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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1217, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Sudanese Red Crescent Society (SRCS) - Sudan', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1217, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Sudanese Red Crescent Society (SRCS) - Sudan', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

11/05/2016

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

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: 1. to improve soil productivity
2. to increase soil production

Methods: 1. digging soil to 1.5 meter depth
2. remove the original soil and replace it by glare soil
3. adding the amendments

Stages of implementation: 1. soil survey
2. land use and land scape
3. soil management

Role of stakeholders: 1. land owner (financial support)
2. labor (farm activities)
3. Ministry of Agriculture (water irrigation, maintenance, technical support)
4. SLM specialist (technical advice)

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

• recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (intercroping and fruit trees )

1. to improve soil properties
2. increase soil production


The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: soil limitation and labor availability

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	land users
planning	interactive	land users
implementation	external support	land users
monitoring/ evaluation	none	land users
Research	none	land users

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 on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by SLM specialists alone (top-down)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

• labour

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer

Subjects covered:

how to apply the modern technology

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: survey and technical advice ; Key elements: field visits , visual observation , personal contacts

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

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:

technical aspects were regular monitored by other through measurements; indicators: SLM specialist

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by other through measurements; indicators: SLM specialist and land user

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

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

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 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: private sector (100): 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

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

• paid in cash

Comments:

Labour also rewarded with other material support

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)?

• no

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

need of technical support, physical support and M & E

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
improve soil properties increase the production raising awareness (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: establish M&E technology transfer )

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?
absence of M&E workload	establish M&E provide supporting tools to the farmers

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Dr. Adel