(Garðar Þorfinnsson)

Participatory cost-sharing restoration programme (冰岛)

Farmers Heal the Land

描述

Collaboration between farmers and a governmental institute on rangeland restoration and improved land management

Aims / objectives: FHL is a governmental cost-sharing programme operated by the SCSI and run at national level. The FHL programme has been ongoing since 1990. It started as an experimental programme in Northeast Iceland, but couple of years later it was extended nationwide. It builds on voluntary participation of farmers who want to restore damaged rangelands in the lowland. The programme was established foremost to ease cooperation and strengthen social bonds between the SCSI and sheep farmers. Nevertheless, increased rangeland restoration and improved grazing management were also key targets underpinning the establishment of the FHL initiative, and formed the backbone of its prime policy.

Methods: The FHL programme is run by the Soil Conservation Service of Iceland (SCSI) and targets large-scale rangeland restoration, primarily among sheep farmers. The programme builds on voluntary approaches and uses direct and indirect incentives to motivate its participants. Farmers who want to participate apply for membership of the SCSI. The SCSI evaluates the condition of potential restoration areas and decides if they meet requirements. Each participant receives, annually, a fixed subsidy to purchase fertilizer and if needed, commercial grass seeds. Participants in the FHL project are visited approximately biannually by a regional SCSI advisor that estimates the restoration progress, discusses next steps and consults the participants on rangeland management related issues. Usually, each restoration area is treated for a couple of years before it is considered to have passed the first level of the restoration process. The restoration areas are mapped, and based on the maps participants asked to make a 3-5 year long implementation plan.

Role of stakeholders: As land stewardship plays a vital role in this programme, the role of the primary stakeholders (the farmers) is fundamental. They indeed drive the programme, although they get professional guidance and support from the extension offices of the SCSI. They are responsible for all implementation and land management on a local scale, within their own holdings.

Other important information: no further information

地点

地点: Rangarvellir, Rangarthing Ytra, 冰岛

选定地点的地理参考
  • 不适用

启动日期: 1990

终止年份: 不适用

方法的类型

方法目标和有利环境

该方法的主要目的/目标
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (rangeland restoration, sustainable land management, participatory approaches, stakeholder involvement)

To improve the ecological condition of the degraded rangelands for future generations. To facilitate behavioral changes toward more sustainable rangeland management.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The main problems to be addressed by the approach were severe soil and vegetation degradation that substantially reduced biomass productivity, lack of financial support and local advisory system
推动实施本办法所应用技术的条件
阻碍实施本办法所应用技术的条件
  • 社会/文化/宗教规范和价值观: Treatment through the SLM Approach:
  • 财务资源和服务的可用性/可得性: the approach provides subsidies to participants Treatment through the SLM Approach:
  • 机构设置: Establishment of extension offices that provide advisory service on restoration and SLM technologies and approaches, free of charge to all land users. Treatment through the SLM Approach:
  • 法律框架(土地使用权、土地和水使用权): Treatment through the SLM Approach:
  • 了解SLM,获得技术支持: Establishment of extension offices that provide advisory service on restoration and SLM technologies and approaches, free of charge to all land users. Treatment through the SLM Approach:
  • 工作量、人力资源可用性: Treatment through the SLM Approach:

相关利益相关者的参与和角色

该方法涉及的利益相关者及其职责
该方法涉及哪些利益相关者/执行机构? 指定利益相关者 说明利益相关者的角色
当地土地使用者/当地社区 Main actors - voluntary work, mostly at their own expenses
SLM专家/农业顾问
地方政府 Provide small scale funding
国家政府(规划者、决策者) Main funding contributor - advisory system - local support
国际组织
当地土地使用者/当地社区参与该方法的不同阶段
被动
外部支持
互动
自我动员
启动/动机
x
计划
x
实施
x
监测/评估
x
Research
x
流程图

有关SLM技术选择的决策

决策是由......做出的

  • 仅限土地使用者(自主)
  • 主要是土地使用者,由SLM专家提供支持
  • 所有相关参与者,作为参与式方法的一部分
  • 主要是SLM专家,咨询土地使用者之后
  • 仅限SLM专家
  • 政治家和领袖

决策是基于

  • 对充分记录的SLM知识进行评估(基于证据的决策)
  • 研究结果
  • 个人经验和意见(无记录)

技术支持、能力建设和知识管理

以下活动或服务是该方法的一部分
能力建设/培训
向以下利益相关者提供培训
  • 土地使用者
  • 现场工作人员/顾问
  • Researchers
培训形式
  • 在职
  • 农民对农民
  • 示范区域
  • 公开会议
  • 课程
  • local advisors that visit/contact all participants
涵盖的主题

E.g. the role of ecosystem services for human well-being, ecosystem resilience and natural hazards, the importance of proper grazing management and the importance of merging local and external knowledge to secure more effective long-term social-ecological progress.

咨询服务
已提供咨询服务
  • 在土地使用者的土地上
  • 在固定中心
Advisory service is very adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities
监测和评估
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: visual estimation bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through measurements; indicators: Researchers of the SCSI technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Researchers in collaboration with the SCSI socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through measurements; indicators: Researchers in collaboration with the SCSI economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through observations area treated aspects were monitored by project staff through observations There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Reduced amount of fertilizer and seed when restoration areas are treated
研究
研究涉及以下主题
  • 社会学
  • 经济/市场营销
  • 生态学
  • 技术

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

融资和外部物质支持

SLM组成部分的年度预算,以美元计算
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: 不适用
Approach costs were met by the following donors: government: 78.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc): 2.0%; local community / land user(s): 20.0%
已向土地使用者提供以下服务或激励
  • 为土地使用者提供财政/物质支援
  • 特定投入的补贴
  • 信用
  • 其它激励或手段
为土地使用者提供财政/物质支援
部分融资
充分融资
农业: 化肥

Up to 85% of the cost of the fertilizer

x

土地使用者的劳动力为

影响分析和结论性陈述

方法的影响
是,很少
是,中等
是,支持力度很大
该方法是否帮助土地使用者实施和维护SLM技术?

x
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

x
土地使用者实施SLM的主要动机
方法活动的可持续性
土地使用者能否维持通过该方法实施的措施(无外部支持的情况下)?

结论和吸取的教训

长处: 土地使用者的观点
长处: 编制者或其他关键资源人员的观点
  • Builds up trust between farmers and governmental officials. Awareness raising and can facilitate discussions on improved rangeland management
弱点/缺点/风险: 土地使用者的观点如何克服
弱点/缺点/风险: 编制者或其他关键资源人员的观点如何克服
  • governement pays the most awareness rising farmers to restore the land
  • government has to trust that the farmer is doing the job checking in the field (but number of used material difficult to count afterwards und the right time in the spring)

参考文献

编制者
  • Thorunn Petursdottir
Editors
审查者
  • Jan Reichert
  • Hanspeter Liniger
实施日期: June 1, 2015
上次更新: June 29, 2020
资源人
WOCAT数据库中的完整描述
链接的SLM数据
文件编制者
机构 项目
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International