Approaches

Conventional (contour-line and ploughing) tillage [Hungary]

approaches_2650 - Hungary

Completeness: 64%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Geographical Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA CSFK) - Hungary

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Conventional (contour-line and ploughing) tillage

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The basis of the technology is the annual autumn ploughing. The ploughing and all other cultivation is carried out parallel to the contour lines. This way the erosion can be significantly decreased. The rotational cultivation aims at the reduction of the areal and fluvial erosion, at the repulsion of the weeds and at the attainment of the ideal state of the seedbed at the time of sowing. It is applicable anywhere bellow a certain slope angle. The only restriction is the excessively thin parcel structure. Special education and investment are not required, it can be realised by the available instruments.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Hungary

Region/ State/ Province:

Zala county

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

Soil protection (soil loss reduction), yield increase

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: land repartition and compensation > too much narrow plots

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • hindering

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately hindered the approach implementation

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities
3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation self-mobilization
planning self-mobilization
implementation self-mobilization
monitoring/ evaluation none
Research none

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • land users alone (self-initiative)
Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up)

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national): 100.0%

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • paid in cash

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The problem is unlikely to be overcome in the near future.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
no investment (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: sustained)
less soil erosion (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: sustained)
increase yield and income (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: sustained)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
no investment (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: sustained)
less soil erosion (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: sustained)
increase yield and income (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: sustained)

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules