1.2 Detalhes do contato das pessoas capacitadas e instituições envolvidas na avaliação e documentação da abordagem

Nome da(s) instituição(ões) que facilitou(ram) a documentação/avaliação da Abordagem (se relevante)

Soil Conservation Service of Iceland (Soil Conservation Service of Iceland) - Islândia

1.3 Condições em relação ao uso da informação documentada através de WOCAT

O compilador e a(s) pessoa(s) capacitada(s) aceitam as condições relativas ao uso de dados documentados através do WOCAT:

Sim

1.4 Referência ao(s) questionário(s) sobre tecnologias da GST

2.1 Descrição curta da abordagem

Collaboration between farmers and a governmental institute on rangeland restoration and improved land management

2.2 Descrição detalhada da abordagem

Descrição detalhada da abordagem:

Aims / objectives: FHL is a governmental cost-sharing programme operated by the SCSI and run at national level. The FHL programme has been ongoing since 1990. It started as an experimental programme in Northeast Iceland, but couple of years later it was extended nationwide. It builds on voluntary participation of farmers who want to restore damaged rangelands in the lowland. The programme was established foremost to ease cooperation and strengthen social bonds between the SCSI and sheep farmers. Nevertheless, increased rangeland restoration and improved grazing management were also key targets underpinning the establishment of the FHL initiative, and formed the backbone of its prime policy.

Methods: The FHL programme is run by the Soil Conservation Service of Iceland (SCSI) and targets large-scale rangeland restoration, primarily among sheep farmers. The programme builds on voluntary approaches and uses direct and indirect incentives to motivate its participants. Farmers who want to participate apply for membership of the SCSI. The SCSI evaluates the condition of potential restoration areas and decides if they meet requirements. Each participant receives, annually, a fixed subsidy to purchase fertilizer and if needed, commercial grass seeds. Participants in the FHL project are visited approximately biannually by a regional SCSI advisor that estimates the restoration progress, discusses next steps and consults the participants on rangeland management related issues. Usually, each restoration area is treated for a couple of years before it is considered to have passed the first level of the restoration process. The restoration areas are mapped, and based on the maps participants asked to make a 3-5 year long implementation plan.

Role of stakeholders: As land stewardship plays a vital role in this programme, the role of the primary stakeholders (the farmers) is fundamental. They indeed drive the programme, although they get professional guidance and support from the extension offices of the SCSI. They are responsible for all implementation and land management on a local scale, within their own holdings.

Other important information: no further information

2.3 Fotos da abordagem

2.5 País/região/locais onde a abordagem foi aplicada

2.6 Datas de início e término da abordagem

2.7 Tipo de abordagem

• Iniciativa/inovação local recente

2.8 Principais metas/objetivos da abordagem

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (rangeland restoration, sustainable land management, participatory approaches, stakeholder involvement)

To improve the ecological condition of the degraded rangelands for future generations. To facilitate behavioral changes toward more sustainable rangeland management.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The main problems to be addressed by the approach were severe soil and vegetation degradation that substantially reduced biomass productivity, lack of financial support and local advisory system

2.9 Condição que propiciam ou inibem a implementação de tecnologia/tecnologias aplicada(s) segundo a abordagem

3.1 Partes interessadas envolvidas na abordagem e seus papéis

3.2 Envolvimento do usuários de terra/comunidades locais nas diferentes fases da abordagem

	Envolvimento do usuários de terra/comunidades locais	Especifique quem estava envolvido e descreva as atividades
Iniciação/motivação	Automobilização
Planejamento	Participativo
Implementação	Automobilização
Monitoramento/avaliação	Passivo
Research	Nenhum

3.4 Decisão sobre a seleção de tecnologia/tecnologias de GST

Especifique quem decidiu sobre a seleção de tecnologia/tecnologias a serem implementadas:

• Principalmente especialistas em GST, após consulta com usuários da terra

Explique:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists

4.1 Reforço das capacidades/formação

Foi oferecida formação aos usuários da terra/outras partes interessadas?

Sim

Especifique quem foi capacitado:

• Usuários de terra
• Equipe de campo/consultores

• Researchers

Tipo de formação:

• Em exercício
• Agricultor para agricultor
• Áreas de demonstração
• Reuniões públicas
• Cursos

Tipo de formação:

• local advisors that visit/contact all participants

Assuntos abordados:

E.g. the role of ecosystem services for human well-being, ecosystem resilience and natural hazards, the importance of proper grazing management and the importance of merging local and external knowledge to secure more effective long-term social-ecological progress.

4.2 Serviço de consultoria

Os usuários de terra têm acesso a um serviço de consultoria?

Sim

Descreva/comentários:

Advisory service is very adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.4 Monitoramento e avaliação

Monitoramento e avaliação são partes da abordagem?

Sim

Comentários:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: visual estimation

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through measurements; indicators: Researchers of the SCSI

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Researchers in collaboration with the SCSI

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through measurements; indicators: Researchers in collaboration with the SCSI

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through observations

area treated aspects were monitored by project staff through observations

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Reduced amount of fertilizer and seed when restoration areas are treated

4.5 Pesquisa

A pesquisa foi parte da abordagem?

Sim

Especifique os tópicos:

• Sociologia
• Ecologia

Dê mais detalhes e indique quem realizou a pesquisa:

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5.1 Orçamento anual para o componente de GST da abordagem

Caso o orçamento exato seja desconhecido, indique a faixa:

• 100.000-1.000.000

Comentários (p. ex. principais fontes de recursos/principais doadores):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government: 78.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc): 2.0%; local community / land user(s): 20.0%

5.2 Apoio financeiro/material concedido aos usuários da terra

Os usuários da terra receberam apoio financeiro/material para a implementação de tecnologia/tecnologias?

Sim

5.3 Subsídios para entradas específicas (incluindo mão-de-obra)

• Agrícola

Se a mão-de-obra pelos usuários da terra foi uma entrada substancial, isso foi:

• Voluntário

Comentários:

Voluntary but also subsidies for purchasing inorganic fertilizer

6.1 Impactos da abordagem

6.2 Principal motivação dos usuários da terra para implementar a GST

6.3 Atividades de sustentabilidade de abordagem

Os usuários da terra podem manter o que foi implementado através da abordagem (sem apoio externo)?

• Sim

6.4 Pontos fortes/vantagens da abordagem

Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades na visão do compilador ou de outra pessoa capacitada
Builds up trust between farmers and governmental officials. Awareness raising and can facilitate discussions on improved rangeland management

6.5 Pontos fracos, desvantagens da tecnologia e formas de superá-los

Pontos fracos/vantagens/riscos na visão do compilador ou de outra pessoa capacitada	Como eles podem ser superados?
governement pays the most	awareness rising farmers to restore the land
government has to trust that the farmer is doing the job	checking in the field (but number of used material difficult to count afterwards und the right time in the spring)

7.1 Métodos/fontes de informação