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

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

Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)

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

CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture) - Кения

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

13/01/2023

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

The integrated agroforestry system is a self-initiated approach by a land user to implement agroforestry as part of an indigenous practice and has evolved over the years through technical support, training, and supplies of coffee and tree seedlings by the Office of Agriculture and Coffee Improvement Project. Had there been a participatory process throughout it would have helped in design and also in scaling up.

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

The integrated agroforestry system was independently initiated by land users during the Derg regime (1974-91). During the regime, farmers were failed by two distinct and polar development approaches: socialist and the mainstream local approaches. The earlier one involved the communist approach of communal production and sharing the output according to contribution. The latter ones employed a conventional approach and included non-members of the so-called Farmers Producer Cooperatives. As a non-member of the earlier one, the land user had to develop his farm alone. The solitary agroforestry initiative described here has gradually evolved to a fully-fledged system that currently serves as a model SLM practice for scaling up across similar agroecological and farming system. Thus, there was little participation involved during the early intensification of agroforestry in Ethiopia. Rather, it is considered an indigenous practice that now receives publicity as a form of “regenerative agriculture” with ecological, economic, and social benefits. As it has global significance in terms of emission reduction and sequestration of carbon, it is the favourite technology among the government and other development practitioners.
The farmer started agroforestry by planting enset and coffee. Over time, with emerging technical support, access to training, and supply of coffee seedlings by the agriculture and coffee improvement project offices, the land user has continued intensification of the agroforestry around the homestead by adopting the correct planting space for coffee and enset, and other companion fruit, fodder crops, and shade trees. The former Ministry of Coffee and Tea, and the current Ministry of Agriculture have had an immense contribution by supplying technical support, training, and inputs (notably coffee and tree seedlings), and by ensuring access to fertilizers. The latter was supplied to the farmers on a credit basis through the then Service Cooperative.
As the initiative was the farmer's own, the tendency to plant incompatible crops was not uncommon. Even so, the agroforestry trees and shrubs still had immense ecological and economic value. They ameliorate the extreme temperature experienced during the dry season, improve the microclimate, recharge the surface and groundwater via improving water infiltration, and reduce runoff losses. Improving soil fertility and soil health are among other benefits. Despite the substantial benefit the technology confers on land users, the lack of a participatory approach in planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation at the community level restricts the adoption and scaling up of this beneficial approach. Despite the achievements of the land user, earlier engagement of other smallholders and institutionalizing the approach decades ago might have positively influenced the design as well as wider-scale adoption and application of the technology. However, regardless of any limitations, the technology is evidence-based and inspirational.

2.3 Фотографии, иллюстрирующие Подход

2.4 Видеоматериалы по применению Подхода

2.5 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход

2.6 Даты начала и окончания реализации Подхода

2.7 Тип Подхода

• традиционная/ местная система землепользования, используемая коренным населением

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

A traditional approach was initiated to change the land use/ land cover and optimize the benefit of the degraded land by reducing the negative effects of overgrazing and its consequence.

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	самоорганизация	Land user: Initiated coffee and enset plantation little by little and accessed training and technical support from DAs and Woreda office of Agriculture experts.
планирование	самоорганизация	Land user and development agent: In consultation with DAs, the land users plan based on available labor and capital every other year.
выполнение	самоорганизация	Land users and family member. They involved in various implementation/management activities.
мониторинг/ оценка	пассивное	Government development agents, and experts coordinate mobilization of the communities to visit and learn from the ongoing practice.

3.3 Схема реализации (если имеется)

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

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

• исключительно землепользователи (по собственной инициативе)

Поясните:

The land user was the initial decision maker that later cross-fertilized or complemented by research and development actors.

Поясните на чём было основано принятие решений:

• личный опыт и мнения (незадокументированные)

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи

• Development agents

Если существенно, укажите гендерный и возрастной состав, статус, этническую принадлежность и т.д.

Training is usually provided to literate farmers who are capable of reading, taking notes, and sharing with other peers back home. Women-headed household are inclusive to represent the gender parity.

Тип обучения:

• общие собрания

Тип обучения:

• Training and visit

Рассматриваемые темы:

Coffee production and management such as preparation of planting pits, refilling the soil back to the pit, planting space, fertilizer application, weeding, mulching, planting shade trees, etc.

Комментарии:

Integrating enset, shade trees, and soil bunds with productive barriers into the farm eventually evolves into the agroforestry system.

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:

The training used to be given in permanent centers such as development stations in the past and Farmers Training Center since recent a decade ago and was associated with a visit to a farmers field.

4.3 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

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

• нет

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Нет

Комментарии:

A sort of visit may be organized by development agents to the coffee plantation but not in a way address the role of monitoring and evaluation and documentation.

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Нет

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):

Only in kind support such as coffee seedlings and technical support such as advisory service was provide by the government agricultural office through development/extension agents. Otherwise, it is privately financed business with main expense geared toward supplying seedlings and agricultural inputs such as fertilizers.

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:

In the past (during Derg regime) there was subsidy for fertilizers as a country which is entirely removed in the recent years.

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

• другие

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

• добровольный

Комментарии:

Family labor used to manage the family farm.

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:

Despite the implementation approach employed by the land user, the technology is highly commended by the land users and the public at large. The income generated from the sale of crops adequately supports the livelihoods of family farmers as well as effectively finances the maintenance of the system. However, the new beginners need external support to make sure the technology is properly implemented and scaled out for wider application and use.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
Enables improved crop production and productivity and reduces risks of crop failure due to climate change/variability.
Motivate farmers to reduce soil erosion and land degradation and improve soil fertility.
The approach creates an enabling environment to intensify agroforestry and improve the microclimate of the area and ensure sustainability of the system.
Increased land users' status in the community to feel confident as local elites and friendliness to the environment.

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
The agroforestry system creates economic, ecological, and social benefits for the family farm.
It ensures sustainable land management becomes in place as well as improves land users' understanding of SLM.
Ensure productivity and product stability, and serve as a permanent source of income and insurance for a family farmer.

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
Failure to promote collective action that end up with shortage of labor with increasing size/ areas of technology.	Establish and promote collective action and labor-sharing techniques.
Lack of participatory planning and decision make to put in place proper trees-crops integration.	Promote participation that enables to select and plant trees and crops with desirable characteristics to the agroforestry system.
Lack of active women participation with clear role and their share of the benefit from the system.	Improve women's participation and share of the benefit.

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
Lower level of mainstreaming the approach and the technology at earlier stage that led to land users lower level of understanding of the multi-storey agroforestry system.	Improve land users understanding of Agroforestry and the SLM through capacity building and exchange visits.
The solitary approach led to relatively lower adoption of the technology.	Improve participation, access to training, technical support, and credit services to optimize the benefit of land users at scale.
Evolving the approach from solitary approach to large mass of land users constrained by shortage of farmland.	Promote intensification through introduction of high - value crops and optimize the return from the smaller holdings.

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

An Agroforestry Guide for Field Practitioners. 2013. ISBN 978-92-9059-333-1

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

https://www.worldagroforestry.org

7.3 Ссылки на материалы, доступные онлайн

Название/ описание:

SUSTAINABLE LAND USE FORUM

Адрес в сети Интернет:

http://publication.eiar.gov.et