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

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

CSIRO (CSIRO) - Австралия

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

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

A new expression used by agriculturalists in Australia to explain why farmers change practices: the 'triple bottom line' implies economic, environmental and social concerns.

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

Aims / objectives: A fundamental change has occurred in farming practice amongst sugar cane growers in the tropics of far north Queensland. Where it was once standard practice to burn cane before harvest (defoliating green canes for easier harvest), tradition has been turned on its head and now almost no-one burns. Instead a 'green cane trash blanket' system has developed, with multiple benefits and few or no drawbacks. There has been no official campaign or punitive sanctions imposed, no enticing financial incentives offered or charismatic environmental leadership - just a quiet technological revolution, based on the principles of the 'triple bottom line' (TBL).

Methods: TBL has recently emerged into common usage amongst agriculturalists in Australia. Rather than attributing farmers' actions as simple responses to economic stimuli ('the bottom line') TBL is a framework that helps explain the complexity of factors that influence farmers to modify their practices. TBL suggests that farmers do indeed respond to money, but also to environmental concerns, and furthermore to social considerations as well. This gives credit to farmers for being responsible stewards of the land. In this particular case, the transition in technology started in 1974, when sugar cane growers in the far north of Queensland were simply unable to burn their cane prior to harvest because of the exceptionally heavy rains. Instead, they had to harvest wet - and green. The technical implications were first, a slower harvest speed because machinery had to cope with a greater load of biomass, and second, a thick residual blanket of trash that covered the soil. The multiple benefits of mulching were recognised by a few growers, who then continued to harvest green cane. Non-burning spread - a technology now described as the 'green cane trash blanket'- until almost every grower adopted it within one generation. While the extension service has supported the transition, growers themselves tookthe initiative to change. There are indeed small financial benefits, chiefly in terms of reduced overall input costs, but growers have simultaneously been motivated by social and environmental considerations. Burning has come to be considered anti-social: a dirty practice, carrying the danger of fire spreading outside the targeted fields. Neither is it a pleasant task, requiring help of family and friends, often at inconvenient times.

Other important information: From an environmental perspective, the benefits of trash mulch are tangible in terms of improved soil quality, and reduced erosion rates. And, equally important, the end result is reduced damage to the close-by Great Barrier Reef with its sediment-sensitive living coral.
The triple bottom line(TBL) is an expression which has evolved in Australia to help explain why farmers act as they do. Its three components of economics, the environment and social aspects cover the considerations that cause farmers to modify technologies. TBL implicitly gives credit to farmer for being sensitive to multiple external signals. In this case the change in practice is from burning sugar cane to harvesting it green in Far North Queensland. This is a case where emerging conservation-friendly farmer practice and the goals of the environmental lobby have neatly coincided.

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

• традиционная/ местная система землепользования, используемая коренным населением

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

The Approach focused on SLM only

(1) Demonstration and dissemination. (2) The spread of non-burning practices, specifically the 'green cane trash blanket' technology to promote sustainable and environmentally friendly sugar cane production. (3) Indirectly: to satisfy social concerns associated with burning of sugar cane.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: (1) Anti-social farming practice of burning sugar cane which also has negative environmental impacts, both in situ, and offsite in the coral reef. (2) Resistance to change in traditional farming practice.

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	starting up the practice; starting up the practice of green cane trash blanket (GCTB)
планирование	нет
выполнение	интерактивное	spreading the word; growers spreading the word, support by extension services
мониторинг/ оценка	интерактивное	growers joining hands with research; formal and informal disseminations of observations
Research	интерактивное	growers joining hands with research. Quantifying benefits short, long term and downstream

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:

sugar cane growers

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up)

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Нет

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: green cane trash blanket (GCTB) system; Key elements: visits, Field days, publications; (1) Advisory service was carried out through: Bureau of Sugar Experimental Stations (BSES).(2) Advisory service was carried out through: Bureau of Sugar Experimental Stations (BSES).

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:

Technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations
There were None changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Not applicable.

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

Укажите темы исследований:

• экономика / маркетинг
• экология
• технология

Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

There has been some ad hoc research carried out on technical parameters by both the BSES as well as CSIRO.

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national government, Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations): 20.0%; other (growers themselves): 80.0%

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 (national government, Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations)

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

• нет

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

• добровольный

Комментарии:

Farmers themselves provide labour

There are no subsidies connected to GCTB. Australia does not subsidise its sugar cane growers and sugar is sold at the world price.

5.4 Кредитование

Предоставлялись ли в рамках Подхода кредиты на мероприятия УЗП?

Нет

6.1 Влияние Подхода

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:

By definition this is sustainable: it is an internal mechanism amongst farmers.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
Farmers take the responsibility of choosing a land management practice that has a positive 'triple bottom line': environmental, economic and social benefits. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Support awareness raising and give appreciation to the on-site and off-site benefits; acknowledge sugar produced under this system an environmentally friendly and economic product.)
Has successfully stimulated the spread of the green cane trash blanket system. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Outsiders should continue to support farmers' multiple concerns.)
Sugar cane growing has previously had a bad environmental and social reputation, especially here, close to the Great Barrier Reef, which is a World Heritage Site. This change in practice, resulting from the 'triple bottom line' has changed the reputation of sugar cane growers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Make this public.)

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?
The fact that farmers are responsive to environmental and social as well as economic stimuli is covered up by conventional thinking that 'only money matters to them'.	Investigation and documentation of the 'triple bottom line' is required.

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации