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

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

Local Agricultural Research and Extension Centre (LAREC) - Камбоджа

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

Society for Community Development in Cambodia (SOFDEC) - Камбоджа

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

CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Швейцария

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

25/06/2014

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

Model farms were introduced by a NGO in order to spread knowledge about SLM (compost, System of Rice Intensification SRI, and other technologies) in the project area.

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

Aims / objectives: Model farms were introduced to Kampong Chhnang Province in order to spread knowledge about SLM Technologies.

Methods: The Approach focuses on various areas of farming, and the model farms are clustered into 4 groups:

1. Compost and System of Rice Intensification focus on rice productivity and soil improvement.
2. SLT (Seasonal Long Training) – growing techniques for different crops, seedling germination, care taking, harvesting, etc.
3. INTEREST – focus on different crops which are mixed, crop rotation (rice-watermelon-corn, e.g.), mulching, cover cropping.
4. Cow raising model farmers – focus on fodder production, vaccination, supplementary feed for the cows, stable construction.
In this case study, the model farmer applies the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) and compost (cluster 1).

Stages of implementation: Becoming a model farmer consists of different steps. First, different land users who dispose of the required inputs (certain amount of land, labour availability, motivation for innovation) are invited to a training organized by a local NGO. After the training, the model farmers are chosen amongst the participating land users. These newly elected model farmers get further training from the NGO. While implementing the selected Technologies (in this case SRI and compost), the model farmers are subsidized and monitored by the NGO.

Role of stakeholders: The role of the stakeholders is both active and passive. While they are invited to the initial training provided by the local NGO (passive), the land users decide - once they're selected as model farmers - by themselves which Technologies they want to apply on their fields (active).

Other important information: The benefits of this Approach are manifold. Firstly, it helps spreading knowledge about sustainable land management in the project area. In the case of Cambodia this is especially important since much of the agricultural knowledge was lost during the Khmer Rouge regime (1975-1979). Furthermore, the soils in the project area are sandy and show a low fertility. Therefore for example compost making can have a positive long term impact on both the natural and the human wellbeing. Secondly, model farmers can have a positive impact on local institutions. It is for example possible for the farmers to give a report to local authorities where they state what the villagers need most. Furthermore, model farmers can become members of NGOs or local authorities, or monitor other farmers in their activities.
The main disadvantage of the Approach is the problem of sustainability. Model farmers are in close cooperation with the local NGO, and if the NGO stops the coaching, it is not ensured that the implemented Technologies will continue. This is illustrated by many abandoned compost houses in the area. Also, the interviewed model famer expressed that since she became a model farmer, there is more work to do. This can be detrimental in an environment where a high migration rate decreases the available labour force. Last but not least the decision about which Technologies are to be applied on the given model farms are mainly taken by the SLM specialists working for the local NGO. If land users were more involved in the decision-making process, this might have a positive long term impact on the farmers motivation to continue applying the chosen Technologies independently (sustainability).

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

• в рамках проекта/ программы

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

The Approach focused on SLM only

On one hand, land users learn about new technologies (e.g. compost, SRI) which have a positive impact on the yields, the soil fertility and in consequence on the income. On the other hand, model farmers are enabled to show these technologies to other land users (knowledge sharing) so these technologies can be spread in the area. One way to share the knowledge are farmer field days where other land users visit the model farms.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of technical knowledge, low agricultural production, low soil fertility.

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	пассивное	The land user attended a workshop organized by SOFDEC/LAREC where he was selected as model farmer. This workshop took place more than 10 years ago.
планирование	интерактивное	Farmer plans implementation of compost and SRI
выполнение	внешняя поддержка	Money from SOFDEC for compost, 15 USD (in-kind contribution by farmer, e.g. labour, some material (wooden pole) and own money to buy cement, iron roof). Training for compost and SRI. SRI field day.
мониторинг/ оценка	пассивное	Coaching by SOFDEC
Research	нет	Research is carried out by LAREC and the results, such as new rice varieties, and brought to the model farmer by SOFDEC.

3.3 Схема реализации (если имеется)

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

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

• преимущественно специалисты по УЗП после консультаций с землепользователями

Поясните:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи

Тип обучения:

• в ходе работы
• курсы

Рассматриваемые темы:

compost making and on the different steps necessary to implement SRI. The training included both theoretical seminars and on-the-job training.

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Укажите, где именно оказываются консультационные услуги:

• на полях землепользователей

Описание/ комментарий:

Name of method used for advisory service: Advisory service; Key elements: The Provincial Department of Agriculture delivers some trainings to the farmers in collaboration with SOFDEC , SLM specialists from SOFDEC can get data from the Provincial Department of Agriculture

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The involvement of the Provincial Department of Agriculture is supplementary to SOFDEC’s work. Therefore, the land conservation activities could also continue without this advisory service.

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:

• повышение компетенций/ обучение

• decision making

Подробнее:

It is possible that model farmers are enabled to influence local institutions through different ways. One possibility is that model farmers can give a report to the village chief and he can give the data to the commune chief. This is a way how the model farmer might influence the decision making within the village. Also, a model farmer can prepare a proposal to the commune chief where he states what the land users need the most (e.g. seeds).
The model farmers can also become facilitators for training other land users on new SLM technologies. Furthermore, the model farmers might be approached by other NGOs or projects to deliver trainings for them, or they might become members of local institutions such as the community council, or join a NGO. It is also possible for model farmers to take part in competitions organized either by NGOs (such as the Excellent Farmer Award) or the Provincial Department of Agriculture.

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

Technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: Training about how to do the Technology (for SRI and compost only once). Changes in the Technology, challenges for applying the Technology.
Economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Yields. SRI: Tillers per plant on 1 m2.
Management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: SOFDEC trains the farmers how they can monitor other farmers.
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Some Technologies, such as SRI, have been changed considerably since they have first been implemented. However, these changes were not done because of the monitoring, but because of other factors (lack of labour availability, feasibility, etc.).

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

Укажите темы исследований:

• технология

Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

Research is carried out by the Local Agriculture Research and Extension Centre LAREC. LAREC focus their research on different rice varieties (drought resistant, short breeding), and other plants which could be grown in the area (e.g. mung bean, pumpkin, water melon, stylo grass, etc.). The research is influenced by the demands of land users in the target area.

Research was carried out on station

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

Если точный годовой бюжет неизвестен, укажите примерный диапазон затрат:

• 10000-100000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: national non-government (SOFDEC, provides money for compost house and training.): 30.0%; local community / land user(s) (In-kind/money contribution by farmer for compost only): 70.0%

Both model farmers and regular farmers are supported within this project, with total costs of around 20,000$. However, not all of the supported farmers are model farmers. In total, there are 64 model farmers within this project, and we calculated expenditures of about 350 US$ per model farmer.

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)

• сельскохозяйственные

• строительные материалы

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

• добровольный

Комментарии:

The land users get also 15 USD for compost making

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

Если да, опишите как:

The land user of this case study is not subsidized any more, but she still continues with the technologies. However, the continuation of the activities depends largely on the personal motivation and the available resources (labour force). Some land users do not continue with compost once they are not monitored anymore.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
It is good that model farmer are selected in the village since other farmers can learn from them. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Model farmers have to lobby with village leader, commune authority and with the NGO to link them with other organisations and Governmental Agencies. )

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
SLM Technology can be tested in-situ. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More innovative technologies could be tested in collaboration with farmers. )
Community sense between the farms is strengthened. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Community councils could be created. )
Model farmers are like a bridge between the NGO and other farmers. Projects from NGOs can be carried out more effectively. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Create a proper mechanism between the model farmers, the village and commune authorities, and the NGO in order to ensure the sustainability of the model farmer approach beyond the NGOs involvement. )
Other farmers can learn SLM technologies without being directly trained by the NGO (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue with the Approach and seek support from village authorities. )

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
The NGO and external people/farmers put workload on model farmers.	Provide compensation to model farmer, show him the benefits of these new Technologies, enable him to participate in local decision making processes.

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
Some Technologies are abandoned once there is no more support from the NGO.	Include long-term monitoring. Also, this monitoring can be carried out by the model farmers or other farmers in the village.
The suggested Technologies require more work and are sometimes counter-intuitive to the model farmers (e.g. SRI).	Provide compensation to model farmer, show him the benefits of these new Technologies, enable him to participate in local decision-making processes.
The approach is not really participatory since the specialist decide which technologies should be implemented.	First consult the farmers about their needs. Also, include the farmers in case they know about innovative Technologies.

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.3 Ссылки на материалы, доступные онлайн

Название/ описание:

SOFDEC

Адрес в сети Интернет:

www.sofdec.org