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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The pits are constructed by hand on steep slope by government investment.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The purpose is to control soil loss and protect environment. Hence the pits are constructed on steep slope. To control watershed erosion, government have to invest. Soil and water conservation bureau is in charge of planning and implementation. Farmers provide labors to construct pits. Tools are shovel and hoes. Pits are constructed on steep slope, so mechanical machine can not be used.

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 aim is to control soil and water loss and protect environment.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Pit is one of the structural measures to control steep slope soil and water loss. It is difficult to build using mechanical machine but easy to make by hand with simple tools.

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	interviews/questionnaires; Land users participate.
planning	interactive	No land users participate
implementation	interactive	responsibility for major steps; No land users participate
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	No land users participate
Research	passive	No land users participate

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• SLM specialists alone

Explain:

Decisions on the choice of SLM Technology were made directive (top-down).
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by politicians / leaders (directive ,top-down).

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• planners

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

Mainly setup demonstration areas for visit and illustrate.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Local government and SWC station (office).; Key elements: Planning, Build pits, Maintaining; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents 2) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; At each government level, there is a SWC office which is in charge of SWC activities including extension.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements
land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was carried out 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 - state): 100.0%

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• 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?

No

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 there is not continuously financial support.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It is better to make pits in the farming leisure time(winter).
It is easy to build a pit
low inupt and land users can bear (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: With favourable policies)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
easy to make pits (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Repairing and planting trees in pits timely)
harvest water on steep slope (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Reasonable size of pits based on local rainfall.)
Better ecological benefits (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Partly financial support.)

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?
Not any economic benefits	Planting economic trees or fruit trees.
Not any funds for maintain exsiting pits.	subsidy.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Little economical return	Planting economic trees or fruit trees.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Zhou yugui, Zhang cheng. Effectively comprehensive control in Xinangou watershed, 2000.

Available from where? Costs?

Soil and Water Conservation Science and Technology in Shanxi, 6, 36-38

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Wang ling. Pits in soil and stone hilly area, 1984.

Available from where? Costs?

Soil and Water Conservation in China. 11, 14-16.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Li yanchang. Storage capability and excavating volume of pits, 1984.

Available from where? Costs?

Soil and Water Conservation in China. 11, 17-19.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Yang yansheng. Technological measures suitable for red earth region in southern China, 1999.

Available from where? Costs?

Research of Soil and Water Conservation. 6(2):117-120.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Dou yuqin. Hydraulic property and design criterion of pits, 1986.

Available from where? Costs?

Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation.,4,53-58.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Shi shengxin, Jiang dingsheng. Impacts of several soil and water conservation measures on strengthening rainfall infiltration and reducing sediment yield, 1994.

Available from where? Costs?

Research of Soil and Water Conservation. 1(1): 82-88.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mu Xingmin, Chen jiwei. Effects of measures of soil and water conservation on soil water content in the Loess Plateau, 1996.

Available from where? Costs?

Journal of Soil Erosion and Soil and Water Conservation, 5(4):39-41.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mu xingmin, Wang wenlong, Xu xuexuan. The influence of the soil and water conservation on the surface runoff in the watersheds in the gully plateau region of Loess Plateau, 1999.

Available from where? Costs?

Journal of Hydraulic, 2:71-75.