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）

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

有助于对方法进行记录/评估的机构名称（如相关）

Integrated Catchment Management Project (Integrated Catchment Management Project) - 莱索托

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？:

27/05/2018

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

This focus group discussion was composed of 15-20 participants: community elders, youth, (males and females as informed by local beliefs and norms), retired government officials.The aim of community focus group discussion was to find land users’perception and behaviour on land uses and SLM. It was organised by Ministry of Forestry, LADA coordinator and national consultant. The target group was land users, local authorities, youth, small stock owners, retired government officials. The target group mandate was also to draw the community map which also showed the land uses and resources. This focus group discussion gave researchers information on land uses, natural resources, prior SLM interventions, and many more.

2.2 该方法的详细说明

该方法的详细说明:

1. Conducted an initial field visit before the focus group discussion (FGD) with the selected villages within the sub-catchment: A tour by road with a few key informants to familiarise officers with the study area, land uses, also the extent and severity of degradation and types and extent of conservation and improved land management measures with the result being a community territorial map.
2. The aim of Focus Group Discussion (FGD) is to obtain information about range of land-users, their individual and communal management regime and the history of their area. This method is used as the first stage of implementation in LADA local level assessment.
3. The FGD representatives consisted of different social groups (i.e. both men and women – and different age groups) between 15-20 members. These members together with technocrats sat at round table set up which enabled free and interactive communication and feedback.
Each study area had its own list of FGD questions and facilitated them accordingly. Field Assessments confining; six (6) study areas in each sub-catchment.
•Vegetation assessment.
•Soil assessments which entail soil erosion and soil properties (2 study areas).
•Water resources assessment with key informant interviews on water resources.
•Household livelihood assessments.
•Land use systems
4. The target group mandate was also to draw the community map which also showed the land uses and resources. This focus group discussion gave researchers information on land uses, natural resources, prior SLM interventions, and many more. This approach enabled land users to present all their views without fear or dominance by other members. They realised that they have their resources in abundance, however, they need to improve their status as their livelihoods entirely depends on their good use.
5. It was organised by Ministry of Forestry, National University of Lesotho, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Water, Ministry of Local Government,LADA coordinator and national consultant. The target group was land users, local authorities, youth, small stock owners, retired government officials.
6. The advantage of FGD was that the land users were taught on income generating activities such as orchard establishment, food processing, vegetable production under shade nets/tunnels (climate smart agriculture). They did not like the timing of FGD because it interfered with their haresting season, it took longer than it was intended and the weather conditions were not condusive as it was too cold and on the second day, snow began to fall.

2.3 该方法的照片

2.4 该方法的视频

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

2.8 该方法的主要目的/目标

To find land-users views on their status of their natural resources and if they have indigenous knowledge systems applicable to be used in the management method

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	key informants as community representatives
计划	互动	key informants and technocrats working together to produce community maps
实施	互动	technocrats tour guided by community elders
监测/评估	无
	无

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SLM专家，咨询土地使用者之后

解释:

Technocrats recommend SLM activities to land-users who in turn adopt the suggested technologies attributed to their impact land-users' livelihoods

明确做出决策的依据:

• 对充分记录的SLM知识进行评估（基于证据的决策）

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？:

否

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
• 在固定中心

说明/注释:

There are farmer-farmer visits facilitated by extension workers. There are also agriculture resource centres whereby farmers visit to get more information.

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？:

• 否

4.4 监测和评估

监测和评估是该方法的一部分吗？:

否

4.5 研究

研究是该方法的一部分吗?

是

明确话题:

• 社会学
• 经济/市场营销
• 生态学

提供进一步的细节，并指出是谁做的研究:

Each researcher facilitated their area of speciality and this enabled the question-answer session to be easy. community members had bottle-necks which researchers ironed. The challenge in extension services is means of transport to the landusers due to terrain of our country, so extension service is somehow compromised and not acessible at all times.

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:

• 2,000-10,000

注释（例如主要的资助来源/主要捐助者）:

FAO-UN
Government of Lesotho
The money caters for accomodation, meals, transport, refreshments for researchers. This is because reseachers do not reside where the FGD was taking place, after the FGD followed LADA local level assessment, which was conducted for 15 days.

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）

• 无

注释:

N/A

5.4 信用

是否根据SLM活动的方法给予信用值？:

否

5.5 其它激励或手段

是否有其他激励措施或工具用于促进SLM技术的实施？:

是

如果是，请具体说明:

There are policies and laws which were referred to in order to support SLM such as Forest Act (1998), Range Resources Management policy (2013)

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）？:

• 不确定

若否或不确定，请具体说明并予以注释:

Without external support, farmers are not able to implement activities fully

6.4 该方法的长处/优点

土地使用者眼中的长处/优势/机会
Knowledge management
It can easily be implemented
It brings different land user groups together

编制者或其他关键资源人员认为的长处/优势/机会

other key resource persons such as local authorities liked this approach because it them ideas on which resources are available in the catchment and how communities utilise them for survival. The land users on the other hand ound this approach very useful as they were empowered and allowed to say their views without fear or favor as they were informed that there were no wrong answers. everybody participated fully

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？
It is limited to key informants	It should be replicated within the same community but, with different participants (Key)
Some key informants tend to dominate the discussion	The facilitator should be observant and try to control dominating participants
It may become a platform for conflicts	Local authorities should be present in case conflicts arise

7.1 方法/信息来源

7.2 参考可用出版物

标题、作者、年份、ISBN:

N/A

7.3 链接到网络上可用的相关信息

标题/说明:

Ministry of Forestry, Range and Soil Conservation

URL:

https://forestry.gov.ls

标题/说明:

Lesotho Soil Information System

URL:

https://lesis.gov.ls