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)

Swedish Univ. of Agr.Sciences (Swedish Univ. of Agr.Sciences) - Sweden

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

15/10/2015

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

Using water tolerant crops might prolong the use of cultivated peat soils.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: To find crops that have a high yield even though the ground water level is high.

Methods: Compare Reed canary grass and Tall fescue with Timothy that normally is grown within this area.

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 on SLM only

To find crops with high yield that can be grown on peat soils with high ground water table and low bearing capacity.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: To find an alternative use of these lands to postpone abandonment.

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
planning	interactive
implementation	interactive
monitoring/ evaluation	passive
Research	none

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:

Land user came with suggestions of what crops to try, and we had our own idea of what crop to test. And we choose one from the land user and one crop from SLM

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

• Not relevant, This is a field trial,

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

This is a field trial. We are in the process of evaluating this.

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 project staff through observations; indicators: None

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None

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

• Agronomic, Soil Science

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research is ongoing by SLU and not evaluated yet.

Research was carried out 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: international (Recare Project): 75.0%; government (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences): 25.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

No

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)?

• yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It is easy to implement. The farmer already have all machines and equipments.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It is easy to implement. The farmer already have all machines and equipments.

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?
Maybe it will be hard to sell the crop with a profit.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
It might not be a crop that has a high demand.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information