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

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

Book project: where the land is greener - Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Initiatives Worldwide (where the land is greener)

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

Department of Resources and Environmental Science, Beijing Normal University (Department of Resources and Environmental Science, Beijing Normal University) - Китай

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

ISRIC World Soil Information (ISRIC World Soil Information) - Нидерланды

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

GEF/OP12 Gansu Project (GEF/OP12 Gansu Project) - Китай

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

Highly organised campaign to assist land users in creating terraces: support and planning from national down to local level.

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

Before 1964, the slopes on China's Loess Plateau were cultivated up and down by machinery. Consequently soil and water were lost at high rates, and fertility and yields declined. Accessibility to cultivated land became more and more difficult due to dissection by gullies. The first terraces were established by self-mobilisation of the local land users. However there was no standard design. Furthermore, as the individual plots were very small and scattered all over the village land, terracing needed better coordination. Between 1964 and 1978, the local government at the county level took the initiative of organising farmers and planning terrace implementation according to specific technical design on a larger scale. At that time the land was still communally managed by production brigades. Through mass mobilisation campaigns people from several villages were organised to collectively terrace the land - village by village - covering around 2,000 hectares each year. Labour was unpaid.The Yellow River Conservancy Commission (YRCC) came into being in 1948 - and the Upper and Middle Yellow River Bureau in 1977. This gave greater impetus to the implementation of SWC in the Loess Plateau. After 1978, land use rights were allocated to individuals (though official ownership was still vested in the state). SWC specialists and county level SWC bureaus started to work with groups of farmers who had land use rights within a given area. Survey and design were carried out. The farmers organised themselves, consolidated the parcels of land, and then after the conservation work was done they redistributed the terraced fields.
In the 1980s the government started to financially support land users involved in SWC projects. Subsidies ranged from (approx.) US$* 20/ha in projects at county level, to US$* 55/ha for national projects (eg through the Yellow River Commission), and up to US$* 935/ha when World Bank projects were involved - as in the recent past. Implements were provided by the farmers themselves. Then, in 1988 a nationwide project in SWC - which originally was proposed at county level - was approved by the national government. Furthermore, in 1991 a national law on SWC came into force. Protection of the Yellow River and associated dams became a priority at regional and national levels. In total, within Zhuanglang County, 60 SWC specialists/extensionists cover an area of 1,550 km2, and most of the terraces were built with low levels of subsidies. Annual plans about implementation of new SWC measures were made during summer. Small areas were planned at village or township level, whereas bigger areas (> 7 hectares) were designed at county level. Implementation then took place during winter. Terracing was implemented first where access was easiest and closest to settlements, and only later, further away. * exchange rate: 1 US$ = 8 Chinese Yuan (May 2006).

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

Aims of the approach are: - water conservation (this is a semi-arid area), - soil conservation: reduce soil loss on the sloping and erosion-prone land of loess plateau, - enhancing soil fertility, and consequently production, - improve people's living conditions, These primary objectives were to be achieved by building level bench terraces on a large scale through a structured and organised campaign. Finally at the national level, a fourth aim was added: the protection of the Yellow river (avoiding floods and reducing the sediment load)
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - lack of organisation, capital and technical knowledge in farmer communities to counter the underlying problems of water loss, soil loss, fertility decline and downstream effects on the Yellow River (floods and sediment) at catchment level, - absence or poor maintenance of erosion control measures

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	Land users started implementing terraces but SWC specialists at the country level assisted in designing standards for terrace construction and township governments and production brigades organised whole villages and watersheds
планирование	пассивное	Being consulted in the planning phase. Experienced peasants may be involved in introducing the local situation.
выполнение	интерактивное	Major organisation done through the SWC bureau specialists with the village organisation including land users. Land users were actively involved in implementation.
мониторинг/ оценка	нет	reporting; No participation of land users
Research	нет	on-station; No participation of land users

3.3 Схема реализации (если имеется)

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

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

• преимущественно специалисты по УЗП после консультаций с землепользователями

Поясните:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by politicians / leaders. Decisions are made by politicians/SWC specialists; land users are consulted in the planning phase (experienced farmers may be involved initially).

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи

Тип обучения:

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

Рассматриваемые темы:

Until 1978 the 'pyramid system' was used: the county level trained the township level, which trained the village level, which in turn trained the production brigades/farmers, who then trained other production brigades and farmers.

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Укажите, где именно оказываются консультационные услуги:

• на полях землепользователей

Описание/ комментарий:

Key elements: Pyramid system is also used for extension. At each government level (county, district and provincial levels) there is a SWC division in charge of SWC activities includ. extension (farm visits)

4.3 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

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

• да, умеренно

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

• местные

Укажите тип поддержки:

• финансовая

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: runoff loss, sediment load, soil moisture
technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: structure of terraced areas, slope of risers, levelness of terrace surface
socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: land users' perceptions of terraces
economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: yield, income of land users
area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: terraced area
land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements; indicators: number of farmers directly involved in terracing and farmers benefited directly
management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: number of small watersheds terraced
There were changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The approach changed fundamentally from self-mobilisation to organised mass movements guided by the government.

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:

carried out at the provincial and national levels, mostly by technical staff. Land users have not been involved. Terrace building is based on scientific design, according to local conditions.

Research was carried out on station

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): 10.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 90.0%

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

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

• за денежное вознаграждение

Комментарии:

Beteween the 1960s-1970s farmers were not paid for their labour inputs. From the 1980s onwards the government rewarded the community for establishment of terraces with cash, projects paid on the basis of area treated, and at different rates.

5.4 Кредитование

Предоставлялись ли в рамках Подхода кредиты на мероприятия УЗП?

Да

Укажите условия предоставления (процент, окупаемость и т.д.):

Interest rate charged: 0.5%; repayment conditions: Credit was available at interest rates (0.5-1% per year) lower than the market rates.

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?

• нет уверенности

Если нет или нет уверенности, объясните почему:

Given the recent escalation in payments made to land users for implementation under certain projects it seems that the costs will be too high to sustain. Currently the Ministry of Finance is demanding that in-depth cost-benefit analyses are carried out involving environmental, social as well as economic assessments.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
Farmers are getting direct benefits: marked increase in productivity, improved workability of the land, etc.
The collective activities/organisation strengthens the community and enhances social stability and coherence within villages; collective activities are expanded to other sectors, such as road construction, supply of agrochemical inputs, etc.
Heavy investment made by the land users and local as well as national government to reduce land degradation.
Many people involved and trained at different levels (pyramid system; see training/extension); commitment by all stakeholders.
Efficient organisation, planning to cover a large area, which is very susceptible to land degradation.

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?
High costs: farmers depend on external support from the government, they are not willing to invest their labour without payments (as it used to be in communist times)	New approach: give farmers loans for construction as now they use machines to do the work. In addition, search for cheaper SWC technologies and for improving the benefits.
The steeper slopes which are also further away from the village, are now often not cultivated and maintained as they are too far and marginal in production	Solutions need to be found for these areas, eg afforestation.

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Jiangdingsheng, ACTA CONSERVATIONIS SOLI ET AQUAE SINICA, 1987. Discussion on section design of the terrace on the Loess Plateau; Vol. 1, No. 2,

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Corpus of economic benefits of water and soil measures, p77-102, 510-514

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

Water and Soil Conservation Department of Yellow River Water Resources Committee of Ministry of Wate

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Corpus of Test Research of Water and Soil Conservation, p130-185 (the second volume)

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

Suide Water and Soil Conservation examination station