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

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

Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environme (Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environme) - Норвегия

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

25/02/2015

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

Regulations and financial grants for reduction of pollution and promotion of the cultural landscape.

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

Aims / objectives: The Regional Environmental Program (RMP) is a part of the Regional Rural Development Program provided by County Governors, in this case the County Governors of Østfold and Akershus. The programs differ somewhat between counties and the one for Østfold is used as an example here. The program aims to target environmental efforts in the agricultural sector, mainly focusing on
agricultural runoff, reduced usage of pesticides, cultural landscapes, biological diversity, cultural monuments and environments, outdoor recreation and availability. Measures related to reduction of runoff from agricultural land to waterbodies has resent years been given the highest priority, and the greatest part of the financial grants. Improvement of soil structure to maintain soil functions and prevention of soil loss and nutrient leaching, are some of the main goals of the approach.


Methods: Management plans and local regulations for different catchments are implemented through the Regional Environmental Program. Funds to finance measures are provided from both this program and other sources, such as the Grant Scheme for Special Agricultural Environmental Measures (SMIL). The latter is allocated by the County Governor and managed by local municipalities. In order to receive production subsidies the land users have to carry out the regulation measures. In areas of
prioritized watercourses the soil tillage regulations are stricter, and the financial support higher. Around especially vulnerable waterbodies the measures are compulsory. Agricultural areas are classified by their susceptibility to water erosion (four erosion risk classes), with different soil management requirements. High erosion risk classes normally provide higher grant rates.


Stages of implementation: The Regional Environmental Program was first introduced in 2005, followed by a rollover in 2009. It
was at the agricultural settlement in 2012 decided to continue the program in the same path as settled in 2004/2005, with improvements from the evaluation in 2007/2008 and 2011. The County Governor continues the ongoing work of targeting the economical funds to measures of high environmental benefit. The Regional Environmental Program is also influenced by guidelines from the National Environmental Program of 2013-2016. Random controls are carried out and falsely reported measures lead to reduction and repayment of production grants.


Role of stakeholders: The farmers are mainly conducting the measures by changing their land use practices, but the Regional
Environmental Program is developed in collaboration between municipalities, the county, the Farmers’ Organization, industry, and the County Governor. The measures are revised annually, mainly based on inputs from the Farmers’ Organization and the municipality. Other measures are included by the Regional Environmental Program than shown in the QT (Grass Covered Riparian Buffer Strips and Reduced Tillage), but these were evaluated to be less relevant for the prevention of soil loss.


Other important information: Other measures are included by the Regional Environmental Program than shown in the QT (Grass Covered Riparian Buffer Strips and Reduced Tillage), but these were evaluated to be less relevant for the prevention of soil loss.

For more information: http://www.fylkesmannen.no/en/Ostfold/Agriculture-and-food/Environmental-measures/Tilskudd-til-regionale-miljotiltak-RMP-2014/ (In Norwegian only)

Regional regulations: https://lovdata.no/dokument/JB/forskrift/2011-06-01-716?q=morsa

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 on SLM only

Target the environmental initiatives and provide increased visibility.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Agricultural runoff and erosion, usage of pesticides, degradation of cultural landscapes, loss of biological diversity, degradation of cultural monuments and environments, decreased availability to outdoor recreational areas.

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	пассивное	Regulations initiated by politicians and management, governed by the Agricultural Authority
планирование	пассивное	Involvement of specialists
выполнение	внешняя поддержка	Changes in land use practices implemented by land users
мониторинг/ оценка	пассивное	Monitoring and evaluation of measures by specialists and management
Research	пассивное	Results evaluated and reported by specialists

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 специалисты по УЗП

Поясните:

The choice of SLM Technology was made on the basis of recommendations from specialists.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by politicians / leaders. Decisions on the method were made on county and management level.

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

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

• Through information

Описание/ комментарий:

Name of method used for advisory service: Guidelines and circulars from the County Governor; Key elements: Information, Guidance, Environmental standards

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Requires land conservation measures for disbursement of subsidies.

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 project staff through observations; indicators: Landslides

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by other through measurements; indicators: P content in soil, water quality, runoff

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Infiltration rate/soil compaction

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through observations; indicators: Production rate, increase/decrease in income

area treated aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: Evaluation of measures

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: None

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Annual revision

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Evaluation and modification proposals in progress

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

Укажите темы исследований:

• технология

Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

Research of the effectiveness of the technologies have been carried out and discussed with land users and management.

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:

• > 1 000 000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Regional level): 100.0%

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:

Contributions were provided by the state from the Regional Environmental Program and other sources as the Grant Scheme for Special Agricultural Environmental Measures (SMIL).

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

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

• за денежное вознаграждение

Комментарии:

Economical benefits for the land user to implement measures and loss if they reject, according to local regulations.

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:

Production and income loss.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
Good guidance and free maps for land users available on the internet
Annual repport (both strength and weekness)
Financial grants graded by erosion risk classes
Regular evaluation through agricultural negotiations (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: A management committee has recently suggested simplifications to the program, but this has not yet been evaluated by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture)

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?
Complicated system with a variety of details	There is a group who is working on a report to the ministry on how to simplify the program

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации