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)

Department of Resources and Environmental Science, Beijing Normal University (Department of Resources and Environmental Science, Beijing Normal University) - 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

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Controlling a small watershed comprehensively with structural, vegetative, management, and agronomic measures based on harvesting area of ground water and underground water, to improve the production and conservation of land.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The overall purpose of the approach is to prevent soil and water loss and better environment. The aim of the approach is to control soil and water loss by combined measures.

Stages of implementation: (1) Structural measure; (2) Combine vegetative measure, agronomic measure and management measures.

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 ( Prevent Flooding, Irrigation, Breed aquatic biology)

The main objectives of the approach were achieving the more sustainable soil and water use by the ways and means which support a SWC technology.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Financing Inadequate

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	external support	public meetings; They were involved in the program by taking part in public meeting to understand the approach.
planning	interactive	public meetings; Participating
implementation	external support	responsibility for major steps; Participating
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive
Research	interactive	Casual labor.

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:

consultative.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by politicians / leaders. consultative.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

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

Subjects covered:

Teaching them how to implement SWC items and soil & water conservation knowledge, etc.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Small Watershed Integrated Harness; Key elements: Fund from government, Water and soil loss very severely, Aid by local government; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system 2) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: planners; Activities: training

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; At each government level, there is a SWC division which is in charge of SWC activities including extension.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

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

• local

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: None

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

area treated aspects were None monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: None

no. of land users involved aspects were None monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• economics / marketing
• ecology
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

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:

• 100,000-1,000,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national - Central government): 60.0%; other (-): 40.0%

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

• agricultural

• infrastructure

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

• paid in cash

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Yes

Specify conditions (interest rate, payback, etc.):

Interest rate charged: 2.0%

Interest was lower than market rate.

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)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

If a SWC investment exceeds the benefit, farmers will lose interest.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
SWC approach is mainly actualized by government, the land users do not concern much.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The comprehensive SWC measues being applied in a small basin producing farthest benefit. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More demonstration areas and experiences need to set up to extend in large area.)
Government organize programming design, so that the benefit of the user and society are more obvious. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Making out SWC favourablepolicies and strengthening propaganda and education in order that everyone could concern eco-environment protection and construction.)

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?
Cost much!!

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Comprehensive development of a small watershed is a systematic engineering, it need scientific planning and much more input. It is difficult for farmers themselves to do these.	Enhancing training local SWC staffs and technicians.