有助于对方法进行记录/评估的机构名称（如相关）Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environme (Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environme) - 挪威
Regulations and financial grants for reduction of pollution and promotion of the cultural landscape.
Aims / objectives: The Regional Environmental Program (RMP) is a part of the Regional Rural Development Program provided by County Governors, in this case the County Governors of Østfold and Akershus. The programs differ somewhat between counties and the one for Østfold is used as an example here. The program aims to target environmental efforts in the agricultural sector, mainly focusing on
agricultural runoff, reduced usage of pesticides, cultural landscapes, biological diversity, cultural monuments and environments, outdoor recreation and availability. Measures related to reduction of runoff from agricultural land to waterbodies has resent years been given the highest priority, and the greatest part of the financial grants. Improvement of soil structure to maintain soil functions and prevention of soil loss and nutrient leaching, are some of the main goals of the approach.
Methods: Management plans and local regulations for different catchments are implemented through the Regional Environmental Program. Funds to finance measures are provided from both this program and other sources, such as the Grant Scheme for Special Agricultural Environmental Measures (SMIL). The latter is allocated by the County Governor and managed by local municipalities. In order to receive production subsidies the land users have to carry out the regulation measures. In areas of
prioritized watercourses the soil tillage regulations are stricter, and the financial support higher. Around especially vulnerable waterbodies the measures are compulsory. Agricultural areas are classified by their susceptibility to water erosion (four erosion risk classes), with different soil management requirements. High erosion risk classes normally provide higher grant rates.
Stages of implementation: The Regional Environmental Program was first introduced in 2005, followed by a rollover in 2009. It
was at the agricultural settlement in 2012 decided to continue the program in the same path as settled in 2004/2005, with improvements from the evaluation in 2007/2008 and 2011. The County Governor continues the ongoing work of targeting the economical funds to measures of high environmental benefit. The Regional Environmental Program is also influenced by guidelines from the National Environmental Program of 2013-2016. Random controls are carried out and falsely reported measures lead to reduction and repayment of production grants.
Role of stakeholders: The farmers are mainly conducting the measures by changing their land use practices, but the Regional
Environmental Program is developed in collaboration between municipalities, the county, the Farmers’ Organization, industry, and the County Governor. The measures are revised annually, mainly based on inputs from the Farmers’ Organization and the municipality. Other measures are included by the Regional Environmental Program than shown in the QT (Grass Covered Riparian Buffer Strips and Reduced Tillage), but these were evaluated to be less relevant for the prevention of soil loss.
Other important information: Other measures are included by the Regional Environmental Program than shown in the QT (Grass Covered Riparian Buffer Strips and Reduced Tillage), but these were evaluated to be less relevant for the prevention of soil loss.
For more information: http://www.fylkesmannen.no/en/Ostfold/Agriculture-and-food/Environmental-measures/Tilskudd-til-regionale-miljotiltak-RMP-2014/ (In Norwegian only)
Regional regulations: https://lovdata.no/dokument/JB/forskrift/2011-06-01-716?q=morsa
The Approach focused on SLM only
Target the environmental initiatives and provide increased visibility.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Agricultural runoff and erosion, usage of pesticides, degradation of cultural landscapes, loss of biological diversity, degradation of cultural monuments and environments, decreased availability to outdoor recreational areas.
Measures may lead to income loss for land users.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Financial grants.
The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights hindered a little the approach implementation Not all land users implemented the technologies.
The workload may increase with land use changes and implementation of erosion risk classes and regulations.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Higher financial grants for high risk areas.
|Regulations initiated by politicians and management, governed by the Agricultural Authority
|Involvement of specialists
|Changes in land use practices implemented by land users
|Monitoring and evaluation of measures by specialists and management
|Results evaluated and reported by specialists
The choice of SLM Technology was made on the basis of recommendations from specialists.
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by politicians / leaders. Decisions on the method were made on county and management level.
- Through information
Name of method used for advisory service: Guidelines and circulars from the County Governor; Key elements: Information, Guidance, Environmental standards
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Requires land conservation measures for disbursement of subsidies.
bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Landslides
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by other through measurements; indicators: P content in soil, water quality, runoff
technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Infiltration rate/soil compaction
economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through observations; indicators: Production rate, increase/decrease in income
area treated aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: Evaluation of measures
no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: None
management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: None
There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Annual revision
There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Evaluation and modification proposals in progress
Research of the effectiveness of the technologies have been carried out and discussed with land users and management.
Research was carried out on-farm
- > 1,000,000
Approach costs were met by the following donors: local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Regional level): 100.0%
Contributions were provided by the state from the Regional Environmental Program and other sources as the Grant Scheme for Special Agricultural Environmental Measures (SMIL).
Economical benefits for the land user to implement measures and loss if they reject, according to local regulations.
Regulations to prevent soil and water degradation.
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
Similar approaches are applied on watercourses in other counties, but regulations and financial support varies.
Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
Somewhat better water quality in drinking water recipients.
Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
Cooperation between farmers
Production and income loss.
|Good guidance and free maps for land users available on the internet
|Annual repport (both strength and weekness)
|Financial grants graded by erosion risk classes
|Regular evaluation through agricultural negotiations (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: A management committee has recently suggested simplifications to the program, but this has not yet been evaluated by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture)
|Complicated system with a variety of details
|There is a group who is working on a report to the ministry on how to simplify the program