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

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

13/12/2013

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

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

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

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 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход

2.6 Даты начала и окончания реализации Подхода

2.7 Тип Подхода

• в рамках проекта/ программы

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

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 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	интерактивное	FFS specialist facilitator with prospective FFS members to get farmers organized in FFS (30 members each)
планирование	интерактивное	Farmers in their farmer field schools sketched watershed maps and developed action plans with the help of district facilitators
выполнение	интерактивное	Facilitators helped FFS members in the dynamics that sustained and strengthened the Approach
мониторинг/ оценка	пассивное	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	интерактивное	FFS members carried out Agro-ecosystem Analysis (AESA) with training and field support from specialists

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

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

• в основном землепользователи при поддержке специалистов по УЗП

Поясните:

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 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи
• местный персонал/консультанты

• Politicians/Policy Makers

Тип обучения:

• в ходе работы
• обмен опытом между фермерами
• опытные участки
• общие собрания

Рассматриваемые темы:

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 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

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

• да, существенно

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

• местные

Укажите тип поддержки:

• повышение компетенций/ обучение
• оборудование

Подробнее:

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 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

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 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

Укажите темы исследований:

• экология

Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

Agro-ecosystem Analysis (AESA) by FFS members

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

Если точный годовой бюжет неизвестен, укажите примерный диапазон затрат:

• < 2000

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

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 Финансирование и внешняя материальная поддержка, предоставляемая землепользователям

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

Нет

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

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

• добровольный

Комментарии:

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

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?

• да