1.2 Контактные данные специалистов и организаций, участвующих в описании и оценке Подхода

Название проекта, содействовавшего документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

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

Название организации (-ий), содействовавших документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

Rwanda Agriculture Board (Rwanda Agriculture Board) - Руанда

Название организации (-ий), содействовавших документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO Food and Agriculture Organization) - Италия

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

01/01/2011

Составитель и ответственный/-ые специалист(-ы) согласны с условиями, регламентирующими использование собранных ВОКАТ данных:

Да

1.4 Ссылка (-и) на Анкету (-ы) по Технологиям УЗП

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

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

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

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 Фотографии, иллюстрирующие Подход

2.5 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход

2.6 Даты начала и окончания реализации Подхода

2.7 Тип Подхода

• government based

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

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 Условия содействующие применению Технологии/ Технологий в рамках Подхода или затрудняющие его

3.1 Заинтересованные стороны, участвующие в реализации Подхода и их роли

3.2 Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ на разных стадиях реализации Подхода

	Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ	Перечислите участников и опишите их вовлеченность
инициирование/ мотивация	нет
планирование	нет
выполнение	интерактивное	Land users and local authorities work together to get to greater result.
мониторинг/ оценка	интерактивное	Land users are in daily interaction with Sector Agronomist who is in charge of all agricultural activities in the sector.
Research	нет

3.3 Схема реализации (если имеется)

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

Укажите, кто принимал решение по выбору применяемой Технологии/ Технологий:

• исключительно специалисты по УЗП

Поясните:

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 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Нет

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Описание/ комментарий:

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

4.3 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

В ходе реализации Подхода были ли организованы новые институциональные структуры или поддержаны уже существующие?

• да, умеренно

Укажите уровень, на котором структуры были укреплены или вновь созданы:

• местные

Укажите тип поддержки:

• финансовая
• повышение компетенций/ обучение

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

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 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Нет

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

Если точный годовой бюжет неизвестен, укажите примерный диапазон затрат:

• 100 000-1 000 000

Комментарий (например, основные источники финансирования/ ключевые доноры):

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 Финансирование и внешняя материальная поддержка, предоставляемая землепользователям

Предоставлялась ли землепользователям финансовая/ материальная поддержка для применения Технологии /Технологий?

Да

Если да, укажите тип(-ы) поддержки, кто ее предоставил и условия предоставления:

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

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

• сельскохозяйственные

• строительные материалы

Если труд землепользователя был существенным вкладом, укажите, был ли этот вклад:

• добровольный

Комментарии:

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

5.4 Кредитование

Предоставлялись ли в рамках Подхода кредиты на мероприятия УЗП?

Нет

6.1 Влияние Подхода

6.2 Основные причины, побуждающие землепользователей внедрять УЗП

6.3 Долгосрочная устойчивость мероприятий в рамках Подхода

Могут ли землепользователи самостоятельно (без внешней поддержки) продолжать применение того, что было реализовано в рамках Подхода?

• нет уверенности

Если нет или нет уверенности, объясните почему:

It require a strong follow up

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
It help farmers to work together for a common issue. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continuous sensitization )

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
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 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
lack of strong link in the farmers association and cooperatives	continuous sensitization

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
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 Методы сбора/источники информации