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

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

DESIRE (EU-DES!RE)

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

Moscow State University of Environmental Engineeri (Moscow State University of Environmental Engineeri) - Russian Federation

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

27/02/2009

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

Testing and disseminating of a water-saving technology like drip irrigation

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) in applying sustainable farming practices either at 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 damage caused by land degradation and erosion. To achieve these objectives, the RDP identifies different lines of action: 1) compensation for difficult natural conditions; 2) combating erosion; 3) reducing farming intensity; and 4) promoting eco-friendly agricultural practices.

Methods: The main method used in RDP is to provide farming subsidies for 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 subsidised.

Stages of implementation: Two years of testing with following phase of result dissemination.

Role of stakeholders: The level of 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 with various stakeholder groups including farmer organisations with agricultural cooperatives. However, because of limited resources, not all farmers will receive subsidies for 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 should take place. Instead, reforestation of these areas is subsidised. RDPs are developed for a period of seven years. At the end of this period, a new RDP is defined and priorities and levels of subsidies may be changed. 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 on SLM only

To consider the common problems of water scarcity at villages remote from water sources. To provide the best examples of water usage and initiate implementation of water-saving technologies.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The main problem to be addressed by this approach is the conflicts over the common use of water supplied to the villages. In this dry area, water is scarce and has to be brought from remote rivers, lakes and artificial water storage facilities through irrigation channels. In the dry season, when water demand exceeds availability, there is a pivotal problem of poor water availability for all villagers. During the most difficult period, water even has to be transported to the villagers’ houses by car.

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	SLM specialists - introducing the technology to people Planners - introducing the technology to people ready for testing it
planning	interactive	SLM specialists - planning of test implementation Land users - agreement to test the technology
implementation	external support	SLM specialists – implementation of schemes development Land users – preparation of experimental plots
monitoring/ evaluation	external support	Land users - simple monitoring of drip irrigation system performance
Research	external support	Land users – reporting of water used for irrigation, workload and harvested yield

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:

Within the DESIRE project field trip several meetings with stakeholders were performed. Different variant were discussed. Local land users mentioned the technology of drip irigation and ask help of expert in implementation and training.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Method was chosen as it is saving water resources and labour time, is suitable for the local conditions and not complicated to implement.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

drip irrigation technology, knowledge about varying quantities for plants during the growing season according to the hydrological cycle, etc.

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: Drip irrigation technology; Key elements: Water cycle: elaborated and explained to stakeholders during an initial stakeholder workshop as well as during field visits, Water-saving technologies: explained to stakeholders during stakeholder workshops. They were based on conceptual approaches and data gathered during field monitoring

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The government cannot provide special services in order to ensure its continuation; however, farmer-to-farmer dissemination is working.

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

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

The local administration organized some demonstration and training activities for local users.

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: through farm visits and sampling of soils for chemical parameters (for example to control for ecological farming practices)
Technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Comparison of water consumption using drip irrigation and furrow irrigation. The very high water efficiency as well as the minimal rate of water used for crop growing by drip irrigation was clearly demonstrated.
Economic / production aspects were monitored through measurements; indicators: by comparing production between years
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
There were several changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Some changes were made as a result of bio-physical monitoring of plant development according to water quantities, fertilizer application, etc.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

The implementation of drip irrigation technology under local conditions was performed by a team from the Moscow State University of Environmental Engineering under the framework of the EU-DESIRE project.

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:

• 2,000-10,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international non-government (EU research project DESIRE): 100.0%

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):

Agricultural activities are subsidised by government

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

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

• rewarded with other material support

Comments:

Materials (pipes for irrigation system, water tank) for the implementation of the experimental plots were supplied to land users. Some of the land users’ activities, like monitoring of soil water capacity, were paid with small amounts of cash. Other work was implemented voluntarily.

As this drip irrigation is in a testing phase, the materials for the irrigation system were financed by the project and not by the land users.

Labour was also paid in cash or sometime it was voluntarely.

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

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
increasing the well-being of people (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Table of land users become more rich by vegetable, some vegetables can be sold on the market)
Labour time saving (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Giving people more time for others activities)
water saving (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Implementation of water saving technologies)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Increasing the well-being of people: food availability for land users becomes enriched in terms of vegetables and some vegetables can be sold on the market (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Dissemination of these opportunities to other people)
Reduction of labour input (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Giving people more time for other activities)
Combating land degradation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: sharing this knowledge with other users)
Sharing water-saving knowledge with other users (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Implementation of water-saving technologies and dissemination of these skills to neighbours.)
Concerted thinking by stakeholders on common problems of water scarcity in villages remote from water sources (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Provide best-practice examples of water usage and initiate implementation of water-saving technologies )

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Relatively high starting implementation costs

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Zeiliguer, A., G. Sokolova, V. Semeonv, O. Ermolaeva. Results of field experimentations at 2008 to grow tomatoes under drip irrigation at Pallasovsky District of Volgograd Region. Proceeding of conference at MSUEE. 2008, p. 45-56