1.2 参与方法评估和文件编制的资源人员和机构的联系方式

1.3 关于使用通过WOCAT记录的数据的条件

编制者和关键资源人员接受有关使用通过WOCAT记录数据的条件。:

是

2.1 该方法的简要说明

A focused approach to integrated land and water management, including soil and water conservation, where the active participation of the villagers - often organised through common interest groups - is central.

2.2 该方法的详细说明

该方法的详细说明:

The catchment approach promotes sustainable land management systems by conservation of a defined area (so-called 'micro-environments') through the active participation of the communities living there. It was launched in Kenya in 1988 to achieve greater technical and social impact - and at a more rapid pace - than the previous focus on individual farmers. This case focuses on a single 'catchment' in a subhumid area of Central Kenya. The emphasis is on structural measures - especially fanya juu terraces - but vegetative systems are promoted also. Other activities are supported such as spring protection, improved crop and animal husbandry, agroforestry, fodder production, fish ponds and others. The specific objectives are to stimulate the implementation of a variety of SWC measures leading simultaneously to improved production. Each approach area is defined by cultural/administrative boundaries rather than strict hydrological watersheds or catchments (as its name confusingly implies).
A conservation committee is elected from amongst the focal community before problem identification begins. Technical staff from relevant government and non-government agencies (NGOs) are co-opted onto the committee. The approach then involves participatory methods of appraisal and planning of solutions. Land users, together with the co-opted subject matter specialists, pool their knowledge and resources. Common Interest Groups (CIGs) are formed, with the aim of self-help promotion of specific farm enterprises. Training is given to the members of the CIGs by the Ministry of Agriculture. The farmers carry out the majority of the work themselves: monetary or other tangible incentives are few. The end result is the micro-environment (catchment area) conserved for improved production, and left in the hands of the community to maintain and sustain.
The catchment approach was developed under the National Soil and Water Conservation Programme - supported by (Swedish) Sida - and continues to be promoted as the Focal Area Approach (FAA) under the National Agricultural and Livestock Extension Programme (NALEP), which is again supported by Sida. However, under NALEP there is less emphasis on soil and water conservation than the previous programme, and more focus on promotion of productive enterprises.

2.3 该方法的照片

2.5 采用该方法的国家/地区/地点

2.6 该方法的开始和终止日期

2.7 方法的类型

• 基于项目/方案

2.9 推动或妨碍实施本办法所适用的技术的条件

3.1 该方法涉及的利益相关者及其职责

3.3 流程图（如可用）

3.4 有关SLM技术选择的决策

具体说明谁有权决定选择要实施的技术:

• 主要是土地使用者，由SLM专家提供支持

4.1 能力建设/培训

是否为土地使用者/其他利益相关者提供培训？:

是

明确受训人员:

• 土地使用者

• extensionists/trainers, school children/students, teachers

培训形式:

• 农民对农民

4.2 咨询服务

土地使用者有权使用咨询服务吗？:

是

指明是否提供了咨询服务:

• 在土地使用者的土地上

4.3 机构强化（组织发展）

是否通过这种方法建立或加强了机构？:

• 是，适度

具体说明机构的强化或建立程度:

• 本地

具体说明支持类型:

• 能力建设/培训

4.4 监测和评估

监测和评估是该方法的一部分吗？:

是

5.1 该方法中SLM组成部分的年度预算

如果不知道准确的年度预算，请给出一个范围:

• < 2,000

5.2 为土地使用者提供财政/物质支援

土地使用者是否获得实施该技术的财政/物质支持？:

否

5.3 对特定投入的补贴（包括劳动力）

• 设备

• 农业

如果土地使用者的劳动力是一项重要的投入，那么是不是:

• 自愿

5.4 信用

是否根据SLM活动的方法给予信用值？:

否

6.1 方法的影响

6.2 土地使用者实施SLM的主要动机

6.3 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）？:

• 是

6.4 该方法的长处/优点

土地使用者眼中的长处/优势/机会
New and productive farm enterprises have been promoted under the catchment approach alongside better SWC
Much improved extension/training - research linkages have been forged

编制者或其他关键资源人员认为的长处/优势/机会
There is evidence of 'ownership' by the community which implies a feeling that what has been achieved is due to communal efforts and belongs to them
Genuine community participation has been achieved under this approach

6.5 该方法的弱点/缺点以及克服它们的方法

土地使用者认为的弱点/缺点/风险	如何克服它们？
Lack of material incentives like seeds and fertilizers	assist the farmers with the credit.

编制者或其他关键资源人员认为的弱点/缺点/风险	如何克服它们？
In many places there is a lack of availability of inputs	Provide better credit facilities for CIGs/farmers generally.
Technologies tend to be implemented uniformly, not site-specifically	SWC practices should be matched to each particular situation, eg structural measures such as fanya juu terraces should be promoted only where necessary, that is where agronomic and vegetative measures do not provide sufficient protection.
As yet uncertainty about continuation in specific areas if direct support stops after only one year	Don't abruptly terminate this support after one year: continue approach for at least two or three years in each catchment (approach area).

7.1 方法/信息来源