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)

The Cyprus Institute (The Cyprus Institute) - Cyprus

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Participatory technology development, through close researcher-farmer interaction, for sustainable land management of olive orchards in dry marginal areas.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The purpose of participatory technology development is to gain from the synergy between indigenous knowledge and scientific expertise. The specific objective in this case was to develop and test water and land management techniques in order to sustainably improve olive production in a semi-arid area, while ensuring that the techniques were well adapted to local farming practices. The approach consists of group meetings, joint field trips, identification of local innovations, extension days, monitoring of farmer practices, and researcher-controlled experiments. The approach consists of a cycle with three major stages: a diagnostic phase, a testing phase, followed by monitoring and evaluation. In this case study, farmers were invited based on their interest in growing olives. Participation throughout the learning cycle was completely voluntary: no material or financial incentives were used (although they expected them in the beginning of the process). The role of farmers was to identify priority problems and potential solutions, to test new technologies on their farms, and to evaluate their suitability. Farmers observed the research experiment with water harvesting, and then adapted the technology to their needs. As shown, they built V-shaped bunds around their olive trees to capture rainwater runoff, but - contrary to the researchers??? suggestion - they continued to plough the olive orchards, as this is their standard weed control practice. Weeds attract sheep, lead to fires and compete for water with the olives. This simple runoff harvesting system is well adapted to farmers??? objectives, and their modification -the up-and-down slope furrows created through ploughing - actually serves to increase the efficiency of the water harvesting. The system is now being monitored by researchers to assess its technical and economic efficiency.

Methods: Improved farmer-researcher interaction helps farmers learn about a useful basic technique from researchers, while researchers learn in turn about potential improvements to the technology from local innovators. A community facilitator of ICARDA (International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas) facilitated the group discussions, and the researchers were asked to be open-minded to new approaches while conducting and monitoring field trials. The approach was tested by an interdisciplinary team of ICARDA as part of the ???Khanasser Valley Integrated Research Site???. This project aimed to develop local-adapted options for agriculture in dry marginal areas alongside a generally applicable integrated approach for sustainable land management in these zones.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

- design, test and disseminate alternative technologies adapted to local conditions - strengthen local knowledge of SWC measures - strengthen joint learning by farmers and researchers

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The lack of appropriate ways to develop sustainable technologies to remedy loss of runoff water and poor olive growth -in the context of low-input agriculture on gentle undulating land in water scarce areas with an absence of soil conservation measures.

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	passive	public meetings
planning	interactive	public meetings
implementation	interactive	completely conducted by land-users
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	interviews/questionnaires, public meetings;
Research	interactive	on-farm; farmer experiments and controlled on-farm experiments

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

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 land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

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

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

Demand-driven training of olive husbandry techniques (eg pruning, grafting, pest management)

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:

Farmer-to-farmer extension; Key elements: innovative farmers showed their technique to other olive farmers during farm visits

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 regular monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: soil moisture

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: water harvesting structures and management measures

technical aspects were regular monitored by None through observations; indicators: perceptions of the technology

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by None through measurements; indicators: cost and benefits

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by None through measurements; indicators: annual field survey using GPS

area treated aspects were regular monitored by None through measurements; indicators: annual farmer interview

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

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: There were few changes: interest in the farmers??? orchards and questions about the technology stimulated some other farmers to apply water harvesting.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was an important part of this approach. Technical and socio-economic topics were treated as follows: (1) Researcher-controlled on-farm experiments: this helped evaluate the impact of water harvesting design on the amount of water harvested and the olive crop response. (2) Monitoring of farmer-managed trials: to evaluate the performance of water harvesting under on-farm conditions. (3) Cos

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: government (national - ICARDA, Atomic Energy Commission Syria): 10.0%; international non-government (BMZ (Germany)): 50.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 40.0%

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)

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

• voluntary

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)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

The complete PTD process/learning cycle needs outsider facilitation, but lack of outsiders will not stop farmers experimenting further by themselves. In terms of the technology itself, farmers can continue independently with water harvesting structures, as the system is very simple and relatively cheap.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Engagement of researchers with local innovators and thus interaction between scientific and indigenous knowledge (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: This approach can only be sustained if it is mainstreamed into national research and extension services.)
Attitude changes by researchers about farmers??? knowledge (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ditto.)
Building on local knowledge (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ditto.)
Capacity building of both land users and researchers (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ditto.)
Demand-driven technologies (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ditto.)

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?
Time demanding	Less time needed after the first experience.
Appropriate facilitating skills required	Mainstreaming facilitation skills.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Tubeileh A and Turkelboom F (2004) Participatory research on water and soil management with olive growers in the Khanasservan Veldhuizen L, Waters-Bayer A, Abd de Zeeuw H (1997) Developing technology with farmers: