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)

Northwest A&F University (NWAFU) - China

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

Year-after-year terraced land is a kind of practice to enlarge the flat land step by step with the growing up of new planted trees in order to reduce runoff generation and improve the water moisture of the soil and the yield as well.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The main aim of the approach is to improve the soil moisture by change of the slope into flat land; The special character is the process of terracing land. Starting with small pit for the young and small trees, continuing to expand the area of terraces untill the land is well conserved. The small trees have small pits and flat land, and the bigger trees have larger areas.

Stages of implementation: The work is finished in several years which could alleviate conflicts between land preparation and crop management. The approach will be finished by the local farmers.

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

• traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

to describe the character and the process of this approach.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: frequent drought; low crop yield on slopes; low income from the land; strong soil erosion.

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	self-mobilization	local farmers
planning	none	According to their time with no planning mainly
implementation	self-mobilization	local farmers
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

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:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

it is a kind of practice fully finished by local farmers.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). the local farmers want to improve the soil condition and yield of orchard, and sometime is for better working condition.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

No

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Advisory service is totally inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The local government does not pay attention to such approach because the labor cost is very high.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

technical aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: It is not difficult to master the technology.

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Only some farmers plan to use this technology when they know the benefits.

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: It is a very simple and traditional method.

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) (without external input): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

No

5.4 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

If yes, describe how:

it depends on the time of local farmers. If the requirement of part time work decline, more people will continue this approach

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It is good approach to improve soil condition and yield (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The more imcome or stable imcome could encourage them to do so)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The work is according to the local farmer themselves (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: If they want, they can do it consciously )

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?
lots of labour work is needed	waiting for the spare time, or neglect the approach if the yield is already decent.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
high amount of labor is required for the implementation	self-organized labour sharing to build the terraces.d if the return from land is higher than that from labour work it has to be distributed fair.
limition of financial support for the implementation	find external support

7.1 Methods/ sources of information