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)

Book project: where the land is greener - Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Initiatives Worldwide (where the land is greener)

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

GEOTEST AG (GEOTEST AG) - Suíça

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

A project supported, incentive-based approach: farmers are sensitised about erosion, and involved in gully control and other measures to protect catchments.

2.2 Descrição detalhada da abordagem

Descrição detalhada da abordagem:

Aims / objectives: The objective of the locally-based organisation Programa de Manejo Integral de Cuencas (PROMIC) is to involve land users in the control of soil erosion in the catchments above Cochabamba city. While erosion here is largely a natural process, it is aggravated by inappropriate agricultural practices. PROMIC receives funds from national and international governments, and works in an interactive manner. Together with local farmers, erosion processes in the context of the human environment were analysed to identify the needs of the agriculture population - and to plan a conservation and development programme. The aim was to convince farmers of the necessity to protect their agricultural land and stabilise the gullies below, and of the overall importance of implementing technologies to combat erosion.

Role of stakeholders: The farmers were involved in the process through regular community meetings organised by PROMIC, in which they could adjust PROMIC's catchment intervention plans to their own requirements through an interactive process. PROMIC considered that the sensitisation work and the interactive process were essential to ensure long-term sustainable land use. In the short term, however, it will be mainly the city downstream - Cochabamba - that benefits from the implementation of the erosion control technologies. For that reason, the farmers were paid to carry out construction of the measures (through 'cash-for-work'). The farmers should, however, profit from the technologies in the long term. They were taught how to build and maintain check dams, cut-off drains and biotrampas. The implementation in the watershed started in 1996 and took six years: when the implementation phase was over, farmers no longer received financial subsidies. The long period of sensitisation should help to ensure that farmers incorporate erosion prevention technologies into their cropland above the gullies. PROMIC still monitors the state of the structures from time to time, but most of the maintenance is left to the farmers themselves. PROMIC continues, however, to provide technical support and some transport of materials. Both internal and external evaluation followed the end of the implementation phase.

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

• Baseado em projeto/programa

2.8 Principais metas/objetivos da abordagem

- teach farmers about sustainable land use, - build up skills amongst farmers to enable them to treat gullies without outside help, - reduce flooding and sedimentation in the valley of Cochabamba and general soil loss in the area through collaboration with farmers in the watershed, - improve traditional agriculture with a package of conservation-related practices, - indirectly support farmers by cash-for-work incentives which enables them to implement SWC technologies on their own fields

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - lack of knowledge about damage caused by erosion and benefits of various possible conservation technologies, - lack of financial resources: shortage of funds prevents farmers investing in technologies, even if these bring benefits to them (as well as to the downstream population), - persistence of detrimental traditional agricultural practices, leading to accelerated degradation

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	Passivo	interviews/questionnaires, information during regular meetings, entrevistas / cuestionarios
Planejamento	Participativo	results of the socio-economic diagnosis defined the planning; farmers were involved through regular meetings: interactive planning at individual and community level
Implementação	Apoio externo	None
Monitoramento/avaliação	Passivo	interviews/questionnaires; internal and external evaluations where farmers were interviewed
Research	Passivo	socio-economic diagnosis; collection and analysis of bio-physical baseline data

3.3 Fluxograma (se disponível)

3.4 Decisão sobre a seleção de tecnologia/tecnologias de GST

Foram tomadas decisões quanto à seleção de tecnologia(s):

• Made by specialised engineers of PROMIC

Explique:

farmers were involved by modifying initially proposed technologies.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by Made by specialised engineers of PROMIC

4.1 Reforço das capacidades/formação

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

Sim

Tipo de formação:

• Em exercício

Assuntos abordados:

The approach included training on technical aspects and on long-term planning for sustainable land use. Some farmers were trained to become foremen - who in turn instructed other farmers. During the construction period PROMIC project staff trained farmers on the job in soil conservation practices.

4.2 Serviço de consultoria

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

Sim

Especifique se foi oferecido serviço de consultoria:

• nas áreas dos usuários da terra

Descreva/comentários:

Name of method used for advisory service: participatory planning of gully treatment; Key elements: making farmers aware of the environmental and economic necessity for the technology, interactive planning of technology implementation at individual and community levels

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:

• Reforço das capacidades/formação

4.4 Monitoramento e avaliação

Monitoramento e avaliação são partes da abordagem?

Sim

Comentários:

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The approach was to initially target groups. Later, individuals were included (with individual farmer-family visits) to improve the effectiveness of the awareness raising and the implementation.

4.5 Pesquisa

A pesquisa foi parte da abordagem?

Sim

Especifique os tópicos:

• Sociologia
• Ecologia
• Tecnologia

• S

Dê mais detalhes e indique quem realizou a pesquisa:

Research was done on 1)SWC (testing different measures), 2)various soil parameters, and 3) a socio-economic survey. Research was an important part, not only for planning (based on biophysical and socio-economic data), but also to stay in contact with the rural population and to obtain their confidence. Thanks to the research, the technology is well adapted to the biophysical conditions.

5.1 Orçamento anual para o componente de GST da abordagem

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national): 20.0%; international non-government: 80.0%

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)

• Mão-de-obra

• Equipamento

• Agrícola

• Infraestrutura

• Outro

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

• Pago em dinheiro

Comentários:

100% of the implementation was subsidised. Farmers were contracted to build the structures

5.4 Crédito

Foi concedido crédito segundo a abordagem para atividades de GST?

Não

6.1 Impactos da abordagem

6.3 Atividades de sustentabilidade de abordagem

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

• Incerto

6.4 Pontos fortes/vantagens da abordagem

Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades na visão do compilador ou de outra pessoa capacitada
Good technical support during and after conclusion of the implementation phase (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Technical support not enough on its own - needs to be complemented by further sensitisation.)
Sensitisation of the farmers to erosion and degradation processes, and awareness creation about the impact and necessity of SWC in the hills to protect the valleys (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continued sensitisation work after the implementation phase.)
Transparent process during research, planning and implementation phases; incorporation of farmers' ideas (thus: good acceptance of PROMIC by the rural population).
Integration of farmers in the process of implementation of soil conservation. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Farmers need to be even more integrated in the process of monitoring to guarantee the maintenance of the soil conservation achieved.)

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?
Farmers implementing SWC are not those benefiting most from the impact in the short term; even though the city of Cochabamba benefits considerably, financial support for implementation has stopped	Seek financial support from Cochabamba; implement a system of payment for environmental services
Lack of money for replication and long-term maintenance of SWC measures	Guarantee financial support in the threatened area, by the local government and international organisations.
Sensitisation phase (for farmers and government) was too short to ensure sustained application of the technology without external support and supply. Established structures are often neglected and thus deteriorate	Find new donors to continue the training/awareness raising on SWC technologies. Include the farmers in the monitoring visits and demonstrate examples of successful SWC (positive stimuli).

7.1 Métodos/fontes de informação

7.2 Referências às publicações disponíveis

Título, autor, ano, ISBN:

PROMIC documentation

Disponível de onde? Custos?

Mooseggstrasse 9, 3550 Langnau, Switzerland; geoheim@bluewin.ch