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

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

Soil Conservation, Land Use and Water Adminstratio (Soil Conservation, Land Use and Water Adminstratio) - Судан

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

VU University Amsterdam (VU University Amsterdam) - Нидерланды

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

Sudan University of Science and Technology (SUST) - Судан

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

15/05/2012

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

Construction of water spreading system on khor and wadi with machinery jointly government and farmers in dam compaction and pitching.

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

Aims / objectives: The main objective of the approach is to enable domestic land users cultivating crops (sorghum mainly) on a flood plain through construction of an earthen, stone-pitched barrier across the bed of a khor (stream). This earth dam serves to divert floodwaters onto their fields downstream. The approach is fully subsidized as the government provide technician and machines for the construction. Only some voluntary contribution from the beneficiaries is needed (for stone pitching). However maintenance support by the government is not provided later on.

This case study is typical of all those in the State. All are demand-driven...In addition the government supports farmers in rural extension e.g. preparedness, awareness, organization and mobilization, and to establish farmers VDCs (Village Development Committee) to guide the community in public works. Training and capacity building sessions in cultural extension are hold to develop crop raising techniques. The aim behind this is mainly to fill the gap of people’s deficiency in storage of crops such as sorghum and millet to maintain food security in the region.


Methods: 1/ Earth dam and terraces construction for water diversion and spreading.
2/ Agronomic measures e.g. ploughing, levelling, furrowing etc. to raise the soil to its maximum capacity.
3/ Provision of certified seeds: Varieties of short mature period and of drought resistance.
4/ Provision of special hand tools for weeding to maintain soil moistures and sustain the growing of crops.
5/ Development of mixed crop systems by provision of cash crop to support the rural economy.


Stages of implementation: 1. Identify and prioritize the needs of local beneficiaries according to their land size, social and economic situation, the local soil types, the cultivated indigenous crops etc.
2. To reach mutual partnership between Government and local communities a certain number of beneficiaries of the community is dedicated to contribute to volunteer manual work.
3. Based on peoples previous natural environment experience the location of the dam is to be examined and an engineering map has to be set out. That means people’s involvement from the very beginning of the project for planning, design and implementation.
4. For construction the government provides necessary needed machines.
5. The local community should mainly ensure the maintenance and the clearing out of the land for smooth water flow.

Role of stakeholders: Division of labor between the stockholders so as to identify the role
1- Land owners: piece of land.
2- Farmers: farming activities.
3- Ministry of Agriculture (MoA): provide machinery and technical support.
4- SLM specialist: will give the technical advice.


Other important information: Floodwater now takes way to any lower area and creates a new water course.
After several years soil should be tilled by ploughing, planking and furrowing to increase water infiltration and percolation as over the years the accumulated silt turns the soils nearly impermeable.

Finally some types of soil in the Red Sea State become very fertile and rich and do not need chemical or organic fertilizers anymore.

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 (Rehabilitation of natural resources and agriculture for improving soil conditions and fertility. )

To overcome the inability of poor farmers to invest in durable water harvesting schemes and (later; in the 1990s and onwards) to take over the implementational role from NGOs and donors. They could continue to invest but they should be stopped to be concernde with implementation as they were in the 1970s and 1980s

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of water to grow crops, lack of money for farmers to invest in infrastructure.

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	Demand-driven
планирование	интерактивное	Together with specialists
выполнение	интерактивное	Some subsidized labour and in some cases volonteer labours
мониторинг/ оценка	нет	None
Research	нет	Some information provided

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:

Most of the schemes (of which Hashatribab is a good example) began as a traditional water spreading schemes. Thus the Government built upon the traditionally adopted farmer's technology and developed it my means of improved soil and crop management knowledges and capacity bulding to farmers.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. The machinery necessary was in the hands of the Government and the specialists knew what was possible and how it could be done. But for all the land users were consulted.
To develop the traditionally adopted technology it is in the hand of the people themselves and need to be supported by the government. Such technology men are dealing with the natural resources, preventing tree cutting, moving regularly for grazing governance to recover ranges etc. and also they need hand tools awareness techniques.

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи
• местный персонал/консультанты

• other related goverment Departments

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

on gender basis.

Тип обучения:

• обмен опытом между фермерами
• общие собрания

Рассматриваемые темы:

Rural extension as community organization, public work methods, extension and awareness services

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Укажите, где именно оказываются консультационные услуги:

• на полях землепользователей

Описание/ комментарий:

Conventional extension; Key elements: 1.Visits, 2.Training, 3.Practice and training by doing ; Cross visits are very important to improve the technical know how and to learn by experience. The practical training is very useful and effective rather to the theoretical one.

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Yes, in terms of technical know how but not in terms of adequate resources

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

• man power

Подробнее:

Because the local institution was involved in negotiations with the Government and also organizing communities; mobilization and awareness. SCLUWPA activities are mainly oriented to conserve soil and vegetation. They tend to clarify land according to the amount of Khor floods into land for agriculture and the land of forests and ranges. This practice is carried on down streams of seasonal rivers while is not specifically going in plains which in need to be reclaimed to reduce sand dunes formation and desert like conditions

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Not relevant as no monitoring took place. Only monitoring and evaluation is carried on by SCLUWPA for its activities in earth dams' construction and terraces to speed water. Usually this takes places after and within the period of flooding in addition to sea wall, effectively these devices functioned and finally to trace the impact and the outcome.

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: as above. In purpose of to check what have done to do some amendments.

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

Укажите темы исследований:

• экология

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):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (Training, capacity building and assistance of equipment.): 30.0%; government (Technical staff, equipment and agricultural inputs.): 60.0%; local community / land user(s) (Volunteer man power): 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:

By Government either directly or from donor sources. SCLUWPA, Range and Pastures, UNDP and UNISCO supporting desertification.

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

• оборудование

• сельскохозяйственные

• строительные материалы

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

• добровольный

Комментарии:

see QT

Only machinery financed for construction period and maintenance.

Labour appears in all mentioned forms above. But voluntarely and food for work is most common.

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

Если нет или нет уверенности, объясните почему:

The land users can continue to crop and to maintain structures within their ability, but no expansion would be possible or repairs to major breakages, unless the level of surplus production will be reached.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей

1) Improve the socioeconomic situation. 2) Learning and improve their technical capacity. 3) Raising the community awareness and preparedness. 4) Encourage peoples to be involved in collective action. 5) Enhance their capacity of community effective. Management resources (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: -Building and strengthening the establishment of the community institutions i.e. from VDCs to local Community Base Organization CBos national NGos.)

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

1/ Demand driven response to people’s needs. 2/ Reducing the direct in-field role of NGOs. 3/ Progress to create a national Ngo's. 4/ Building the community institution. 5/ Raising the self help and self reliance for sustainable management. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: 1/ Continue to listen to the people 2/ By making sure the Government continues to play that role effectively 3/Increase funding . )

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
1) Weak economic base at rural areas. 2) Weak community innovation and involvement. 3) Illiteracy and isolated and knowledge of others experiences 4) Low level of the technology used by the people. 5) Poverty and high vulnerability to natural disasters.	- to increase land productivity. - to develop crop mixing strategy to include cash crops. - enhance and encourage agroforestry approach.

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
1/ Weak of funds. 2/ Weak of monitoring and evaluation. 3/ Low of documentation and knowledge sharing. 4) Lack of research involvement. It is better to say few or adequate research activity	1/ More support. 2/ Introduce a clear, simple system. 3/ International community need to make more efforts to assist with these aspects. 4/ Both Government and NGOs need to recognise the potential role of researchers

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации