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

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

The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )

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

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Италия

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

Missenyi District Council (Missenyi District Council) - Танзания

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

28/08/2012

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

Livestock keepers groups and local government collaboration for management of livestock watering points.

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

Aims / objectives: The main aim of this approach is to improve management of water resources through strengthening collaboration between land owners and livestock keepers for efficient livestock production/management and increased incomes. This approach ensures livestock watering point accessibility during dry seasons. Objective is to reach a compromise between livestock keepers and land owners on terms of conditions for access and use of watering points. As results livestock keepers and land owner can improve their planning activities and minimize conflict between them.

Methods: A self-help livestock keepers group is normally formed. It establishes regular and efficient cooperation among the livestock keepers and negotiations with land owners on water access issues. They make financial contributions to support the established self-help group. Through these contributions construction and maintenance of the ponds and troughs (the livestock watering system) is assured. Construction and maintenance is also done through voluntary work.
This traditional system was developed by elders and spread through learning by doing from the old to the young generation. In passing over knowledge from the elderly to the youths, experience in livestock and water resources management systems is gained.
The approach is also characterized by reverence to the existing village by-laws reinforced by the village government as well as existing customary laws to prevent degradation and pollution of water sources. Extension officers provide technical backstopping on recommended animal health practices that include deworming, routine spraying and vaccination against diseases.


Stages of implementation: Implementation takes place in three stages
1) Livestock keeper group formation: The group size is determined by the number of livestock. A single trough can accommodate not more than 150 cattle which determine the number of livestock keepers to form a group. The group has its informal organizational system with a nominated leader.
2) Contributions and voluntary works: Each livestock keeper makes a payment of about 20 dollars to the land owner as annual user fee. Maintenance is the responsibility of all livestock keepers.
3) Management: Include use of by-laws and provision of advisory services


Role of stakeholders: Land owner: He has the key role of ensuring that the area is used in a sustainable manner. Group members pay land rent to him for area utilization and management.
Livestock keepers: These are key users of the area, voluntarily participate in construction and maintenance of water troughs, pay land rent, manage and control watering of their animals.
Village and Ward administration and elders: Ensuring that village by-laws and customary laws guiding use of fragile ecosystems are adhered to.
Ward and village extension officers: Provide technical advisory to livestock keepers.
District administration and extension staff: Facilitating and enabling community understanding of policy, acts and laws guiding use of fragile ecosystems so that they can make informed management decision.


Other important information: This approach plays significant role in preventing conflict between domestic water users and livestock keepers especially during the dry season.

2.3 Фотографии, иллюстрирующие Подход

2.5 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход

2.7 Тип Подхода

• традиционная/ местная система землепользования, используемая коренным населением

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Construction, managment and utilization)

Minimizing of land dagradation and better water availability to contribute to livelihood improvement.


The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: 1. There was no livestock keepers organization to comprise over use of water resource during the dry season.
2. Water use conflict between livestock keepers and domestic water users
3. Weak administration of bylaws.

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	Livestock keepers /elders: Inheritance and transference of the approach to youth.
планирование	самоорганизация	Livestock keepers /elders: Informal planning and improvement through cycles of action and reflection.
выполнение	самоорганизация	Livestock keepers individuals and groups, village leaders and agricultural advisers: use of the approach, law enforcement and technical advisory services and interpretation of act, law and guidelines protecting fragile ecosystems.
мониторинг/ оценка	самоорганизация	Livestock keepers individuals and groups, village leaders and agricultural advisers and SLM specialists: manage effective use of the technology, ensure adherence of Acts, Rules and Regulation and SLM documentation for dissemination and sharing.
Research	интерактивное	Livestock keepers individuals and groups and agricultural advisers and SLM specialists: identification and documentation of researchable issues.

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:

A decision to use the technology relies on livestock keepers self-mobilization, own choice induced through inheritance and learning by doing.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). Decision to use the method is partly through spontaneous adoption from elders and improvement through cycles of action and reflection.

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи
• местный персонал/консультанты

• village and ward leaders

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

both men and women and all ages (youth and elders).

Тип обучения:

• в ходе работы
• общие собрания

Тип обучения:

• seminar and workshops.

Рассматриваемые темы:

Act and Laws guiding the use of fragile ecosystems, prevention of water borne diseases, recommended livestock keeping methods and water management.

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: Farmer field school ; Key elements: learning by doing on the job and in the field (Number of knowledge sharing activities: on the job training, field practice), adult learning – livestock self-help groups , livestock management. , indegenous and technical knowledge balanced and combined in a complementary manner.; Technical advisory services largely involved building on and improving the successful experience resulted from the use of indigenous knowledge.

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The increase number of extension workers from 1 to 2 and introduction of TAMP project (trans boundary agro-ecosystem management project) in the village will speed up implementation of conservation activities in the village.

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?

Да

Комментарии:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government, land users through observations; indicators: extent of area eroded

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government, land users through measurements; indicators: Ponds/troughs and maintenance requirements

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: number of livestock keeper trained

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: number of conflicts between land owners and livestock keepers

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: number of water conflict emerged and number resolved

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by government, land users through measurements; indicators: livestock production and productivity

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: increase in milk and meat productivity

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through measurements; indicators: livestock keepers using the technology

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through observations; indicators: number of livestock keepers using the technology

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through measurements; indicators: adherence to water protective bylaws

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: % number of village bylaws used and adhered to

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Implementation of group roles and adherence to by-laws e.g. protection of natural vegetation.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: decrease in destruction of natural vegetation and reduction of eutrophication at the water source.

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

• adaptive SLM trials

Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

Adaptive trials through SLM demos by TAMP, ARI MARUKU and community. Farmers select the best bets technologies to apply on their own fields.

Research was carried out on-farm

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):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (animal related extesion services, policy and law enforcement.): 20.0%; local community / land user(s) (voluntary contribution by livestock keeper groups and land owner ): 80.0%

5.2 Финансирование и внешняя материальная поддержка, предоставляемая землепользователям

Предоставлялась ли землепользователям финансовая/ материальная поддержка для применения Технологии /Технологий?

Нет

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

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

• добровольный

Комментарии:

labour is needed in taking the animals for watering as well as during actual watering of the animals.

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:

in the future a support is needed in terms of group management and organizational development, marketing and business planning skills and livestock keepers also need further exposure to SLM concept.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
Is a mechanism for assurance of water availability for animal watering in the dry season. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continue with good collaboration with the land owner and livestock keeper solidarity.)

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
The training of extension officers, elders etc covered many aspects of sustainable livestock production and natural water resources protection (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Activities presented during the training should be put into practice and spread among other livestock keepers )
Involvement of the district administration, wards, elders in the approaches implementation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: insist on active involvement )
Strong commitment of livestock keepers to improve livestock production and their livelihood (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Awareness raising )
Reduced conflict between water for domestic use and for watering animals (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: strengthen use of the approach and bylaws guiding it )
Reduced cost and largely relies on self mobilization and voluntarism of the livestock keepers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Group management and organizational development to strengthen cohesiveness.)
Is dynamic, flexible and accommodate outside advisory and technical support and therefore opens opportunities for future improvement. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Needs assessment and provision of appropriate advisory and technical support. )

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
low know how	broadern know how

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
The approach is largely informal in terms of livestock keepers organization. There is no written constitution and the groups are not registration.	improvement in terms of formulation of group constitution, opening of bank account and group registration.
Narrow focus largely relies solely on indigenous knowledge base .	broaden horizon of understanding by combining with technical knowledge base.
Lack of promotion materials to involve other livestock keepers	increase number of promotion materials
Rural poverty not reduced significantly	more activities that can lead to reduction of rural poverty required

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Kagera TAMP project (pdfFinal Report 2013)

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/oed/docs/GCPRAF424GFF_2013_ER.pdf