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)

EEZA-CSIC (EEZA-CSIC) - Spain

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

Regional development programme to protect natural resources and stimulate rural economies.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The objective of the Rural Development Programme (RDP) is to assist farmers who have to deal with difficult environmental conditions (drought, steep slopes) to apply sustainable farming practices either in the implementation phase or for maintenance. The programme is carried out to: 1) improve the socio-economic conditions of rural areas; 2) prevent land abandonment, and 3) prevent on-site and off-site damages caused by land degradation and erosion. To achieve these objectives, the RDP identifies different lines of action: 1) compensate for difficult natural conditions; 2) fight against erosion; 3) reduce farming intensity; and 4) promote ecological agriculture.

Methods: The main method used in the RDP is through subsidies of farming practices following a cross-compliance principle. Each line of action implies a combination of conservation measures that are subsidised, but only when applied in combination. Hence, single conservation measures outside of these lines of action are not subsidies.

Role of stakeholders: The level of the subsidy is based on estimated implementation and maintenance costs and possible loss of productivity caused by the conservation measures. These values were obtained after consultation of various stakeholder groups including farmer organisations with agricultural cooperatives. However, because of limited resources, not all farmers will receive subsidies for the conservation measures. Priority is given to: 1) farmers who have 50% of their land within the Nature 2000 network, a European wide network of protected areas for the preservation of habitats and threatened species; 2) farmers with >50% of their land in unfavourable zones; and 3) farmers who did not receive subsidy in previous RDPs.

Other important information: Furthermore, areas with slopes of more than 20% are not subsidised in this programme since it is recommended that no agriculture takes place in these areas. Instead, reforestation of these areas is subsidised. RDPs are developed for a period of 7 years. Every seven years, a new RDP is defined and priorities and levels of subsidies can change. The present RDP is valid for the period 2007-2013.

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 (Socio-economic development of rural areas)

1) improve the socio-economic situation of rural areas; 2) prevent land abandonment; and 3) prevent on-site and off-site damage caused by land degradation and erosion.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The main problems addressed by the approach are low income and low productivity of farmers in rural areas, subsequent land abandonment, and erosion and land degradation processes causing on-site and off-site damage.

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	Petitions towards policy makers and farmers organizations to pay attention for production under difficult environmental conditions
planning	interactive	Land users were sporadically consulted through farmers organizations and participated in protest meetings against initial versions of the RDP that they considered insufficient regarding payments for the agricultural sector
implementation	interactive	Land users implemented SLM technologies themselves with help from technicians of regional government and farmers organisations
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:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

Decisions were made in the regional ministry of agriculture after consultation of researchers and farmer organisations.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by politicians / leaders. Politicians have decided the way of subsidising.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer

Subjects covered:

The technical conditions needed for control were explained to technicians. Training to land users was not provided directly, though advice can be obtained through agricultural organisations and extension services.

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:

Agricultural extension services (Oficina Comarcal Agrari; Key elements: advice, control

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; There is more information and awareness building required for land users. Information is often only available at political/research level and the level of the agricultural cooperatives but not at farm level.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

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

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Information to agricultural cooperatives

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through measurements; indicators: farm visits, sampling of soils for chemical parameters

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through measurements; indicators: farm visits to control the actual implementation of SLM measures

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: comparing production between years

area treated aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: farm visits and mapping with GIS tools

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by government through observations; indicators: documentation of all farmers who participate in the subsidy programme

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: RDP's are evaluated and redefined every 7 years.

There were several changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: RDP's are evaluated and redefined every 7 years.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• economics / marketing
• ecology
• technology

• geography

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Results from national and international research projects of the last decades were used as well as experimental results from regional and national research institutes like the IMIDA and CSIC.

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 (EU FEADER programme): 41.0%; government: 10.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc): 49.0%

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):

Subsidies are provided by the regional ministry, state and EU programmes.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• agricultural

• construction

• other

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

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Some of the technologies under the support do not have a high cost (e.g. reduced tillage and ecological agriculture). These can be continued without problems. Other technologies can be more problematic, for example the maintenance of vegetated earthen terraces can be too costly.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
All implementation and maintenance costs as well as loss of productivity are subsidised (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: There should be enough funding for all farmers willing to apply the measures, and there should be continuity across RDP’s.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The approach is an effort to provide an integrated way of how SLM can be achieved. So no separate measures but a complete SLM plan at the farm level. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Including more measures in the approach.)

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?
There is a lack of organisation amongst land users	Agricultural cooperatives and regional extension services should have a more active role to coordinate activities and communication.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
There is a strong lack of land users participation in the design, implementation and training of the approach	Organise stakeholder meetings, information sessions and trainings for land users.
There is a lack of transparency in communication	Agricultural cooperatives and regional extension services should have a more active role to coordinate activities and communication.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information