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

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

Institut de recherche pour le développement IRD (Institut de recherche pour le développement IRD) - Франция

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

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

Maize residue management with high input of crop residues and annual crop instead of year one crop and fallow in year 2

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

Aims / objectives: The objetive is to evaluate the influence of different agronomic systems including conventional system (one year tillage and one year fallow), conservation system (high input of crop residues) with mineral fertilizers every year, conservation system (high input of crop residues) with organic fertilizer every year on: water run-off (quantity and quality), soil sediment transports, soil water content, soil cover, carbon capture, soils characteristics and their interactions with the production of the maize/bean crop association on Acrisol

Methods: Primary tillage for maize/beans it consisted in moldboard ploughing and furrowing, and one post-emergence weeding was done manually. Depth of tillage for moldboard plow was about 0.20m and for rototill, about 0.15 m. 3 seeds of corn or beans are planted and covered by foot. Fertilizer is put on the depression just after seeding and one month later during the post emergence weeding. This experiment have been done on Acrisol

Stages of implementation: The experiment is finished. Dissemination to the stakeholders and policy makers has been done. Policy makers took the results and are disseminating it to the other stakeholders

Role of stakeholders: Active. Visit to the field experiment site during the experimentation, workshops, etc...but the adoption of the technologies can be effective only if the system is deeply change. Farmers need thei fallow year for their animals. This proposal is just one element of the whole system to change.

Other important information: Important results to understand and measure the soil erosion and run-off with this kind of soil (Acrisol) with the traditionnal and improaved cultural system

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 (Soil conservation, water conservation, crop residue management, organic fertilizers, maize/bean association)

The area is strongly eroded and it was necessary to understand which factors could explain this situation and try agronomic alternatives to proposed to farmers to reduce it. In fact soil erosion is mainly due to the cattle free grazing in the field during the fodder and in commune land use for other part. The elimination of fodder year reduce presence of animals and increase production/productivity which can be given to the cattle. But this means to have less animals, more works and normally, more beneficits!

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Culivating every year means less space for the cattle which are the base of the agricultural system. the adoption of the technologies can be effective only if the system is deeply change. Farmers need the fallow year for their animals. This proposal is just one element of the whole system to change. New practice generates psychological resistance

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	внешняя поддержка
планирование	внешняя поддержка
выполнение	внешняя поддержка
мониторинг/ оценка	интерактивное
Research	интерактивное

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
• местный персонал/консультанты

• Institutions

Тип обучения:

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

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

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations
technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by government 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:

• экология
• технология

• Agronomy, hydrology, soil sciences

Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

Measures water run-off (quantity and quality), soil sediment transports, soil water content, soil cover, soils characteristics, carbone capture, production of maize and beans by INIFAP, IRD (France), COLPOS, UNAM-CIEco and CSIC (Spain)

Research was carried out both on station and 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: local community / land user(s) (Atecuaro communities): 5.0%; government (INIFAP, COLPOS, UNAM-CIEco, SEMARNAT): 30.0%; international (UE project (REVOLSO, then DESIRE), IRD, CSIC): 65.0%

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

6.1 Влияние Подхода

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации