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)

Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA) (Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA)) - Chile

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Asociación para la Diversificación y el Desarrollo Agricultural Comunal (ADDAC) - Nicaragua

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Zero tillage approch was developed to protect the soil of de rainfall

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Methods: Zero tillage is realized with a crop rotation cereal-pastures, with elimination of traditional fire practices and fallow, supported with organic manure, zero tillage practice (horse drawn tillage and with machinery).

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

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (Zero tillage, dry and semi-dry land)

To apply conservation tillage for agricultural development.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Social conflict and low knowledge in agricultural machinary.

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
planning	interactive
implementation	interactive
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:

From the interaction between japanesse experience and chilean expertise

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Form of training:

• courses

Subjects covered:

25 chilean professionals were trainning in Japan (short courses of 1 month).

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: In situ demonstration and trainning; Key elements: Demonstration, Farmer visit

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Chilean agricultural politics give to the farmers big part of the responsability, after a powerfull support from the government.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

technical aspects were monitored through observations
socio-cultural aspects were monitored through observations
economic / production aspects were monitored through observations

There were many changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Technical recommendation were improve (cultives and machine)

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

The institutions were mainly focused on physical soil structure, increasing yield and water conservation

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:

• > 1,000,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (tillage machine): 25.0%; government (incentive): 25.0%; local community / land user(s) (land and working): 50.0%

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)

• agricultural

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Active participation of farmers.

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)?

• uncertain

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
technology behaviour (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: it depends)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
productives (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: financial support from the government)
economic (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: insumes (uncertainty costs).)

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?
Machinary and fertilizers	High costs

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Machinary and fertilizers	High costs

7.1 Methods/ sources of information