1.2 Арга барилыг баримтжуулах болон үнэлгээ хийхэд оролцсон хүн эсвэл байгууллагын холбоо барих хаяг

Арга барилыг баримтжуулах/үнэлэх ажилд дэмжлэг үзүүлсэн байгууллага(ууд)-ын нэр (шаардлагатай бол)

Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environme (Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environme) - Норвег

1.3 WOCAT-аар баримтжуулсан өгөгдлийг ашиглахтай холбоотой нөхцөл

Мэдээллийг хэзээ (газар дээр нь) цуглуулсан бэ?

25/02/2015

Эмхэтгэгч болон гол мэдээлэгч хүн(хүмүүс) WOCAT аргачлалаар баримтжуулсан мэдээллийг ашиглахтай холбоотой нөхцлийг хүлээн зөвшөөрсөн.

Тийм

1.4 ГТМ-ийн технологийн асуулгын(д) суурь мэдээлэл(д)

2.1 Арга барилын товч тодорхойлолт

Regulations and financial grants for reduction of pollution and promotion of the cultural landscape.

2.2 Арга барилын дэлгэрэнгүй тодорхойлолт

Арга барилын дэлгэрэнгүй тодорхойлолт :

Aims / objectives: The Regional Environmental Program (RMP) is a part of the Regional Rural Development Program provided by County Governors, in this case the County Governors of Østfold and Akershus. The programs differ somewhat between counties and the one for Østfold is used as an example here. The program aims to target environmental efforts in the agricultural sector, mainly focusing on
agricultural runoff, reduced usage of pesticides, cultural landscapes, biological diversity, cultural monuments and environments, outdoor recreation and availability. Measures related to reduction of runoff from agricultural land to waterbodies has resent years been given the highest priority, and the greatest part of the financial grants. Improvement of soil structure to maintain soil functions and prevention of soil loss and nutrient leaching, are some of the main goals of the approach.


Methods: Management plans and local regulations for different catchments are implemented through the Regional Environmental Program. Funds to finance measures are provided from both this program and other sources, such as the Grant Scheme for Special Agricultural Environmental Measures (SMIL). The latter is allocated by the County Governor and managed by local municipalities. In order to receive production subsidies the land users have to carry out the regulation measures. In areas of
prioritized watercourses the soil tillage regulations are stricter, and the financial support higher. Around especially vulnerable waterbodies the measures are compulsory. Agricultural areas are classified by their susceptibility to water erosion (four erosion risk classes), with different soil management requirements. High erosion risk classes normally provide higher grant rates.


Stages of implementation: The Regional Environmental Program was first introduced in 2005, followed by a rollover in 2009. It
was at the agricultural settlement in 2012 decided to continue the program in the same path as settled in 2004/2005, with improvements from the evaluation in 2007/2008 and 2011. The County Governor continues the ongoing work of targeting the economical funds to measures of high environmental benefit. The Regional Environmental Program is also influenced by guidelines from the National Environmental Program of 2013-2016. Random controls are carried out and falsely reported measures lead to reduction and repayment of production grants.


Role of stakeholders: The farmers are mainly conducting the measures by changing their land use practices, but the Regional
Environmental Program is developed in collaboration between municipalities, the county, the Farmers’ Organization, industry, and the County Governor. The measures are revised annually, mainly based on inputs from the Farmers’ Organization and the municipality. Other measures are included by the Regional Environmental Program than shown in the QT (Grass Covered Riparian Buffer Strips and Reduced Tillage), but these were evaluated to be less relevant for the prevention of soil loss.


Other important information: Other measures are included by the Regional Environmental Program than shown in the QT (Grass Covered Riparian Buffer Strips and Reduced Tillage), but these were evaluated to be less relevant for the prevention of soil loss.

For more information: http://www.fylkesmannen.no/en/Ostfold/Agriculture-and-food/Environmental-measures/Tilskudd-til-regionale-miljotiltak-RMP-2014/ (In Norwegian only)

Regional regulations: https://lovdata.no/dokument/JB/forskrift/2011-06-01-716?q=morsa

2.3 Арга барилын зурагууд

2.5 Арга барил нэвтрүүлсэн улс орон / бүс нутаг / байршил

2.6 Арга барилыг эхлэх, дуусах огноо

2.7 Арга барилын төрөл

• төсөл / хөтөлбөр дээр үндэслэсэн

2.8 Арга барилын үндсэн зорилго, зорилтууд

The Approach focused on SLM only

Target the environmental initiatives and provide increased visibility.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Agricultural runoff and erosion, usage of pesticides, degradation of cultural landscapes, loss of biological diversity, degradation of cultural monuments and environments, decreased availability to outdoor recreational areas.

2.9 Арга барилын хүрээнд хэрэгжсэн Технологи/Технологиудад дэмжсэн эсвэл саад учруулсан нөхцлүүд

3.1 Арга барилд оролцогч талууд болон тэдгээрийн үүргүүд

3.2 Арга барилын янз бүрийн үе шатанд орон нутгийн газар ашиглагчид / бүлэглэлүүдийг татан оролцуулах

	Орон нутгийн газар ашиглагч / орон нутгийн иргэдийн оролцоо	Хэн оролцсоныг тодорхойлж, үйл ажиллагааг тайлбарлана уу
санаачлага/идэвхжүүлэлт	идэвхигүй	Regulations initiated by politicians and management, governed by the Agricultural Authority
Төлөвлөгөө	идэвхигүй	Involvement of specialists
Хэрэгжилт	Гадаад дэмжлэг	Changes in land use practices implemented by land users
Мониторинг/ үнэлгээ	идэвхигүй	Monitoring and evaluation of measures by specialists and management
Research	идэвхигүй	Results evaluated and reported by specialists

3.3 Диаграм (хэрэв боломжтой бол)

3.4 ГТМ-ийн технологи/технологиуд сонгох шийдвэр

Хэрэгжүүлэх Технологи/Технологиудын сонголтыг хийж шийдвэр гаргасан хүнийг тодорхойлно уу:

• ГТМ-ийн мэргэжилтэн дангаараа

Тайлбар :

The choice of SLM Technology was made on the basis of recommendations from specialists.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by politicians / leaders. Decisions on the method were made on county and management level.

4.1 Чадавхи бэхжүүлэх/сургалт

Газар эзэмшигчид / бусад оролцогч талуудад сургалт явуулсан уу?

Тийм

Хэн сургалтанд хамрагдсан бэ:

• Газар ашиглагчид
• хээрийн ажилтан / зөвлөх

Сургалтын хэлбэр :

• Ажил дээр

4.2 Зөвлөх үйлчилгээ

Газар ашиглагчдад зөвлөх үйлчилгээ авах боломжтой байдаг уу?

Тийм

• Through information

Тодорхойлолт / тайлбар:

Name of method used for advisory service: Guidelines and circulars from the County Governor; Key elements: Information, Guidance, Environmental standards

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Requires land conservation measures for disbursement of subsidies.

4.3 Институцийг бэхжүүлэх (байгууллагын хөгжил)

Арга барилаар дамжуулан институц байгуулагдаж эсвэл бэхжсэн үү?

• Үгүй

4.4 Мониторинг ба үнэлгээ

Мониторинг болон үнэлгээ нь арга барилын хэсэг үү?

Тийм

Тайлбар:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Landslides

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by other through measurements; indicators: P content in soil, water quality, runoff

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Infiltration rate/soil compaction

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through observations; indicators: Production rate, increase/decrease in income

area treated aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: Evaluation of measures

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

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: None

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Annual revision

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Evaluation and modification proposals in progress

4.5 Судалгаа

Судалгаа арга барилын хэсэг нь байсан уу?

Тийм

Сэдвийг тодруулна уу:

• Технологи

Дэлгэрэнгүй мэдээллийг өгч, хэн судалгаа явуулсныг бичнэ үү:

Research of the effectiveness of the technologies have been carried out and discussed with land users and management.

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 ГТМ-ийн Арга барилын бүрэлдэхүүн хэсгийн жилийн төсөв

Хэрэв жилийн төсөв тодорхойгүй бол хягаарыг тодруулна уу:

• > 1,000,000

Тайлбар (жнь: санхүүжилтийн гол эх үүсвэр / гол хандивлагчид):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Regional level): 100.0%

5.2 Газар ашиглагчдад санхүүгийн / материаллаг дэмжлэг үзүүлсэн

Технологи / технологийг хэрэгжүүлэхэд газар ашиглагчид санхүүгийн / материаллаг дэмжлэг авсан уу?

Тийм

Хэрэв тийм бол дэмжлэгийн төрөл(үүд), нөхцөл, болон нийлүүлэгч(чид) бичнэ үү:

Contributions were provided by the state from the Regional Environmental Program and other sources as the Grant Scheme for Special Agricultural Environmental Measures (SMIL).

5.3 Тодорхой зардлыг даахад чиглэсэн дэмжлэгт (хөдөлмөрийн хүчийг оролцуулаад)

Хэрэв газар ашиглагчийн хөдөлмөрийн хүч чухал байсан бол энэ нь аль хэлбэр байсан:

• бэлэн мөнгөөр төлдөг

Тайлбар:

Economical benefits for the land user to implement measures and loss if they reject, according to local regulations.

5.4 Кредит

Арга барилын хүрээнд ГТМ-ийн үйл ажиллагаанд зориулж зээлд хамрагдсан уу?

Үгүй

6.1 Арга барилын нөлөөллүүд

6.2 ГТМ-ийг хэрэгжүүлэх газар ашиглагчидын гол санаачилга

6.3 Арга барилын үйл ажиллагааны тогтвортой байдал

Газар ашиглагчид арга барилаар дамжуулан хэрэгжүүлсэн арга хэмжээг тогтвортой хадгалж чадах уу (гадны дэмжлэггүйгээр)?

• Үгүй

Хэрэв үгүй эсвэл тодорхойгүй бол дэлгэрэнгүй тайлбар өгнө үү:

Production and income loss.

6.4 Арга барилын тогтвортой/давуу тал/боломжууд

Эмхэтгэгч, бусад мэдээлэл өгсөн хүмүүсийн өнцгөөс тодорхойлсон давуу тал/боломжууд
Good guidance and free maps for land users available on the internet
Annual repport (both strength and weekness)
Financial grants graded by erosion risk classes
Regular evaluation through agricultural negotiations (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: A management committee has recently suggested simplifications to the program, but this has not yet been evaluated by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture)

6.5 Арга барилын дутагдалтай/сул тал/аюул болон тэдгээрийн хэрхэн даван туулах арга замууд

Эмхэтгэгч, бусад мэдээлэл өгсөн хүмүүсийн өнцгөөс тодорхойлсон сул тал/ дутагдал/ эрсдэл	Тэдгээрийг хэрхэн даван туулах вэ?
Complicated system with a variety of details	There is a group who is working on a report to the ministry on how to simplify the program

7.1 Мэдээллийн эх үүсвэр/аргууд