Approaches

soil reclamation and application of chemical and organic amendment [Sudan]

approaches_2614 - Sudan

Completeness: 81%

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:

Mustafa Shahira

0024983772011

SRCS

Sudan

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
FAO (FAO) - Italy
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Sudanese Red Crescent Society (SRCS) - Sudan

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

11/05/2016

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. Description of the SLM Approach

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: 1. to improve soil productivity
2. to increase soil production

Methods: 1. digging soil to 1.5 meter depth
2. remove the original soil and replace it by glare soil
3. adding the amendments

Stages of implementation: 1. soil survey
2. land use and land scape
3. soil management

Role of stakeholders: 1. land owner (financial support)
2. labor (farm activities)
3. Ministry of Agriculture (water irrigation, maintenance, technical support)
4. SLM specialist (technical advice)

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

Country:

Sudan

Region/ State/ Province:

Khartoum

Further specification of location:

Soba

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

3

2.7 Type of Approach

  • recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (intercroping and fruit trees )

1. to improve soil properties
2. increase soil production


The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: soil limitation and labor availability

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

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

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation

other
  • hindering

M and E

Treatment through the SLM Approach: establish M & E system

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities
  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
  • private sector
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 land users
planning interactive land users
implementation external support land users
monitoring/ evaluation none land users
Research none land users

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 by SLM specialists alone (top-down)

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

  • labour
Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
Subjects covered:

how to apply the modern technology

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: survey and technical advice ; Key elements: field visits , visual observation , personal contacts

Advisory service is very 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?

Yes

Comments:

technical aspects were regular monitored by other through measurements; indicators: SLM specialist

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by other through measurements; indicators: SLM specialist and land user

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

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • 2,000-10,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: private sector (100): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
tools fully financed
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • paid in cash
Comments:

Labour also rewarded with other material support

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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

improvement of products

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

the only beneficiary from the approach is the land owner

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
Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

farmers cultivated some fruits and crops

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion

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:

need of technical support, physical support and M & E

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
improve soil properties
increase the production
raising awareness (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: establish M&E
technology transfer )

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?
absence of M&E
workload
establish M&E
provide supporting tools to the farmers

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Dr. Adel

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules