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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 22, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Book project: Making sense of research for sustainable land management (GLUES)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 22, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Book project: Making sense of research for sustainable land management (GLUES)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 773, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg (Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg) - Germany', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

19/07/2016

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Field days are events for regional stakeholders, mainly farmers in the study area, to discuss their demands regarding scientific help, and to be informed about the activities and results of new methods and technologies for conservation agriculture.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The approach aimed at raising awareness, encouraging exchange and communication for new sustainable land management (SLM) technologies including no-till and minimum till. The main goal - implementation of improved SLM technologies – was intended to be achieved through capacity building and strengthening of the acceptance of new technologies Field days, organized at a partner farm/ study site in Poluyamki (Mikhailovski Rayon), were a suitable framework for the achievement of this goal. Another objective of the field day is cooperation and networking between farmers, scientists, representatives of the regional politics and administration, and commercial companies. This stimulates the exchange of knowledge and the dissemination of new information about SLM - which is very important for the successful implementation and evolution of the technology.

Methods: For effective presentation of the minimum and no-till cropping systems to the public, and to give everyone present at the field day the opportunity to inform themselves about conservation measures, an information point was set up by the project. For spread of information about research activities, results and recommendations, posters were presented - and leaflets and brochures were handed out. In this way it was possible to promote knowledge transfer from the scientists to the farmers, and to receive feedback.

Stages of implementation: Furthermore, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary knowledge exchange and discussion was initiated about the results and recommendations, which were based on the presentations given in the community centre. Due to the participation of many important local stakeholder groups, the field day was a suitable platform to contribute to network-building. Also, among the participants were private companies working in the agrarian sector. The cooperation partner of the research project, the Amazone company, also made presentations. In the study site the new tillage systems are already working. Furthermore the test farm unit in Poluyamki has also started to implement no-till and minimum tillage systems on fields outside the test farm, on farmer’s fields that do not belong to the project’s research sites and are not under the control of the project staff.

Role of stakeholders: Farmers are the stakeholders of primary importance, since it is hoped they will take up and implement the conservation technologies. Therefore most participants during the field day were farmers. Those invited are interested in new technologies and have the necessary financial power to invest in new technologies. The chances of successful implementation in their farms are very good. Most of these farms already have experience in conservation technologies. In the investigation area, about 20-30% of land is already cropped/ cultivated under some form of conservation soil tillage.

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 (Awareness raising for the importance of environmental as well as economic sustainability)

Improvement of technology adoption through: Awareness raising, knowledge exchange and transfer, capacity building

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - Low agricultural production of conventional/ traditional farming systems
- Limited economic efficiency of conventional/ traditional cropping systems
- Lack of soil water and decrease of soil fertility under conventional/ traditional farming systems
- lack of technical knowledge to implement modern adapted technologies for cropping and cope with more extreme events such as drought

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	interactive	Experimental plots, demonstration plots and field days were held on land users farms
planning	interactive
implementation	interactive
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive
Research	passive

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 SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

The SLM specialists of the the KULUNDA project mainly make the decisions on the choice of the SLM technology in cooperation with the farmers.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by Project staff. At the beginning of the project a large interview campaign with relevant local stakeholders was conducted by the scientists of the KULUNDA-project. Based on the survey results, a decision on the implementation measures were made by the scientific staff on the German and Russian site with consultation with local stakeholder groups .

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

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

Subjects covered:

Competitiveness of agricultural enterprises, ecologically and economically effective farm management through the use of resource-conserving crop production, costs for introducing modern tillage systems, personnel management, monitoring systems

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: Field days for demonstration and exchange; Key elements: The field seminar was a suitable platform for knowledge exchange on agricultural production in the Kulunda steppe, Capacity building: On-field demonstration as well as poster and presentations of project results and recommendations. Discussions in the field as well as in the lecture room allowed to address individual stakeholder questions and to suggest solutions. ; Training events in the vocational centre as a suitable way for knowledge transfer to farmers and specialists (training for trainers) in agricultural sector and capacity building.

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; There is already mainly a governmental advisory structure. The consultants are able to make recommendations for soil conserving technologies. However, international expertise and the demand of consultation by the farmers is too low.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: crop and weed development, field emergence
Bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: physical and chemical soil parameters as well as soil water
Technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: observation of the functionality of the soil conserving technologies, placement accuracy
Technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: fuel consumption, yield,
Socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: attitude
Economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: input costs (labour seed, fertilizer, pesticide yield, profit margin
No. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations
Management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by None through observations
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:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• ecology
• technology

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: international (German Ministry of Education and Research, BMBF): 50.0%; private sector (AMAZONE Company for land use technology): 50.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

by the agricultural company 'AMAZONE'

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

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

6.2 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)?

• yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Opportunity for farmers to get information about new agricultural machinery and other products for implementing new conservation farming system (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More intensive and profound consultation by agricultural companies regarding new conservation technologies.)
Exchange of experience in sustainable land use technologies between the farmers (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More participating farmers and a constant exchange between not only on the field days)
Land user, specialists and advisers all get to know about new technical findings and basic research (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular meetings between the stakeholders. Inclusion of knowledgeable and successful farmers will increase the acceptance of the results presented.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Network building - strengthening and extension of the stakeholder platform. This platform includes different stakeholder spheres: extension service, land users, those in education, scientists, other support systems (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By inviting various stakeholder groups and by creating opportunities for communication between participants.)
Participation of land users allows farmer-to-farmer learning (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Inclusion of different stakeholders for broad knowledge transfer. Large number of visitors helps to disseminate knowledge.)

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?
Great organizational effort	More external support of field days for farmers.
Because of the high number of participants and the time limit field days are not well suited for coaching of individual farmers	Intensification of extension services. Initiation of additional events for advising.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Reconciliation of basic research and applied research	Intensified cooperation between researchers and practitioners like farmers or agricultural companies
Limited duration of the project	By enhancing continuity of measures that are independent of the project. Strategy to initiate and promote the engagement of local partners such as the agricultural university or farmer associations / groups.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information