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

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

Strengthening national-level institutional and professional capacities of country Parties towards enhanced UNCCD monitoring and reporting – GEF 7 EA Umbrella II (GEF 7 UNCCD Enabling Activities_Umbrella II)

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

National Soil Services Centre, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock (NSSC) - Бутан

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

11/07/2023

Составитель и ответственный/-ые специалист(-ы) согласны с условиями, регламентирующими использование собранных ВОКАТ данных:

Да

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

The Agricultural Landscape Approach in Sustainable Land Management is a holistic and integrated strategy that focuses on managing agricultural landscapes in a sustainable manner. The approach was successfully initiated in Namlaythang village and transformed the whole agricultural landscape covering 107 acres (43 ha) while benefitting 55 resettled households.

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

The Agriculture Landscape Approach in Sustainable Land Management (SLM) is a holistic and integrated strategy that focuses on managing agricultural landscapes in a sustainable manner. This approach recognizes the interrelation of various elements within a landscape, including soil, water, biodiversity, and human activities, ultimately aiming to optimize the benefits derived from these interactions while minimizing negative environmental impacts.
This approach was initiated in Namlaythang village under Tsangkha gewog (block), Dagana Dzongkhag (district). Namlaythang was chosen for this approach because it is a new settlement with 55 resettled households who were granted land ranging from 1.75 to 3 acres (0.7 to 1.2 hectares) per family by His Majesty the King as per the National Rehabilitation Program. Since the area was recently cleared and converted to settlement and farming, there was a huge risk of land degradation due to direct exposure to rain and unsustainable agriculture practices. Therefore, it was not only timely to implement SLM to prevent land degradation but also appropriate to have adopted the Agricultural Landscape Approach by engaging the whole community.
The main aim of adopting the agricultural landscape approach was to bring transformational change at a scale. Too often, we plan and implement SLM interventions supported by different projects in small, localized areas and in a scattered manner. This limits the ability to scale out success (both spatially and temporally) despite being positive initiatives. The approach was also intended to facilitate a multi-stakeholder platform by bringing relevant stakeholders together to discuss common objectives and draw synergies across different agencies.
The process started by discussing the idea with the Dzongkhag and gewog agriculture offices followed by sensitization of land users on the importance of SLM and its technologies. This was followed by Participatory SLM Action planning wherein detailed action plans were prepared based on landowners’ interest, feasibility of their land and the available technologies. The next mandatory activity carried out before implementation of SLM in the field was the conduct of field based hands-on training of the land users. The main SLM technologies planned and implemented included terracing, stone bunds, hedgerows, check dams/ gully plugs and plantations. In addition, climate resilient agriculture practices were also promoted such as greenhouses, low-cost water harvesting ponds, drip irrigation sets and fruit tree plantations.
In promoting this approach and other technologies, several stakeholders were involved including the Dzongkhag and gewog agriculture offices, National Soil Services Center (NSSC), Agriculture Research and Development Center, Bajo (ARDC-Bajo), the landowners and a Green Climate Fund (GCF) Project. The agricultural offices provided the overall coordination and the facilitation role in implementing the approach and its associated technologies. The NSSC provided sensitization and training on SLM technologies and also facilitated participatory SLM Action Planning with the landowners and other stakeholders. Similarly, the ARDC-Bajo arranged material inputs for climate resilient agriculture practices and provided technical assistance to the landowners and the gewog agriculture extension officer. The GCF Project provided financial support based on the action plan.

The implementation of SLM and climate resilient agriculture practices following agricultural landscape approach in Namlaythang have been a great success. The approach has brought a transformational change at the landscape level through various SLM interventions which collectively contributed towards reduction of soil erosion and nutrient loss, conservation of soil moisture and the improvement of overall soil health and food security. The land users also feel empowered through sensitization, capacity building and their engagement in the whole process. In brief, the land users expressed their satisfaction with the approach and the impacts it has created in the agricultural landscape which is the basis of their livelihoods.

A major weakness of the approach is that there is no institution/group/cooperative formed for efficient coordination among the land users and other stakeholders which questions its sustainability.

2.3 Фотографии, иллюстрирующие Подход

2.4 Видеоматериалы по применению Подхода

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

To bring about transformational change through project intervention at the landscape level.

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	The land owners actively participate in the initial discussion on the SLM implementation following landscape approach. The process was facilitaed by the local government officials.
планирование	интерактивное	The land onwers and the local elected leaders were involved in the participatory SLM action planning that was facilitated jointly by the Dzongkhag and the NSSC.
выполнение	самоорганизация	Land owners organized themselves into informal groups to implement SLM interventions with technical assistance from the Dzongkhag, gewog and ARDC.
мониторинг/ оценка	интерактивное	Land owners were involved in the periodic monitoring and evaluation carried out jointly by the Dzongkhag, gewog, NSSC, ARDC and the GCF project.

3.3 Схема реализации (если имеется)

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

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

• все участники как часть процесса совместных действий

Поясните:

Following the sensitization on SLM technologies, Participatory SLM Action Planning was carried out wherein the land owners, gewog agriculture extension and the SLM Specialists from NSSC jointly select and decide on SLM technologies to be implemented in the field.

• The decision was made based on the sensitization and the feasibility of the farming landscape.

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи

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

Gender equity is generally maintained by inviting equal number of male and female participants and of different age groups.

Тип обучения:

• опытные участки

Рассматриваемые темы:

SLM Technologies (Terracing, hedgerows, stone bunds, plantations and check dams)

Комментарии:

The training was field based and practical oriented.

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Укажите, где именно оказываются консультационные услуги:

• на полях землепользователей

Описание/ комментарий:

Advisory services were provided by the agriculture advisers from the Dzongkhag and Gewog Agriculture offices.

4.3 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

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

• да, существенно

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

• местные
• региональный
• национальный

Опишите организацию, функции и ответственность, членство и т.д.

There is no new institution established within the approach. However, various institutions were involved in promoting the technologies under the approach. At the local level, Dzongkhag and Gewog agriculture offices were involved in overall coordination and provided technical guidance. The Dzongkhag agriculture offices were also involved in sourcing funds for the implementation of the approach. Regional Agriculture Research and Development Center, Bajo (ARDC-Bajo) arranged material inputs for climate-resilient agriculture practices and provided technical assistance to the gewog agriculture extension officer and land owners. National Soil Service Center (NSSC) provided sensitization and training on SLM technologies and also facilitated participatory SLM Action Planning with the land owners and other stakeholders. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Project was the main funding agency providing financial support based on the action plan.

Укажите тип поддержки:

• финансовая
• повышение компетенций/ обучение
• оборудование

Подробнее:

The major financial support was provided by the GCF project and minor fund support was provided by the government for the implementation of the approach. Various stakeholders including NSSC, ARDC-Bajo, Dzongkhag and gewog offices were involved in the capacity building of the land owners. However, gewog offices were involved constantly due to the proximity and direct contact with the land owners. Equipment for the construction of greenhouses, low-cost water harvesting ponds, drip irrigation, terracing, stone bunds, hedgerows and check dams were provided during the implementation of technologies under the approach.

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

The monitoring and evaluation are periodically done by the Dzongkhag Agriculture Office, NSSC and the Project Management Unit of the GCF Project.

Если да, будет ли данный документ использоваться для мониторинга и оценки?

Да

Комментарии:

The documentation is intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation and also for knowledge sharing.

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Нет

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

Если точный годовой бюжет неизвестен, укажите примерный диапазон затрат:

• 10000-100000

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

The main funding source is GCF project

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:

The implementation of all the SLM technologies was funded by the GCF project. Besides, land owners also received material supports such as greenhouses, low cost water harvesting ponds, drip irrigation sets, seeds and seedlings with financial support from the project and government.

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

• сельскохозяйственные

• строительные материалы

• инфраструктура

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

• добровольный

Комментарии:

Land owners usually arrange their own family labour or through labour exchange to implement SLM technologies in the field.

5.4 Кредитование

Предоставлялись ли в рамках Подхода кредиты на мероприятия УЗП?

Нет

5.5 Другие методы или инструменты стимулирования

Использовались ли другие методы или инструменты стимулирования для продвижения Технологий УЗП?

Да

Если да, поясните:

The SLM Technologies and Climate Resilient Agriculture practices were provided in line with the SLM Guidelines and Best Practices 2021 and the Cost Sharing Mechanisms of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock.

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?

• да

Если да, опишите как:

Based on the experience that land users have gained over the past 5 years, the land owners can sustain the technology implemented through this approach without external support as the maintenance cost is very minimal. The land owners feel that they can carry out maintenance on their own.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
The community has not experienced any reported problems related to landslides, indicating the positive impact of terracing and check dams that have ensured the overall stability and sustainability of the area.
The land users can make a living from increased agricultural production and cash income.
Since the land was granted by His Majesty the King, the community receives so much of attention and technical support from different agencies. This has enabled the land users to avail much needed SLM interventions through the landscape approach.

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
The land users are exposed to new knowledge and skills to implement SLM technologies, which could serve as a model for further replication in other areas.
There is a transformational change at the landscape level, which otherwise becomes difficult if landscape approach was not adopted.

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
No institution/group/cooperative has been formed for efficient coordination among the land users.	By forming a permanent or formal group to continue the implementation and management of the SLM technologies.
Limited integration of livestock and forest related technologies due to limited fund.	Explore additional funding source from other sources such as Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation (BTFEC) and UNDP Small Grant Project (SGP) to support implementation of livestock and forestry activities.

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
No lead agency or personnel to initiate group formation.	The Gewog Agriculture Extension Officer could lead the group formation if they feel the need.
Lack of frequent monitoring of the implemented SLM technologies leading to reduced performance in terms of agriculture production and maintenance of the SLM technologies.	Ensure timely monotiring from the Gewog and Dzongkhag Agriculture offices

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Guidelines and Best Practices 2021, The National Soil Services Center, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agricultue and Livestock

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

The National Soil Services Center, Semtokha, Thimphu, Bhutan

7.3 Ссылки на материалы, доступные онлайн

Название/ описание:

Zhesar namleythang

Адрес в сети Интернет:

https://www.facebook.com/people/Zhesar-namleythang/100063962648613/?paipv=0&eav=AfZtqSeoJRJKQqV2pCQNI-Il9HsLY_XP-7nuLPGmeGHxTe7zq2FNEBbJReJwVuGjErk&_rdr