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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 373, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (DEZA / COSUDE / DDC / SDC) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 373, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (DEZA / COSUDE / DDC / SDC) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}

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

This approach is the 'way' or 'how' the cut-off drain has been implemented on steepland in northern Thailand.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The cut-off drain is a kind of soil conservation measure which functions in the way that excess runoff will gather in these drains, which are constructed parallel with each other, and leave the cropped field without causing damage to it. This cut-off drain will be constructed only on steepland with large acreage. Fields smaller than 0.16 ha will not have it. The digging of the cut-off drain will be done before rainy season, using one hand hoe breadth and 20-30 cm deep. In the following year, loose earth material may be dug up and the drain may eventually be as large as 40 cm wide and 40 cm deep. This is an indigenous practice which farmers do it by themselves in their farm and they are not paid for their wages by any agency. In some cases poorer people may be hired by richer ones to dig cut-off drains. State agencies and extension workers have never promoted this T and A anywhere.

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

1. To drain runoff water, 2. To reduce soil erosion, 3. To stabilize crop yield.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Steepland in the North, where rainfall is high, has been brought to cultivation. There apparently was a sign of excessive runoff from the land, farmers in the past therefore started to dig the ditch to drain water away to the side of the field.

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	responsibility for major steps
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

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

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

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

land user driven (bottom-up).

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). land user driven (bottom-up).

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: Farmer to farmer; Key elements: Simplicity, Low cost, Functionality

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

• socio-economics, bio-physical

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: other (Personal fund): 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

Comments:

They do it by themselves through their perception.

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)?

• yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Reduce soil loss in large areas grown to field crop
Can use as a path in the field

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reduce soil loss in large areas grown to field crop (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Adjust the gradient not to be too steep so the effect from scouring can be decreased)
Can use as a path in the field
Reduce soil loss in large areas grown to field crop (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Adjust the gradient to be less steep, to prevent excessive scouring)
Can use as a path in the field

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?
None

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
A part of cropped area is lost.	No way

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Turkelboom, f. 1999. On-farm diagnosis of steepland erosion in Northern Thailand. PhD thesis. 309 pp.Pongsapich, A. 1998. Indigenous Technical Knowledge for Land Mgmt in Asia. Issues in sustainable land mgmt No. 3. 152 pp.

Available from where? Costs?

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, BelgiumIBSRAM, Bangkok

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Pongsapich, A. 1998. Indigenous Technical Knowledge for Land Mgmt in Asia. Issues in sustainable land mgmt No. 3. 152 pp.

Available from where? Costs?

IBSRAM, Bangkok