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

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

Community-based sustainable land and forest management in Afghanistan

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

FAO Afghanistan (FAO Afghanistan) - Афганистан

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

15/12/2024

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

Community-driven reforestation initiative that involves awareness-raising, capacity building, feasibility analysis, and collaboration among various stakeholders to address land degradation and promote sustainable forest and rangeland management

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

The main aim of this approach is to contribute to ecosystem restoration, biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration through community awareness raising, consultation and capacity building, feasibility analysis, site selection as well as resources mobilization for reforestation initiatives in Khost-Afghanistan.
This community driven initiative emerged, bringing together land users, forest and rangeland associations, environmental experts, specialists and policymakers from various departments like Provincial Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock, National Environment Projection Agency, District Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock to heal the land, restore the forests, and rebuild the connection between people and nature.
The first step was understanding the root causes of degradation. With careful assessment, they identified areas most in need of intervention: land stripped bare by erosion, forests reduced to scattered tree stumps, and soil depleted of nutrients. The community listened to the wisdom of elders who recalled the days when the valley was green and full of life. They combined this knowledge with modern ecological practices to craft a restoration plan that balanced tradition and innovation.
The approach ensures awareness raising of the rural community, and knowledge and information enhancement on restoration of degraded forest and rangeland through reforestation initiatives in Khost-Afghanistan. Specific objectives of the approach are:
1. To enable the community to restore the degraded forest and rangeland through reforestation initiatives in Khost-Afghanistan throuth awareness raising, consultation and capacity building of the community, feasibility analysis, as well as resources mobilization.
2. To ensure the knowledge and information of rural communities are raised to ensure approach Introduction, public awareness, community mobilization, consultation and assessment feasibility study to Enable the community to Restore the Degraded Forest and Rangeland through Reforestation initiatives in Khost-Afghanistan.
3.The stakeholder involved were, Provincial Agriculture Irrigation and Livestock (PAIL), provincial National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA), District Agriculture Irrigation and Livestock department (DAIL), forest and rangeland management association (FM/RM association). The role of PAIL district extension department and (NEPA) were consulted for community mobilization, social engagement and for technical assistance, guidance and supervision.
4.To enhance the capacity of Forest and Rangeland management association (FM/RM Association) and local communities on adoption of restoration of degraded forest and rangeland through reforestation initiatives in Khost-Afghanistan.
5.To restore degraded forests and rangelands by enhancing the knowledge, skills, and resources for sustainable management. This includes empowering the FM/RM Association by enhancing its members understanding, skills, capacity, and participation in conservation and restoration efforts toward forest and rangeland management.
6.To restore habitat for strengthening biodiversity conservation.

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

To enhance the capacity of FM/RM Associations and local communities for the adoption of the technology on Restoration of Degraded Forest and Rangeland through Reforestation initiatives in Khost

-To restore habitat for strengthening biodiversity conservation.
-To promote the application and conversion of unproductive land to productive land.
-To empower local communities to replicate and scale up similar initiatives

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	FM/RM Association: mobilization, awareness raising and general management through social participation.
планирование	интерактивное	FM/RM Association: jointly with community by developing of Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) plan.
выполнение	интерактивное	FM/RM Association: jointly with community provided labour, facilitation, coordination and consultation as well as supporting all the activities during implementation period as self and community in kind contribution.
мониторинг/ оценка	интерактивное	FM/RM Association: members are key stakeholders of the participatory monitoring and evaluation process.

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:

It was a participatory feasibility study that involved joint decision making

Поясните на чём было основано принятие решений:

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

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи
• местный персонал/консультанты

Тип обучения:

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

Рассматриваемые темы:

SLM/SFM practices, awareness, mobilization, quarantine, rotational grazing, biodiversity conservation, climate change, CBNRM plan, participatory moinotoring, operation of the system and general management of natural resources.

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Укажите, где именно оказываются консультационные услуги:

• на полях землепользователей

Описание/ комментарий:

Operating the irrigation system, sapling transplantation, quarantine, rotational grazing and general management.

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

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

FM/RM Association

Укажите тип поддержки:

• финансовая
• повышение компетенций/ обучение
• оборудование

Подробнее:

Signed LoA for implementation and cost contribution, on site awareness raising, social mobilization, holding gathering and workshops and provided construction materials and tools for nursery establishment.

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

FM/RM Association has the responsibility to perform monitoring of all activities in Sapari forest of Sabari district of Khost province.

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

Да

Комментарии:

Community-based plan, so monitoring is a part of this 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:

• 10000-100000

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

FAO financial support and community in kind contribution (in kind contribution covers providing physical locations/ space or facilities across different regions to support the project, coordination, consultation and general facilitation for implementation of the project). Based on this we can say 80 percent of the financial support is given by FAO and 20 percent by community, which includes plantation, patrolling, quarantine and other community relevant activities.

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:

Input livelihood package including solar cooker, chopper machine, dairy toolkit, walnut cracker, construction material for reservoirs (cement, sand, stone, pipes), technical support, material for nursery establishment (this year established, but in two years will produce own saplings) and saplings (from market). In the order of 8250 persons had participated in training workshops and other capacity building programmes.

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

5.5 Другие методы или инструменты стимулирования

Использовались ли другие методы или инструменты стимулирования для продвижения Технологий УЗП?

Да

Если да, поясните:

On job trainings, field day tour, social gathering as well as site visits by communities.

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 can sustain, because their capacity was enhanced, they have local ownership, adaptive tribal management is there, thereby they can ensure that the benefits of these efforts continue for future generations.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
Community well aware and their consciousness and knowledge enhanced through workshops and trainings regarding natural resources management.
Natural resources like (forest, rangeland, water, financial support, equipment, saplings, community…etc) are available for existence of facilities regarding implementation of the approach.
Community contribution increased, so after the external support it will assist in protection and sustainable management.

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
This approach revives ecosystems by reintroducing native plant and animal species, supporting increased biodiversity and creating habitats for wildlife.
This approach improves ecosystem resilience, supporting sustainable livelihoods, and promoting climate adaptation, restoration ensures long-term sustainability while addressing environmental, economic, and cultural needs.
The established FM/RM Associations became a legal address for forest, rangeland and general natural resources management, which will be responsible after the supporting of project for its sustainability and long term protection.

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
FM/RM Associations established, but still not formally recognized and hasn’t got well population to be used a legal address.	It must be formally introduced to various organization through an official letter by Ministry of Agriculture Irrigation and Livestock of Afghanistan.
Some of the project should be implemented for women, but it is a sensitive issue, because of government ban on women work, hence it can be mentioned as a weakness.	Government should allow women for the satisfaction of donor, because it is a gender-based projects, their inclusion is necessary.
This approach has been implemented in faraway forest with no formal guard, thereby its protection is also a weakness.	Community should contribute on this regard and take the responsivity of the protection

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
This approach often requires significant initial investment in terms of funding, materials, labor, and technical expertise. This includes costs for site preparation, planting, irrigation, and ongoing maintenance, which can be limiting for many communities.	Adequate budget and community contribution can overcome or reduce this weakness.
This approach can take many years, even decades, to show significant ecological improvements, which can lead to frustration, reduced enthusiasm, or a loss of community and donor support.	Strong mobilization and raising of the ownership sense in the community can overcome this weakness.
If local communities are not adequately involved, they may not feel a sense of ownership or responsibility for the project, leading to poor long-term maintenance and protection of the restored areas.	This should be a community-based project, ensuring that, after donor support ends, the community takes responsibility for its ongoing maintenance and sustainability.
Insecure land tenure and unclear property rights can lead to conflicts over land use and limit the ability of communities to manage and protect restored areas.	Solving of conflict over property rights belongs to community and it must be facilitated by them.

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации