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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 611, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (GIZ) - Germany', 'template': 'raw'}

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

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Observation of spontaneously spread analysis. Management invented by farmers themselves, in a later stage it should be adapted or combined with conservation strategies.

Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews and group discussions in the area where the measure is spontaneously adopted.

Stages of implementation: For now only the initial stage: Farmers applying the measure, but to make ita a developed, sustainable and conservation it should be combined with other conservation strategies to make it a complete, sustainable land management strategy,

Role of stakeholders: Technique developed by farmers themselves, they pass information among each other.

Other important information: Can not yet be considered as a real conservation strategy. Till now no interventions from scientists/institutions has been done. Only observation and analysis of this existing land management practice.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

replace top soil which was eroded during rainfalls, increase soil fertility, protect soil from further erosion

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
planning	self-mobilization	The practice spread spontaneously to neighbouring villages and district
implementation	self-mobilization	responsibility for major steps, casual labour; Farmers adopt the practice spontaneously. Some extension officers start advicing the practice
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	Olive bureau Idleb experimented the addition of white soil on red fields. Recently samples are taken from farmers' fields to analyze the benefits. In the evaluation itself the farmers are not involved, they only agree that soil samples are taken and production is measured.
Research	passive	Research od social and economic aspects, farmers are passively involved by interviewing and group discussions.

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

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

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

No

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Extension officers will be informed about the lack of sustainability and the need of combination with land management strategies, information/training about the implementation of this conservation strategies however is still lacking

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:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: None

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

market of soil analysis, social analysis of adopters/innovators/non-adopters

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: other (farmer himself): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

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:

They can continue the actual practice without support but if the practice needs to be combined with conservation strategies (on the slopes), farmers need support to overcome this investment.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Results from soil samples can prove the benefit of the practice they 'invented' and give recomendations to improve it.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
While observation/analyis has been done the discussion about sustainability is opened
Farmers are considered the experts about this technology which might enhance future cooperation
Results from soil samples can prove the benefit of the strategy the farmers developed.

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?
spreading of the practice by the land users did not focus on the sustainability and larger scale	Adaptations should be made and institutions should i ntervene to make this practice sustainable.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Soil transfers in olive orchards of NS Syria, a bio-physical and socio-economic analysisi of a local innovation

Available from where? Costs?

ICD, Bern