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)

SOWAP (SOWAP) - 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:

Yes

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

To find and demonstrate ways of better managing the land.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Objectives: to improve soil management, reduce soil erosion; to reduce water pollution; to enable farmer to maintain the economic viability of his operations; to disseminate project results; to engage with stakeholders; to encourage farmers to adopt the technology.

Methods: Presentation of technical and economic data; frequent discussions and field visits with farmers and their advisors, use of all dissemination options (opendays, presentations, agricultural press, radio, television).

Stages of implementation: Consultation bewteen project members and land manager on management practice; regular project meetings; collaboration with other organisations.

Role of stakeholders: Use of project experience to solve problems and set up appropriate trials, communication with various stakeholders.

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 (soil quality, water quality, speed and cost of crop establishment, biodiversity)

To find and demonstrate ways of better managing the land. To demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of conservation oriented arable land management systems in protecting soil resources, improving catchment water quality and promoting biodiversity. To provide demonstrations of best practice in soil management for local farmers To provide practical field solutions to demonstrate sustainable farming practices to policy makers To demonstrate how information can be disseminated successfully at the local, regional, national and EU level via workshops, field visits, publications and the Internet.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Social: Insufficient awareness of environmental benefits of SWC and incoming regulation (eg CAP reform, Water Framework Directive), low level of confidence to try new techniques, getting farmers to own their (erosion) problem. Technical: link changes in soil management with effects on water quality and biodiversity

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	none
planning	none
implementation	none
monitoring/ evaluation	none
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:

• mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

On-farm discussion with project team members, the land manager and other experts.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. Land manager needed to be comfortable with the decisions made

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• politicians/decision makers (1), agronomists (2),

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings
• courses

Form of training:

• public meetings (1)

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?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

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 measurements

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Yields and gross margins; effects on biodiversity especially birds; rate of technology uptake

Research was carried out 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 Environment/Syngenta): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Technical difficulties that may arise e.g. weed management, soil compaction, will require expert input and expertise from different areas

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
greater confidence

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
improved motivation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continued support, technical advice and recognition of farmer's achievement)
improved education and awareness (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continued support, technical advice and recognition of farmer's achievement)
greater confidence
improved problem solving capabilities

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
dependent on personalities I.e. with a more conservative farmer, this approach would be unsuccessful

7.1 Methods/ sources of information