope with the greater biomass to be harvested.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Manufacturers developed higher capacity harvesters.
3. ການມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ແລະ ບົດບາດຂອງພາກສ່ວນທີ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງທີ່ໄດ້ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ
3.1 ຜູ້ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນວິທີທາງ ແລະ ພາລະບົດບາດ ຂອງເຂົາເຈົ້າ
- ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນໃນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ / ຊຸມຊົນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ
There is no difference between men and women in principle, though de facto most growers are male.
- ພະນັກງານຂັ້ນສູນກາງ (ຜູ້ວາງແຜນ, ຜູ້ສ້າງນະໂຍບາຍ)
politicians (govt. agencies)
- environmentalists
3.2 ການມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນໃນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ / ຊຸມຊົນທ້ອງຖິ່ນໃນໄລຍະທີ່ແຕກຕ່າງກັນຂອງແນວທາງ
ການລວບລວມ ເອົາຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໃນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ / ຊຸມຊົນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ | ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ຜູ້ໃດທີ່ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນແຕ່ລະກິດຈະກໍາ? | |
---|---|---|
ການເລີ່ມຕົ້ນ / ແຮງຈູງໃຈ | ການນໍາໃໍຊ້ເອງ | starting up the practice; starting up the practice of green cane trash blanket (GCTB) |
ການວາງແຜນ | ບໍ່ມີ | |
ການປະຕິບັດ | ການຮ່ວມມື | spreading the word; growers spreading the word, support by extension services |
ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ / ການປະເມີນຜົນ | ການຮ່ວມມື | growers joining hands with research; formal and informal disseminations of observations |
Research | ການຮ່ວມມື | growers joining hands with research. Quantifying benefits short, long term and downstream |
3.3 ແຜນວາດ (ຖ້າມີ)
ການອະທິບາຍ:
Institutional framework Inter-relationships between sugar cane growers and other stakeholders.
3.4 ການຕັດສິນໃຈກ່ຽວກັບການຄັດເລືອກເຕັກໂນໂລຢີຂອງການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ
ລະບຸ ຄົນທີ່ຕັດສິນໃຈ ກ່ຽວກັບການຄັດເລືອກຂອງ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ / ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ຈະໄດ້ຮັບການປະຕິບັດ:
- ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນຜູ້ດຽວ (ການລິເລີ່ມດ້ວຍຕົນເອງ)
ອະທິບາຍ:
sugar cane growers
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up)
4. ການສະໜັບສະໜູນທາງດ້ານວິຊາການ, ການສ້າງຄວາມສາມາດ, ແລະ ການຈັດການຄວາມຮູ້.
4.1 ການສ້າງຄວາມສາມາດ / ການຝຶກອົບຮົມ
ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ຫຼື ພາກສ່ວນກ່ຽວຂ້ອງອື່ນໆ ໄດ້ຮັບການຝຶກອົບຮົມບໍ່?
ບໍ່ແມ່ນ
4.2 ການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ
ເຮັດຜູ້ໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນມີການເຂົ້າເຖິງການບໍລິການໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ?
ແມ່ນ
ລະບຸວ່າການສະໜອງ ການບໍລິການ ໃຫ້ຄໍາປຶກສາ:
- ໃນພື້ນທີ່ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ
ອະທິບາຍ / ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:
Name of method used for advisory service: green cane trash blanket (GCTB) system; Key elements: visits, Field days, publications; (1) Advisory service was carried out through: Bureau of Sugar Experimental Stations (BSES).(2) Advisory service was carried out through: Bureau of Sugar Experimental Stations (BSES).
4.3 ສະຖາບັນການສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ (ການພັດທະນາອົງການຈັດຕັ້ງ)
ສະຖາບັນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສ້າງຕັ້ງຂື້ນ ຫຼື ໄດ້ຮັບການສ້າງຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງ ໂດຍການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງບໍ່?
- ບໍ່ມີ
4.4 ຕິດຕາມກວດກາ ແລະ ປະເມີນຜົນ
ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ ໄດ້ມີການປະເມີນຜົນ ແລະ ຕິດຕາມບໍ?
ແມ່ນ
ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:
Technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations
There were None changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Not applicable.
4.5 ການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ
ນີ້້ແມ່ນສ່ວນໜຶ່ງ ການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ ຂອງວິທີທາງບໍ່?
ແມ່ນ
ລະບຸ ຫົວຂໍ້:
- ເສດຖະສາດ / ການຕະຫຼາດ
- ລະບົບນິເວດ
- ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ
ໃຫ້ຂໍ້ມູນ ເພີ່ມເຕີມ ແລະ ກໍານົດ ຜູ້ໃດເຮັດການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ:
There has been some ad hoc research carried out on technical parameters by both the BSES as well as CSIRO.
5. ການສະໜັບສະໜູນທາງດ້ານການເງິນ ແລະ ອຸປະກອນຈາກພາຍນອກ
5.1 ງົບປະມານປະຈໍາປີ ສໍາລັບວິທີທາງ ຂອງການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ
ຄໍາເຫັນ (ຕົວຢ່າງ: ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນຫຼັກ ຂອງການສະໜອງທຶນ / ຜູ້ໃຫ້ທຶນທີ່ສໍາຄັນ):
Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national government, Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations): 20.0%; other (growers themselves): 80.0%
5.2 ການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ສະໜອງໃຫ້ແກ່ຜູ້ນໍາທີ່ດິນ
ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ທາງດ້ານ ການເງິນ / ອຸປະກອນ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີບໍ?
ແມ່ນ
ຖ້າແມ່ນ, ໃຫ້ລະບຸປະເພດ (ຫຼາຍ) ຂອງການສະໜັບສະໜູນ, ເງື່ອນໄຂ ແລະ ຜູູ້ສະໜອງ (ຫຼາຍ):
By government (national government, Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations)
5.3 ເງິນສົມທົບສໍາລັບການນໍາໃຊ້ສະເພາະປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າໃນການຜະລີດກະສິກໍາ (ລວມທັງແຮງງານ)
- ບໍ່ມີ
ຖ້າແຮງງານ ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ດິນ ໄດ້ຮັບການສະໜັບສະໜູນ ປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າ, ແມ່ນບໍ່:
- ການອາສາ
ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:
Farmers themselves provide labour
There are no subsidies connected to GCTB. Australia does not subsidise its sugar cane growers and sugar is sold at the world price.
5.4 ສິນເຊື່ອ
ໄດ້ປ່ອຍສິນເຊື່ອ ສະໜອງໃຫ້ພາຍໃຕ້ ວິທີການສໍາລັບກິດຈະກໍາ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນນຍົງບໍ່?
ບໍ່ແມ່ນ
6. ວິເຄາະຜົນກະທົບ ແລະ ສັງລວມບັນຫາ
6.1 ຜົນກະທົບຂອງແນວທາງ
ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ວິທີທາງ ສາມາດຊ່ວຍຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ແລະ ບໍາລຸງຮັກສາ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງໄດ້ບໍ?
- ບໍ່
- ມີ, ໜ້ອຍໜຶ່ງ
- ມີ, ພໍສົມຄວນ
- ມີ, ຫຼາຍ
Considerable: nutrient losses reduced, erosion reduced, organic matter built up, etc.
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
- ບໍ່
- ມີ, ໜ້ອຍໜຶ່ງ
- ມີ, ພໍສົມຄວນ
- ມີ, ຫຼາຍ
The 'triple bottom line' is probably active throughout Australia in influencing farmers??? decisions.
6.3 ຄວາມຍືນຍົງຂອງກິດຈະກໍາວິທີທາງ
ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ ທີ່ດິນ ສາມາດສືບຕໍ່ ການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ຜ່ານວິທີທາງໄດ້ບໍ່ (ໂດຍປາດສະຈາກ ການຊ່ວຍເຫຼືອ ຈາກພາກສ່ວນພາຍນອກ)?
- ແມ່ນ
ຖ້າ ໄດ້, ອະທິບາຍເຫດຜົນ:
By definition this is sustainable: it is an internal mechanism amongst farmers.
6.4 ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ ຂອງວິທີທາງ
ຈຸດແຂງ / ຈຸດດີ / ໂອກາດ ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ |
---|
Farmers take the responsibility of choosing a land management practice that has a positive 'triple bottom line': environmental, economic and social benefits. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Support awareness raising and give appreciation to the on-site and off-site benefits; acknowledge sugar produced under this system an environmentally friendly and economic product.) |
Has successfully stimulated the spread of the green cane trash blanket system. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Outsiders should continue to support farmers' multiple concerns.) |
Sugar cane growing has previously had a bad environmental and social reputation, especially here, close to the Great Barrier Reef, which is a World Heritage Site. This change in practice, resulting from the 'triple bottom line' has changed the reputation of sugar cane growers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Make this public.) |
6.5 ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍຂອງແນວທາງ ແລະ ວິທີການແກ້ໄຂໃຫ້ເຂົາເຈົ້າ
ຈຸດອ່ອນ ຫຼື ຂໍ້ເສຍ ຫຼື ຄວາມສ່ຽງ ໃນມຸມມອງຂອງ ຜູ້ສັງລວມຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບັນດາຜູ້ຕອບແບບສອບຖາມ | ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ? |
---|---|
The fact that farmers are responsive to environmental and social as well as economic stimuli is covered up by conventional thinking that 'only money matters to them'. | Investigation and documentation of the 'triple bottom line' is required. |
7. ເອກກະສານອ້າງອີງ ແລະ ຂໍ້ມູນການເຊື່ອມໂຍງ
7.1 ວິທີການ / ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນ
- ການໄປຢ້ຽມຢາມພາກສະໜາມ, ການສໍາຫຼວດພາກສະໜາມ
- ການສໍາພາດ ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ
ຂໍ້ມູນການເຊື່ອມຕໍ່ ແລະ ເນື້ອໃນ
ຂະຫຍາຍທັງໝົດ ຍຸບທັງໝົດການເຊື່ອມຕໍ່
ບໍ່ມີຂໍ້ມູນການເຊື່ອມຕໍ່
ເນື້ອໃນ
ບໍ່ມີເນື້ອໃນ