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

有助于对方法进行记录/评估的项目名称（如相关）

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

有助于对方法进行记录/评估的项目名称（如相关）

Decision Support for Mainstreaming and Scaling out Sustainable Land Management (GEF-FAO / DS-SLM)

1.3 关于使用通过WOCAT记录的数据的条件

（现场）数据是什么时候汇编的？:

16/01/2009

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

1.4 SLM技术问卷的参考

2.1 该方法的简要说明

Associations that help diffuse, at low cost, soil and water conservation technologies among upland farmers to generate income while conserving natural resources.

2.2 该方法的详细说明

该方法的详细说明:

In parts of the Philippines, farmers who are interested in learning and sharing knowledge about sustainable land management and new SWC measures organise themselves into the so-called 'Landcare' associations. These self-help groups are a vehicle for knowledge exchange, training and dissemination of SWC technologies. A main objective is the empowerment of farmers' groups in their efforts to improve their livelihoods as well as the environment. Landcare has three components and aims at strengthening collaboration between those: (1) grassroot farmers' organisations (Landcare organisations); (2) technical facilitators, for example the World Agroforestry Centre (formerly the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry: ICRAF) and government and academic agencies and (3) Local Government Units (LGUs). The Landcare associations are structured as municipal groups, village groups (barangay level or affiliate peoples' organisations), and village sub-groups (sitio or purok level). This ensures effective dissemination of technologies from the municipal level down to the smallest village. To give the associations a legal status, they are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Landcare associations conduct regular monthly meetings to promote exchange of information, ideas, and experience, thus promoting spread of SWC technologies. Extension service is carried out through the Local Government Units, which allocate 20% of their development funds for Landcare related activities such as meetings, training and visits, and nursery establishment. Farmers organised in Landcare groups have better access to technical and financial support for SWC activities from LGUs and other technical facilitators.

LGUs also enact local laws to encourage adoption of SWC technologies, such as giving tax incentives, and Landcare members are given priority access to programmes and financial assistance. Landcare acts as a guarantor against loans. The facilitating agencies provide technical assistance, and also help create an environment of dynamism among Landcare groups. A link is created between Landcare associations and these service providers. Landcare enhances sharing of labour, builds camaraderie, and encourages group decisions on matters relating to SWC. The approach is spreading rapidly: from the original one association with 25 members in 1996, this increased to 45 groups with over 4,000 members by 1999.

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

• 传统/本土

2.8 该方法的主要目的/目标

- organise farmers with common concerns, problems, needs and aspirations into self help groups.
- establish farmers' groups as conduits for financial and other support for SWC technologies.
- empower farmers' groups in their efforts to improve their livelihoods as well as the environment.
- strengthen working linkages between farmers and the LGU, NGOs and technical facilitators.
- promote sharing of new technologies, information, ideas and experiences about sustainable agriculture and natural resources management among Landcare groups and members.
- facilitate collective efforts in activities - which cannot be carried out at household level (eg communal nurseries).
- assist in the marketing of agroforestry-derived products of the members, and to develop links to studies on agroforestry based farming

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

3.2 当地土地使用者/当地社区参与该方法的不同阶段

	当地土地使用者/当地社区的参与	指定参与人员并描述活动
启动/动机	互动	public meetings, rapid/participatory rural appraisal, workshops/ seminars
计划	互动	public meetings, rapid/participatory rural appraisal, workshops/ seminars
实施	自我动员	organisation of major and minor activities: coordination of casual labour
监测/评估	互动	measurements/observations, public meetings, interviews/ questionnaires
research	互动	on-farm research supported by LGU, academics, ICRAF

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

解释:

land user driven (bottom-up). Spontaneous adoption with technical assistance from donors

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

如果相关，请说明性别、年龄、地位、种族等。:

Training (by LGU, ICRAF, academics) in tree nursery establishment and seeding, soil sampling and soil fertility assessment, layout of contours for natural vegetative strips, and pest and disease control in the farm

培训形式:

• 在职
• 农民对农民
• 示范区域

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，非常

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

若是，该文件是否用于监测和评估？:

否

4.5 研究

研究是该方法的一部分吗?

是

明确话题:

• 社会学
• 技术

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）

• 农业

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

若是，请说明如何维持:

Landcare has become an integral part of civil organisation. Landcare is a triangulation of grassroot organizations (farmers), local government units (LGU's), and technical failitators. The financial resource required for this approach are imbedded in the regular budget of municipal or barangay. The LGU's (politicians consider Landcare groups as political machinery and voting blocks. If they

6.4 该方法的长处/优点

土地使用者眼中的长处/优势/机会
Makes farm workers easier
Promotes social integration and addresses other social issues which are beyond individual household capacity to solve (burials, weddings, etc)

编制者或其他关键资源人员认为的长处/优势/机会
Promotes rapid adoption of SWC technologies. Provides easy and fast access/implementation of SWC technologies
Encourages farmers to gain access to services and financial support from LGU, technical facilitators and service providers
Provides a vehicle for participatory research and technical interventions and ensures that newly-developed technologies are appropriate
Makes extension activities cost effective
Ensures sustainability of actions

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？
Individual problems not easily addressed, as few members are frank and open	Encourare everybody to share their problems and concerns
Participation entails time to be away from farm work	Meetings and discussions should be scheduled during evenings or holidays.

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？
Over reliance on ICRAF on technical innovation	Encourage farmers to conduct farmer level experimentation.
Lack of leadership and organisation skills of some Landcare leaders, who are unable to guide groups into cohesive, dynamic organisation. It takes time to get consensus and to make them work together	Landcare group leaders need to be better trained in leadership skills group facilitation and participation
Some farmers join Landcare expecting handouts or grants	Project objectives and strategies should be explicitly explained to farmers
Over-emphasis of political patronage by some LGUs alienates people of different orientation/background	Encourage a more transparent government at LGU particularly at barangay level

7.1 方法/信息来源

7.2 参考可用出版物

标题、作者、年份、ISBN:

Campbell, Andrew. 1994. Landcare: Communities shaping the land and the future. Allen and Unvin, St. Leonard, New South Wales, Australia

可以从哪里获得?成本如何?

ICRAF-Philippines. College of Forestry, UPLB, College, Laguna, Philippines

标题、作者、年份、ISBN:

Garrity, Dennis and Agustin Mercado, Jr. The Landcare Approach: a Two-Based Method to Rapidly Disseminate Agroforesttry Practices in Upland Watersheds

可以从哪里获得?成本如何?

ICRAF-Philippines. College of Forestry, UPLB, College, Laguna, Philippines

标题、作者、年份、ISBN:

Mercado Jr A, Patindol M and Garrity DP (2001) The Landcare experience in the Philippines: technical and institutional innovations for conservation farming. Development in Practice, Vol. 11, No. 4