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)

University of Selcuk, Faculty of Agriculture (University of Selcuk, Faculty of Agriculture) - Türkiye

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Farmers adopting the rotational grazing on pasturelands.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Basic aim of the approach is to rest a certain part of pasture by rotational grazing helped with seeding, fertilizing and area closure to enable the new types and higher amount of herbacous plant cover.

Methods: SWC approach is applied in conjunction with the seeding and fertilizing of pastures in different periods of the year.

Stages of implementation: Teaching and training is achieved in winters, seeding and fertilising in early spring and grazing in winter.

Role of stakeholders: The trained stakeholders are expected to help with the seeding and fertilization activities. All farmes are responsible for the fulfillement of area closure rules.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

2.7 Type of Approach

• traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

To conserve pasture areas, to raise whealth of district people, to prevent the immigrant from rural areas to towns and cities.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of money to conserve the naturel pastures, conflict over the use of already poor pastureland, lower income rates from animal feeding, low level of biodiversity (herbaceous plants) and lower biomass production.

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	external support	local land users inspire and inform specialist and local decision makers for pastureland management
planning	external support	They are relatively active in the planning phase.
implementation	interactive	land users are particularly involved in the implementation phase.
monitoring/ evaluation	passive
Research	none

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

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

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• SLM specialists alone

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by SLM specialists alone (top-down)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Male and active farmers are mostly involved in training activities.

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

Main types of herbacous plants in the region, feeding capacity of certain plant types, importance of area closure for rehabilitation of pastures etc.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government through observations; indicators: None

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by government, land users through observations; indicators: None

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring and evaluation enable the understanding of rotation period for certain areas. The suitable herbaceous types are also safely determined after these works.

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Specify topics:

• sociology
• ecology

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• < 2,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (Individual farmers and farmer unions): 15.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Local branches of agricultural state organizations): 80.0%; national non-government (NGO's such as TEMA): 5.0%

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

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

• no

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Because they need financial support for seed and fertilizing costs to improve the pastures.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The approach and technology caused new opportunities and good economy. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Attention, money support and measurements.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Rotational grazing and improving for pasture management is consistent and useful. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Money support and training.)

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?
Until enough improvement of the pasture farmers need fodder for their animal.	Growing fodder in their fields with the government support and teaching.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Especially pasture improving requires money support for soil tillage, fodder seeding and fertilizing. Sometimes there may be conflicts in the grazing of pasture improved.	Government supports and training.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information