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

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Non inversion, conservation (soil and water protective) tillage.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Purpose: Finding and Demonstrating Ways of Better Managing the Land. SOWAP (SOil and WAter Protection) aims to assess the viability of a more 'conservation-oriented' agriculture, where fewer tillage practices replace the numerous cultivations carried out under more 'conventional' arable farming systems. The use of appropriate chemicals is tested, and their potential for off-site contamination assessed, to ensure that any suggested approaches are environmentally sound. Conventional tillage is an environment friendly method, carried out by shallow tillage (with disks and direct drill) and omission of ploughing (non-inversion).

Stages of implementation: Shallow disking, direct drill, environment friendly plant-protecting materials.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (ecology, economics, EU and national rules and regulations)

Soil and water protection (soil loss reduction), biodiversity enhancement, Finding and Demonstrating Ways of Better Managing the Land., Finding an environment friendly technology.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: deffence against soil compaction

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

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

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	passive	Mainly:rapid/participatory rural appraisal; partly: public meetings; 1 family was choosen (on the basis of suitable land size, machines etc.)
planning	interactive	workshops/seminars
implementation	interactive	responsibility for major steps
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	interviews/questionnaires;
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:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• SWC specialists, politicians/decision makers

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

methods of conservation tillage, conservation tillage in UK

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Conservation tillage (Soil and Water Protection); 1) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents; Extension staff: members f the SOWAP project 2) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: field visit and meetings

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

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 regular monitored through measurements

technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored through observations

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through observations

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: If the soil is very compact the direct drilling is impossible therfore preliminary disking is necessary.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Nevertheless this project includes natural and socio-economic aspects.

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

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: international (EU-Life foundation): 50.0%; international non-government (Syngenta Ltd.): 50.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Ja

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

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

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

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
future subsidy expectations and better chance for competition
soil loss reduction
economicalness
environmental consciousness agriculture

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
soil loss reduction
biodiversity enhancement
spreading of environmental conscious agriculture
soil and water protection
economicalness

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
reduced production (yield)
expensive machines

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Too many tools are required. Expensive machines.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

BIRKÁS, M. (2002): Környezetkímélö és energiatakarékos talajméelés.

Available from where? Costs?

SZIE, Mezógazdasági és Környezettudományi Kar, Gödöllö, 345 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

HOLLAND, J.M. (2004): The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence.

Available from where? Costs?

Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 103. No. 1., pp. 1-25.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Talajkímúlö múvelés és környezetvédelem

Available from where? Costs?

Gyakorlati Agrofórum Extra 3.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

BIRKÁS, M., JOLÁNKAI, M., GYURICZA, CS., PERCZE, A. (2004): Tillage effects on compaction, earthworms and other soil quality indicators in Hungary.

Available from where? Costs?

Soil & Tillage Research, Vol. 78. No. 2., pp. 185-196.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

MANNINGER, G. A. (1957): A talaj sekély múvelése.

Available from where? Costs?

Mezógazdasági Kiadó, Budapest, 135 p.