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

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

Scaling-up SLM practices by smallholder farmers (IFAD)

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

Uganda Landcare Network (ULN) - Уганда

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

12/09/2016

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

Да

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

Critical actors in a certain area come together, articulate the perceived challenge, identify solutions, allocate responsibilities and work together towards overcoming the challenge

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

Efficient use of natural resources is a critical pathway to achieving green growth. Mountain ecosystems are an example of natural resources that need to be sustainably managed to continue providing economic, social and environmental benefits to the large number of dependent communities. The challenge is that these ecosystems are fragile and highly susceptible to natural disasters and their management requires multi-sectoral, transboundary, interdisciplinary and landscape level interventions. Although several technologies to address land degradation exist, adoption remains low. This has been attributed mainly to a dysfunctional extension system and weak implementation of land management policies/regulations. Working at landscape-scale and ensuring inter-sectoral coordination and cooperation is crucial for effective land management responses.

An Innovation Platform (IP) approach is a mechanism to enhance communication and innovation capacity among mutually dependent actors, by improving interactions, coordination, and coherence among all actors to facilitate learning and contribute to production and use of knowledge. The IP approach is a coalition, collaboration, partnership and alliance of agricultural research and development (ARD) actors. That is, public and private scientists, extension workers, representatives of farmers, farmers’ associations, private firms and non-governmental organizations and government policy makers.

Documentation of this approached is based on experience from a study conducted in the eastern highlands of Uganda. The aim of this study was to improve the understanding of how IPs can enhance adoption of soil and water conservation technologies in the fragile highland ecosystems of eastern Uganda. Control of soil erosion was identified as a challenge to be addressed by the IP. The process involved the key principles as follows:

1. Establishment of an effective leadership – An IP committee was established and trained on critical skills required in group dynamics
2. Facilitating formation of lower-level groups (IP clusters) – this is not a necessary step but was important to implement soil erosion control in Bugobero micro-catchments
3. Capacity building – mainly on soil erosion control using contour bunds stabilized with multipurpose trees (Calliandra and Grevillea). This was done through the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach. Farmers were able to collectively establish 4,000 meters of contour bunds and reduce run-off and erosion significantly
4. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
5. Development and implementation of an effective communication strategy among stakeholder; and
6. Facilitating the formulation of by-laws to foster implementation of soil erosion control. A by-law on maintenance of the established contour bunds was initiated and the process is still on-going.

From this experience, the IP intends to implement the FFS approach on other technologies such as fodder-bank establishment from Calliandra along contours bunds, manure management for production and collective marketing of bananas. These interrelated technologies are contributing towards improving the banana value chain, which plays a significant role in the food and income security of a majority of households in eastern Uganda. Data collection on information flow and knowledge sharing among stakeholders is on-going to provides empirical evidence about the potential of this approach. The benefits demonstrated by the IP are a motivation for stakeholders to participate in collective action. The cycle of benefits can lead to a self-sustaining community.

The need to establish an IP can originate from various actors including researchers, farmers, development agencies, NGOs, private companies, entrepreneurs and agricultural artisans, among others. Once a common challenge has been identified, the vision bearer can begin to mobilize other actors and share visions.

The advantages of this approach include:
1. direct and continuous interaction, communication and knowledge sharing among the IP actors
2. quick and continuous feedback from end users (farmers) at all stages of research for development and;
3. timely integration of new knowledge into the innovation process using experiential learning, monitoring and evaluation and the continous feedback

One limitation of this approach is that it requires continuous motivation of the various actors to maintain their interest the IP. Often times the benefits of Natural Ressources Management, NRM are long-lived while most actors look for shorter term benefits, making it difficult to maintain motivation. Conflict is a common occurrence in such multi-stakeholder platforms and only transparent and accountable leadership can overcome this. Examples of situation where conflict situations arise include technology selection, labour distribution, financial and gender biases.

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

Improve knowledge-sharing and dialogue among relevant actors in addressing a multi-stakeholder natural resource management challenge

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	Some groups had already initiated some actions but were not very progressive. A research team came from the the National Research Institute to stimulate the organization of the group on soil erosion control.
планирование	интерактивное	Farmers participated in the elections to establish the steering committee of the IP. They also participated in the visioning and articulation of the soil erosion challenge and the means to address it. Farmers also participated in the selection of technological options for soil erosion control.
выполнение	интерактивное	Local leaders (Local Councils) participated in the formation of lower level IP clusters in each sub catchment and mobilizing households to participate in joint activities on designated days. Farmers participated in the collective action to establish soil erosion control structures across the landscape.
мониторинг/ оценка	интерактивное	Farmers and local leaders were part of the monitoring and evaluation committee of the IP and participated in periodic activities to asses progress towards the set targets such as the extent and quality of contour bunds completed, the rate of soil erosion and the performance of the crops after the bunds are created.

3.3 Схема реализации (если имеется)

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

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

• все участники как часть процесса совместных действий

Поясните:

Several meetings are held in which all actors deliberate the technological options available and a voting stage decides which of the options is to be selected for implementation. There are also situations when more than one option is considered if they do not contradict.

Поясните на чём было основано принятие решений:

• анализ подробно описанного опыта и знаний по УЗП (принятие решений на основе подтвержденных фактов)
• личный опыт и мнения (незадокументированные)

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи

Тип обучения:

• опытные участки

Рассматриваемые темы:

Soil erosion control using contour bunds, types of bunds, size and spacing between them

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Укажите, где именно оказываются консультационные услуги:

• на полях землепользователей
• в постоянно функционирующих центрах

Описание/ комментарий:

Where the demonstration lots are established, technical staff visit the site and provide support on-site. The zonal research center is also available for interested farmers to visit and learn more about the technological options suitable for the area.

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
• национальный

Опишите организацию, функции и ответственность, членство и т.д.

National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) operates at district level through formation and training of farmers groups. Mainstream extension workers at the sub-counties provide training to farmers and farmers groups that are not part of the NAADS groups. The training was augmented by NARO and other NGOs.

Укажите тип поддержки:

• повышение компетенций/ обучение
• оборудование

Подробнее:

The IP actors, including local government staff, farmer groups and extension staff were trained on various aspects of group dynamics in order to improve their management skills. The sub-county local government was provided with tools (pangas, mattocks and hoes) for use in establishing stone lines.

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Если да, будет ли данный документ использоваться для мониторинга и оценки?

Нет

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

Укажите темы исследований:

• социология
• экономика / маркетинг
• технология

Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

One of the objectives of the research was to understand how the IP processes can be improved to achieve more positive development outcomes (e.g. knowledge, attitude change). The other objective was to find out how effective short-rotation shrubs would perform in stabilizing contour bunds for soil erosion control in hillsides. The economic study aimed at assessing the marginal income from establishing contour bunds for soil erosion control.

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):

Support from Global Environmental Facility (GEF), through NARO

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:

Tools and implements for establishing contour bunds (hoes, pangas, mattocks)

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

• нет

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

• в обмен на другие материальные ресурсы

Комментарии:

Each household owning land in the micro catchment was allowed access to the tools whenever needed. The tools were stored in a joint place where all farmers in the micro-catchment would have access to.

5.4 Кредитование

Предоставлялись ли в рамках Подхода кредиты на мероприятия УЗП?

Нет

5.5 Другие методы или инструменты стимулирования

Использовались ли другие методы или инструменты стимулирования для продвижения Технологий 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:

After realizing the benefits, farmers can be encouraged to work together to maintain the soil erosion control structures. Local leaders can ensure that the by laws are enforced to ensure compliance by land owners.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
The approach ensures that every land user implements the soil erosion control structures since erosion affects everyone
Collective action is good because where some land users are unable to comply, either rules are enforced or they are supported to comply

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
Direct and continuous interaction, communication and knowledge sharing among the IP actors
Quick and continuous feedback from end users (farmers) at all stages of research and extension
Timely integration of new knowledge into the innovation process using experiential learning, monitoring and evaluation and the continual feedback from stakeholders

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
Sometimes some farmers do not approve of the technology being promoted and choose not to participate in collective action	Allowing for multiple options for addressing the same challenge is important in encouraging collective action
Lack of transparency and committed leadership can discourage participation	Capacity building on effective leadership is important

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
It requires continuous motivation of the various actors to maintain their interest the IP. Often times the benefits of NRM are long-lived while most actors look for shorter term benefits, making it difficult to maintain motivation.	The leadership should properly articulate the short term as well as the long term benefits of the approach
Conflict is a common occurrence in such multi-stakeholder platforms and only transparent and accountable leadership can overcome this	Implementing the effective communication strategy is important in ensuring transparency and reducing distrust ad conflict situations

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Integrated Agricultural Research for Development ...from concept to practice, ISBN: 978-9988-1-1639-0

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

http://ciat-library.ciat.cgiar.org/Articulos_Ciat/biblioteca/Integrated_agricultural_research_for_development_from_concept_to_practice.pdf

7.3 Ссылки на материалы, доступные онлайн

Название/ описание:

Guidelines for innovation platforms: Facilitation, monitoring and evaluation

Адрес в сети Интернет:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.856.4244&rep=rep1&type=pdf