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)

Preventing and Remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care (EU-RECARE )

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

University of Padova (UNIPD) - Italy

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

Programma Sviluppo Rurale 2003-2017 - Italy

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

22/04/2015

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

Developing rural areas in the Veneto region through sustainable land management policies

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The objective of the Rural Development Programme (RDP) is to improve the farmers' activity by addressing economic, environmental and social challlenges. In this context, the RDP aims to grow the rural economy as well as improve the agro-environment. This is achieved by economically supporting: a) the multifunctionality of agriculture (e.g. crop production, natural environment, tourism etc.); b) the renovation of agriculture sector towards more efficient and competitive productive systems; c) the communities living and working in rural areas.

Methods: The Rural Development Programme is carried out through subsidies to farming practices following a cross-compliance principle. As a result, a combination of 'baseline' conservation measures with the RDP ones must be applied to achieve subsidised conservation measures.

Role of stakeholders: The level of subsidies is estimated on input or maintenance costs. Moreover, the yield loss is also taken into account due to implementation of some measures. These estimates were obtained through consultation among stakeholders, including farmer organisations, public enterprises and governments.

Other important information: The Rural Development Programme (RDP) in the years 2007-2013 was structured in four axes, corresponding to four lines of action: a) Improvement of competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector; b) Improvement of environment and rural areas; c) Improvement of quality of life and economic diversification in rural areas; d) Implementation of strategies for the local development.

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 (fostering the competitiveness of agriculture; knowledge transfer; economic development in rural areas)

Rural development Programme (RDP) aims to improve both the socio-economic situation of rural areas as well as the agro-environmental quality. Main line of actions involve: a) increase of competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector; b) increase of environmental quality in rural areas; c) economic diversification of rural areas to promote a better quality of life.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: In the last decades, the over-simplification of agro-ecosystems due to intensive monoculture and high mechanisation led to reduced biodiversity, increased land degradation and water pollution and finally vulnerability of agroecosystems. A general low farm size and fluctuating commodity prices led to a reduction of incomes and inadequate generational turnover. These factors drove small farmers out of the market, especially in marginal areas, where the phenomenon has been associated to land abandonment (especially in hilly and mountainous areas).

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
planning	external support
implementation	passive
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	interactive

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

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

• politicians/ leaders

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

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

Subjects covered:

Mainly training on technical implementation of the technology, access to finance and project planning.

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:

Name of method used for advisory service: Authorised advisory services, public and private; Key elements: Objectives, Project design, Administrative support

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

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

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were monitored by government through observations

bio-physical aspects were monitored by government through measurements

management of Approach aspects were monitored by government through observations

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Ameliorations in the calls to fit requirements and possible applications. (e.g. more adequate finacial compensations; administrative simplifications, etc.)

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• economics / marketing
• ecology

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: local government (district, county, municipality, village etc): 100.0%

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

• construction

• infrastructure

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Yes

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 technologies are adopted only on the basis of contributions that are provided. In the long-term, the technology could be abandoned if not funded anymore. As a result, some technologies are not economically sustainable.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The approach has a holistic view for the environment and human-well being improvement by including and integrating several SLM practices. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Include more SLM measures )

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?
Implementation of SLM due to the approach is time-consuming due to excessive bureaucracy	Administrative simplification

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The adoption of some measures thanks to the approach is usually limited to the time in which there are subsidies, without	Maintain the subsidies and the approach for the longest possible time

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Programma di sviluppo rurale per il veneto 2007-2013, Regione Veneto, 2007. Dipartimento Agricoltura e Sviluppo Rurale.