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

Nome do projeto que facilitou a documentação/avaliação da Abordagem (se relevante)

The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )

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

Rwanda Agriculture Board (Rwanda Agriculture Board) - Ruanda

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

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Itália

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

Quando os dados foram compilados (no campo)?

01/01/2011

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

Sim

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

2.1 Descrição curta da abordagem

This is a top down approach to technology development and dissemination with limited involvement of intended beneficiaries.

2.2 Descrição detalhada da abordagem

Descrição detalhada da abordagem:

Aims / objectives: The objective of the top down approach is to assign the state a crucial role to drive a designed rural development and land management master plan that needs people to implement it.

To bring farmers together to address an identified problem such as to improve the socio economic situation of rural areas, to prevent , to conserve and to rehabilitate on-site damages caused by land degradation and erosion.

Methods: The top down approach here refers to the level of farmer participation in relation to shared decision making when establishing bench terraces/soil conservation practices in Rwanda. The focus being particularly on the role of farmers in the decision making process during two major phases of the process of terrace construction including: (1) when and where to construct bench terraces in communities and the criteria for site and beneficiary selection. The level of farmer participation and decision sharing have the potential of in increasing the ownership of the of the existing or future bench terraces, hence to ensure its sustainability. Recent studies assert that most of the terraces that are constructed are supply driven and that farmers do not participate in the decisions regarding where and when to construct them. When farmers do participate, it is mostly only through some consultation and their own efforts to mobilize collective labor for the construction of the terraces.

Stages of implementation: Stage one comprises the analysis of current or initial adoption decisions of soil conservation practices, while stage two assesses farmers’ ability to continue the use of these practices. Stage three analyses future adoption proxied by farmers’ willingness to uptake more soil conservation practices.

Role of stakeholders: The state plays a prime role in bench terraces development and the role of other stakeholders (e.g. extension agents, farmer associations) is marginal. Farmer associations involvement is is limited to mobilizing labor and, sometimes, to identifying land for terracing. Extension agencies/services are involved in providing advice to individual farmers or farmers grouped in cooperatives. Community representatives, whom are members of the farmers’ cooperatives themselves, are trained to provide additional support and advice to farmers.

Other important information: This SLM approach argues for a role of the state with top-down and coercive measures in the development of soil conservation practices, particularly bench terraces. Currently there is a two pronged approach based on the realization that bench terraces are ready made constructions which require substantial financial and institutional investments. Mustering labor and resources for the construction and maintenance of bench terraces remains a key aspect of the state’s conservation drive. State-farmer relationships, therefore, continue to be essential to soil conservation efforts in Rwanda and to bench terrace construction in particular.

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

• government based

2.8 Principais metas/objetivos da abordagem

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Increase soil fertility, good practices of land management in general)

To raise awareness to land users for a particular problem and involve them to get to the right solution

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: low agricultural production due to a poor agriculture practice and lack of technical knowledge by farmers

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	Nenhum
Planejamento	Nenhum
Implementação	Participativo	Land users and local authorities work together to get to greater result.
Monitoramento/avaliação	Participativo	Land users are in daily interaction with Sector Agronomist who is in charge of all agricultural activities in the sector.
Research	Nenhum

3.3 Fluxograma (se disponível)

3.4 Decisão sobre a seleção de tecnologia/tecnologias de GST

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

• Somente especialistas em GST

Explique:

Decisions were made in the ministry of agriculture after consultation of researchers.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by politicians / leaders. Politicians have decided the way of implementation through community work known as UMUGANDA

4.1 Reforço das capacidades/ formação

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

Não

4.2 Serviço de consultoria

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

Sim

Descreva/comentários:

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

4.3 Fortalecimento da instituição (desenvolvimento organizacional)

As instituições foram fortalecidas ou estabelecidas através da abordagem?

• Sim, moderadamente

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

• Local

Especifique o tipo de apoio:

• Financeiro
• Reforço das capacidades/ formação

4.4 Monitoramento e avaliação

Monitoramento e avaliação são partes da abordagem?

Sim

Comentários:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: local leadres

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: local agronomist

technical aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: local agronomist

technical aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: local agronomist

socio-cultural aspects were None monitored by government through observations; indicators: local leaders

area treated aspects were None monitored by government through observations; indicators: local agronomist

area treated aspects were None monitored by government through measurements; indicators: all person of 18 years and above are involved

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

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

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

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

4.5 Pesquisa

A pesquisa foi parte da abordagem?

Não

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 (planing): 20.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (sensitization and follow up): 25.0%; local community / land user(s) (implimentation): 55.0%

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

Caso afirmativo, especifique tipo(s) de apoio, condições e fornecedor(es):

inputs (seeds, fertilizers, etc..) provided by the Government

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

• Agrícola

• Construção

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

• Voluntário

Comentários:

After the sensitization by local leaders, activities are done voluntarily or with food-for-work by farmers.

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)?

• Incerto

Caso negativo ou incerto, especifique e comente:

It require a strong follow up

6.4 Pontos fortes/vantagens da abordagem

Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades na visão do usuário da terra
It help farmers to work together for a common issue. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuous sensitization )

Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades na visão do/a compilador/a ou de outra pessoa capacitada
Improvement of livelihoods (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuous sensitization)
farmers are getting benefits, as it has a direct impact in increasing the soil productivity and improve workability of the land (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuous sensitization )
the approach helped to establish SLM measures which reduced soil erosion and improve soil quality (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuous sensitization)

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

Pontos fracos/desvantagens/riscos na visão do usuário da terra	Como eles podem ser superados?
lack of strong link in the farmers association and cooperatives	continuous sensitization

Pontos fracos/vantagens/riscos na visão do/a compilador/a ou de outra pessoa capacitada	Como eles podem ser superados?
High costs: farmers depend on external support from the government, they are not willing to invest their labour without payments.	To make the working time as short as possible for the community work so that farmer can plan other income activities after this.
lack of land users participation in the design and planing	involve all stakeholders

7.1 Métodos/fontes de informação