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

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

National Soil Services Centre (National Soil Services Centre) - Бутан

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

MoA (MoA) - Бутан

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

14/03/2011

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

Да

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

A methodology to identify in a participatory manner at village level land-based problems, its causal factors and mitigation measures to reduce land degradation and enhance rural livelihoods

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

Aims / objectives: Participatory SLM Action Planning (SLM AP) is a methodology that aims at prioritiz-ing possible SLM interventions to mitigate the most critical land degradation issues. Priorities are based on the identification of land-based livelihoods and livelihood resources, the key area-based problems and their causes. SLM AP is carried out in the SLMP geogs (block) at chiog (village) level, including all community households. It involves elements of PRA/PLA such as problem census, cropping calendars, history lines, natural resource mapping and builds on the in-depth knowledge and understanding of farming households of their land, their problems and opportunities. The process is highly visual to include the illiterate and very interactive by giving the communities the lead in prioritizing their problems and deciding on SLM interventions.

Methods: The SLM AP is an iterative process, starting with building and training SLM planning teams (GSPTs) at geog level, comprising of extension staff and locally recruited geog SLM planners (GSPs) and geog administration staff. The GSPTs start awareness and mobilization activities in the first year at geog council level. This is followed by a 3 day SLM AP in each and every chiog of the geog to compile a chiog SLM action plan. The village SLM APs are combined into a geog SLM AP and discussed, amended and endorsed in a public meeting by the geog council. The necessary budget is allocated by SLMP project and implementation of the planned activities takes place at chiog level.

Stages of implementation: Implementation is preceded by intensive training and capacity building of the communities in SLM activities. In the second year a new SLM AP round is made, lasting only one day, with review of the previous SLM AP at chiog level. Potential new activities are identified, based on field experiences, to complete the new SLM AP for year 2. In the final year 3, a last SLM AP round is made in all chiogs to compile chiog and ultimately a geog SLM AP.

Role of stakeholders: SLM AP is an inclusive process and gender sensitive, with focus on vulnerable households. The approach includes participatory Natural Resource mapping at chiog level and participatory Monitoring & Evaluation to track implementation progress and impact and to get feedback of the communities.

Other important information: Environmental and social screening procedures are applied to exclude any negative impact on the land or on social groups. SLM AP was piloted in 3 geogs in 3 Dzongkhags since 2006 and has been rolled out to more than 130 chiogs in 9 geogs.

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 (livelihoods, cash income, food security, capacity building, awareness raising)

- To build community capacity to assess land degradation and identify and prioritize mitigation measures
- Enhancement of rural livelihoods

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - Lack of awareness of land degradation processes, combined with limited technical knowledge to tackle its causes.
- Planning procedures are top-down and do not incorporate land-based issues adequately and fail to build local ownership and sustainability.

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	интерактивное	National level stakeholders in consultation with district and municipality staff developed the methodology through an iterative consultation process
планирование	интерактивное	Decentralised training and planning of SLM interventions at chiog level (130+ chiogs) in 9 geogs in 3 Dzongkhags
выполнение	интерактивное	Range of SLM and livelihood activities at chiog level (130+ villages) during 6 year project period
мониторинг/ оценка	интерактивное	Regular participatory M&E at chiog and geog level
Research	пассивное	Few focused SLM related research topics commissioned to governmental research institutions

3.3 Схема реализации (если имеется)

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

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

• в основном землепользователи при поддержке специалистов по УЗП

Поясните:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. The SLM planning was done in a very participatory manner with the land users as they best know the problems in their land i.e. where, how, when, etc. Planning done using participatory planning tools and field visits. Based on the problems at the site (site specific problems) then SLM Specialists make problem specific recommendations of SLM technologies. The main Monitoring and Evaluation was done after every six months when comprehensive information was collected with structured questionnaires along with site visits and meeting with the communities. M&E was also done as frequently as possible even while visiting the site for other purposes during the year without compulsory group meetings.

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи
• местный персонал/консультанты

• Project management staff

Тип обучения:

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

Рассматриваемые темы:

Extensive training programmes for project management staff and field coordinators and the decentralised extension staff (forestry, livestock and agriculture) at geog level together with the geog administration staff and finally to all chiog communities (130+). Initial training was on SLM action planning and Natural Resource mapping; later on a range of technical intervention such as hedgerow establishment, check dam construction, bioengineering, afforestation, community forestry, fodder development, bamboo plantation, bench terracing etc.

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Укажите, где именно оказываются консультационные услуги:

• на полях землепользователей

Описание/ комментарий:

Name of method used for advisory service: SLM planning knowledge transfer; Key elements: participatory planning, capacity and skills building of RNR extension staff; Whole range of extension advisory services by all extension teams related to SLM, cash generation and group formation

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Capacity built, awareness raised, institutions supported. Adequate human and institutional capacities and awareness have been created during the GEF/World Bank SLM Project period and the effort is still being continued. The actual implementation of the SLM technologies in the field is constrained by inadequate fund support and small land holdings.

4.3 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

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

• да, немного

Укажите уровень, на котором структуры были укреплены или вновь созданы:

• местные

Укажите тип поддержки:

• повышение компетенций/ обучение
• оборудование

• curriculum development support, seeds, seedlings

Подробнее:

Moderate support to monk body, schools, Non-Formal Education and geog administrations

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; indicators: Regular measurements and observations of acreage of improved vulnerable land through SLM interventions; annual soil erosion plot measurements

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements and observations of acreage of improved vulnerable land through SLM interventions; annual soil erosion plot measurements

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Regular measurements and observations of acreage and properties of specific areas of improved vulnerable land

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements and observations of acreage and properties of specific areas of improved vulnerable land

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: Regular observations through participatory M&E meetings

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Regular observations and measurements by field extension staff (crop cut, animal production, volume of bamboo marketed; CBA study to establish economic viability

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Regular observations and measurements by field extension staff (crop cut, animal production, volume of bamboo marketed; CBA study to establish economic viability

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements of area treated: range of project indicators for vulnerable land improved

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements of households and farmers (male/female) participating

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by None through observations; indicators: WB, MTAC, Regular reviews with key stakeholders (Annual Review Workshops)

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Two-tier approach: combination of inclusion of all household combined with limited areal focus; vulnerable households focus; financial disbursement system; ch more cash-generating activities; more group/community focus; labour-saving machinery

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: change of type and variety of seeds and seedlings

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

Укажите темы исследований:

• социология
• экономика / маркетинг
• экология

Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

Little involvement, apart from some focused research on group formation at chiog level and studies on CBA, SLM-poverty linkage, rangeland management, rural-urban transition etc.

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:

• > 1 000 000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (GEF-World Bank): 70.0%; government (RGoB): 20.0%; local community / land user(s): 10.0%

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:

Incentives for specific SLM interventions per area and through short-term input support (seeds and seedlings)

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

• оборудование

• сельскохозяйственные

• строительные материалы

• инфраструктура

Комментарии:

Mostly voluntary and some paid in cash (for labour-intensive SLM interventions) and limited other material support such as tools and seeds and seedlings

Not financed: roads, fertilizers, schools

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?

• нет уверенности

Если нет или нет уверенности, объясните почему:

Rural communities will need continued support by government staff through advice, finance and other support.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов

Decentralised, village level bottom-up planning and implementation ensures capacity building, ownership and empowerment of rural land users Participatory character gives a voice to farmers with in-depth knowledge of land-based issues and its causes and history Inclusiveness of approach, reaching to all households Helps to build community sense (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continued annual AP Continued annual AP; add with NR mapping and ITK studies and participatory M&E Continued annual AP; targeted focus on most vulnerable households Additional group formation and community group support )

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?
Time-consuming and resource demanding Requires large workload of both extension staff and farmers Costly as the approach also covers actual implementation of all of planned SLM activities and reaches more than 130 villages for 3 year period	Combine and align with Five Year Plan planning procedures; mainstreaming into governmental decentralised planning procedures Mainstreaming into regular planning and budgeting Spread over calendar year; labour-intensive SLM activities in lean winter season.

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Working the Land - Documenting the Key Lessons of Sustainable Land Management on Steep to Very Steep Slopes in Bhutan 2011

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Indigenous Technical Knowledge (ITK) on Soil & Soil Fertility Management 2011

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Participatory Approaches in Sustainable Land Management – Planning, Implementation & Monitoring as Continuous Learning Processes 2011

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

National Action Plan to Combat Land Degradation 2010, 2014

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

BHUCAT, Best Practices and Guidelines from Bhutan for SLM on Steep to very Steep Slope

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Documentary of the achievements made in SLM through SLM Project

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Bhutan Land Cover Assessment 2010-Technical Report, NSSC, 2011

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Soil Erosion – Measurement and analysis of soil erosion plot data, NSSC, 2010, 2011

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Integrated Biodiversity Survey of the Lower Wangchhu Watershed, Bhutan 2010

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Rangeland Management in Bhutan 2009

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB, A consultancy report

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Study on Poverty Sustainable Land Management Linkages in Bhutan-A consultancy Report-2009 2009

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB, A consultancy report

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Sustainable Land Management Participatory Action Planning Manual & Tool Kit 2009

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB, A consultancy report

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Sustainable Land Management Interventions: Cost Benefit Analysis Report 2009

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB, A consultancy report

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Rural Livelihoods and Peri-Urban Analysis 2008

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB, A consultancy report

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Review of Mainstreaming of sustainable Land Management in Government Policies and Plans in Bhutan 2008

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

NSSC, DoA, MoAF, RGoB, A consultancy report