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

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

HELVETAS (Swiss Intercooperation)

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

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) - Германия

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

01/07/2012

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

Да

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

The desired objectives are to identify the priority actions for investment that have been agreed by local actors within the framework of the pastoral scheme, and to develop lowland areas.

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

The approach aims (i) to ensure that all actors involved in developing lowland areas participate in the planning process and (ii) to prepare the ground for the self-management of the lowland scheme from the outset of the process. The goal is to gear the identification and prioritisation processes for schemes being carried out by local authorities (regional council, intermunicipal body, circle) towards the actual needs of local people.
This is achieved by preparing actors and organising multi-stakeholder meetings so that the visions of the different parties can be aligned in an inclusive way. This joint approach ensures investments are more relevant and well founded.
This practice was implemented in the four circles participating the AVAL programme: Kadiolo,
Sikasso, Yorosso and Koutiala. The practice led to the identification of around 10 priority investment sites in each of the four circles concerned. The sites are agricultural (dams, ponds) or pastoral (rangeland, cattle market, route marking). At the beginning of the process, the terms of reference (ToR) and data collection sheets are drawn up and presented to all the actors to ensure they are equally informed and to demonstrate the relevance of the approach across the regional council. The first workshop promotes a common understanding of the objectives and outcomes of the good practice.
Data on actual investment needs is collected by the commune (using data collection sheets) from actors in each village. An initial proposal for the identification and prioritisation criteria for scheme sites is put together by the regional council and its staff. The criteria are submitted for the approval of local actors in forums organised at the circle level with the support of the technical services. Following a first sift based on predefined criteria, the select committee judges the commitments and budgets of each and allocates scores for each criteria ranging from zero to five. Compulsory criteria (initial selection stage): 1)Absence of land ownership disputes, 2)Membership of PDESC, 3)Opening up the area – distance to a road or track that is accessible in all seasons, 4)The number of beneficiaries, 5)Farming of lowland areas–area of farmed land in relation to the possible farmable area. Optional criteria (second-stage sift for projects that have cleared the initial stage): 1)Diversification–number of products or farms, 2)Gender–number of women in relation to men, 3)Capacity of actors to contribute. On this basis, the actors from each circle identify the sites that offer the greatest potential from among the development projects undertaken by communes in the area in the context of their development programmes. Local authorities are then tasked with ensuring the supervision of the development process and the management of works and developed land. At the prioritisation workshop, each commune in the circle takes turn presenting and making the case for its completed data sheet to the plenary.
The regional council initiates the process, defines the identification and prioritisation criteria, undertakes the regional consolidation of projects for delivery at the local level and acts as mediator between communities.
The circle councils organise the information and consultation workshops and the decision-making/prioritisation workshop, and they set up the moderation team with the support of technical services.
Communes pre-select projects at the commune level, assessing them in terms of their relevance to PDESC and the criteria put forward; they ensure data collection sheets are completed in collaboration with beneficiaries, and they take part in the prioritisation process by making the case for their projects.
The support structure (AVAL) provides training and advisory support to actors.
Technical services provide technical support and make sure activities are coherent and in line with national programmes. Consultants facilitate the process and train the actors.

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 mainly on SLM with other activities

The approach aims (i) to ensure that all actors involved in developing lowland areas participate in the planning process and (ii) to prepare the ground for the self-management of the lowland scheme from the outset of the process. The goal is to gear the identification and prioritisation processes for schemes being carried out by local authorities (regional council, intermunicipal body, circle) towards the actual needs of local people.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: lack of involvement of stakeholders in developing lowland areas

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
планирование	интерактивное
выполнение	интерактивное
мониторинг/ оценка	пассивное
Research	пассивное

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:

• общие собрания

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Укажите, где именно оказываются консультационные услуги:

• в постоянно функционирующих центрах

Описание/ комментарий:

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The planning capacity of local authorities is strengthened, and this expertise in the planning process can be applied to other sectors

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

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations;
economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations
management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

Укажите темы исследований:

• социология
• экономика / маркетинг
• технология

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

Если точный годовой бюжет неизвестен, укажите примерный диапазон затрат:

• 2000-10000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international non-government: 100.0%

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)

• нет

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

• добровольный

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

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
The links between the different levels in local authorities are reinforced and a shared development vision is jointly owned by all actors. Each actor comes to understand their importance as part of the implementation of the investment programme. Moreover, strong levels of community engagement are seen to arise. Investment decisions and funding awards are not carried out in secret deliberations or project offices.
The moderate costs also help towards making this practice sustainable.
The planning capacity of local authorities is strengthened, and this expertise in the planning process can be applied to other sectors. The inclusive approach and the local availability of facilitation skills are factors that make the practice sustainable. When outcomes are accepted by all actors, the uptake and sustainability of the practice become more likely. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: It is essential to prepare thoroughly before beginning work: criteria must be clear and relevant; communes must describe and document their scheme propositions and back them up with appropriate arguments; and moderation teams must be objective. Ensuring actors are informed is a major factor for success: all parties have the right to timely information. Elected representatives must have a good understanding of their roles within the context of decentralisation and rural sector development; communities must be closely involved in the process. Inclusive participation requires the involvement of actors across the board. )

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
A major constraint in delivering this practice is the requirement that territorial communities contribute their own funds, as this forms part of the selection criteria

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Manual of Good Practices in Small Scale Irrigation in the Sahel. Experiences from Mali. Published by GIZ in 2014.

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

http://star-www.giz.de/starweb/giz/pub/servlet.starweb

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation (2009), Rapport du forum de priorisation des investissements hydro-agricoles et pastoraux. [Report of the hydro-agricultural and pastoral investment prioritisation forum]

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation (2010), Convention du partenariat local des cercles de Kadiolo, Sikasso, Koutiala, Yorosso. [Local partnership agreement between the Kadiolo, Sikasso, Koutiala and Yorosso circles]