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

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

Quando os dados foram compilados (no campo)?

13/12/2013

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

Farmers are organized to promote adoption of sustainable land management best practices within the community

2.2 Descrição detalhada da abordagem

Descrição detalhada da abordagem:

Aims / objectives: To train farmers in land based technologies that improve productivity, land management and are resilient to climate changes

Methods: Planning meetings, agro-ecosystem analysis (AESA), farmer-to-farmer visits, monitoring and evaluation

Stages of implementation: Farmer Field School (FFS) formation to bring together 30 farmers from a catchment area; training in group dynamics; training in best practices to address land degradation problems; AESA; and action planning

Role of stakeholders: District facilitators: Facilitation of FFS formation, training of trainers for AESA, drawing village land use plans, prioritizing enterprises/challenges, making technical recommendations; Local leaders: Passing and implementing bye-laws.

2.5 País/região/locais onde a abordagem foi aplicada

2.6 Datas de início e término da abordagem

2.7 Tipo de abordagem

• Baseado em projeto/programa

2.8 Principais metas/objetivos da abordagem

The Approach focused on SLM only (Sustainable Land Management Farmer Cooperative)

To share knowledge, skills and information on establishment of local best practices to improve productivity and biodiversity and reduce soil erosion

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Low soil nutrient levels, vegetation loss and soil erosion on steep slopes

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	Participativo	FFS specialist facilitator with prospective FFS members to get farmers organized in FFS (30 members each)
Planejamento	Participativo	Farmers in their farmer field schools sketched watershed maps and developed action plans with the help of district facilitators
Implementação	Participativo	Facilitators helped FFS members in the dynamics that sustained and strengthened the Approach
Monitoramento/avaliação	Passivo	A few members were co-opted to the monitoring team which comprised local government facilitators, Kagera TAMP Project specialists and the central government Project Steering Committee
Research	Participativo	FFS members carried out Agro-ecosystem Analysis (AESA) with training and field support from specialists

3.4 Decisão sobre a seleção de tecnologia/tecnologias de GST

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

• Principalmente usuários da terra, apoiados por especialistas em GST

Explique:

The FFS concept and methodology were introduced to the farmers by SLM specialists. The decisions on technology choice were the result of discussions bf the farmers with support from the specialists.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Farmers in the FFS decided how to overcome constraints posed by their hilly terrain and high cost of labor

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

• Politicians/Policy Makers

Tipo de formação:

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

Assuntos abordados:

Extension Training: use of demonstration plots and AESA to experiment and discover the appropriate methodology for implementation of SLM technologies. A formal session involves a facilitator and farmers. The facilitator guides the farmers on how to investigate a problem using marker-drawn sketches on flip chart. Observations, conclusions and recommendations are reached in a participatory manner.
Extension: FFS members adopt a resolution to carry out the recommended procedures/activities; community members are free to interact with FFS members on field days and copy recommendations. Farmer-to-farmer visits are encouraged and promoted to extend information.
Research: FFS members research together on a given problem/challenge such as soil fertility and arrive at recommendations together. They are guided by facilitators from government or government research institutions with collaborative support from Kagera TAMP/FAO project.
Importance of land use rights: Ownership of land affects land management practices. The attitude towards the recommendation by farmers is usually determined by the FFS members. In Kagera TAMP districts land ownership is customary but the right to use land is governed by national laws.
Incentives:
Labor: Farmer Field School members provide the labor to implement technologies. Hired labor may also be used.
Inputs: Farmers provide the basic tools such as hoes, pick axe etc. Seedlings and seeds may be provided by the project.
Credit: Small amounts may be acquired from the FFS cooperative savings.

4.3 Fortalecimento da instituição (desenvolvimento organizacional)

As instituições foram fortalecidas ou estabelecidas através da abordagem?

• Sim, significativamente

Especifique a que nível (níveis) as instituições foram fortalecidas ou estabelecidas:

• Local

Especifique o tipo de apoio:

• Reforço das capacidades/formação
• Equipamento

Dê mais detalhes:

Training workshops in Sustainable Land Management (SLM) and Land Degradation Assessment (LADA) both national and international, seminars, and procurement and training in the use of computers, digital cameras and GPS units

4.4 Monitoramento e avaliação

Monitoramento e avaliação são partes da abordagem?

Sim

Comentários:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, soil nutrients, biodiversity

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, soil nutrients, biodiversity

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through observations; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, vigor

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, vigor

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through observations; indicators: Measure by attendance, morale

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: Measure by attendance, morale

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

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were None monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were None monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: FFS constantly refines and improves on what and how to achieve objectives, to discover and archive best practices in the most effective forms possible

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Height of stone lines, width between lines

4.5 Pesquisa

A pesquisa foi parte da abordagem?

Sim

Especifique os tópicos:

• Ecologia

Dê mais detalhes e indique quem realizou a pesquisa:

Agro-ecosystem Analysis (AESA) by FFS members

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Orçamento anual para o componente de GST da abordagem

Caso o orçamento exato seja desconhecido, indique a faixa:

• < 2.000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (Kagera TAMP): 18.95%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (District and Sub-county facilitator time): 11.14%; local community / land user(s) (Land users as FFS members): 69.91%

5.2 Apoio financeiro/material concedido aos usuários da terra

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

Não

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

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

• Voluntário

Comentários:

FFS members were facilitated with information and they carried out the approach without any financial or material support

5.4 Crédito

Foi concedido crédito segundo a abordagem para atividades de GST?

Não

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