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)

Institut de recherche pour le développement IRD (Institut de recherche pour le développement IRD) - France

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

Maize residue management with high input of crop residues and annual crop instead of year one crop and fallow in year 2

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The objetive is to evaluate the influence of different agronomic systems including conventional system (one year tillage and one year fallow), conservation system (high input of crop residues) with mineral fertilizers every year, conservation system (high input of crop residues) with organic fertilizer every year on: water run-off (quantity and quality), soil sediment transports, soil water content, soil cover, carbon capture, soils characteristics and their interactions with the production of the maize/bean crop association on Acrisol

Methods: Primary tillage for maize/beans it consisted in moldboard ploughing and furrowing, and one post-emergence weeding was done manually. Depth of tillage for moldboard plow was about 0.20m and for rototill, about 0.15 m. 3 seeds of corn or beans are planted and covered by foot. Fertilizer is put on the depression just after seeding and one month later during the post emergence weeding. This experiment have been done on Acrisol

Stages of implementation: The experiment is finished. Dissemination to the stakeholders and policy makers has been done. Policy makers took the results and are disseminating it to the other stakeholders

Role of stakeholders: Active. Visit to the field experiment site during the experimentation, workshops, etc...but the adoption of the technologies can be effective only if the system is deeply change. Farmers need thei fallow year for their animals. This proposal is just one element of the whole system to change.

Other important information: Important results to understand and measure the soil erosion and run-off with this kind of soil (Acrisol) with the traditionnal and improaved cultural system

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 on SLM only (Soil conservation, water conservation, crop residue management, organic fertilizers, maize/bean association)

The area is strongly eroded and it was necessary to understand which factors could explain this situation and try agronomic alternatives to proposed to farmers to reduce it. In fact soil erosion is mainly due to the cattle free grazing in the field during the fodder and in commune land use for other part. The elimination of fodder year reduce presence of animals and increase production/productivity which can be given to the cattle. But this means to have less animals, more works and normally, more beneficits!

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Culivating every year means less space for the cattle which are the base of the agricultural system. the adoption of the technologies can be effective only if the system is deeply change. Farmers need the fallow year for their animals. This proposal is just one element of the whole system to change. New practice generates psychological resistance

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
planning	external support
implementation	external support
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive
Research	interactive

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?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• Institutions

Form of training:

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

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

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

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations
technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations

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

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology
• technology

• Agronomy, hydrology, soil sciences

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Measures water run-off (quantity and quality), soil sediment transports, soil water content, soil cover, soils characteristics, carbone capture, production of maize and beans by INIFAP, IRD (France), COLPOS, UNAM-CIEco and CSIC (Spain)

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

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) (Atecuaro communities): 5.0%; government (INIFAP, COLPOS, UNAM-CIEco, SEMARNAT): 30.0%; international (UE project (REVOLSO, then DESIRE), IRD, CSIC): 65.0%

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)

• none

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

7.1 Methods/ sources of information