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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 10, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'DESIRE (EU-DES!RE)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 276, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA) (Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA)) - Chile', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

11/05/2011

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

Dissemination of no tillage with subsoiling in the Municipality of Yumbel

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The Commune of Yumbel is a rural territory in the secano interior of central-south Chile, which has historically been an area of cereal crops and pulses. This has represented for many years the mainstay of the economy of small and medium farmers in the area. Owing to the sharp deterioration in the quality of the soil, caused by years of cultivation without respect for conservation, production potential was quickly fading and plunging farmers into an economic and social crisis caused by low yields and low income from agriculture. However, despite degradation, the commune still has abundant natural resources of soil and water, which will not be used by the forestry industry, and which can be recovered for productive and profitable agriculture. In May 2009, the team of researchers from INIA Quilamapu started this initiative based on promising results obtained in the EU DESIRE project for zero tillage, subsoiling and new crop rotations. The initiative was oriented towards transferring the technologies developed in DESIRE. The project received financial support from the Municipality of Yumbel.
The aim was to revitalise agriculture in the district of Yumbel, improve traditional crops using a conservation approach, which enables small- and medium-scale farmers to improve their incomes, create jobs and improve their quality of life.
Specific objectives:
• To develop new farming systems based on the application of soil conservation practices (no tillage and subsoiling) that prevent erosion, and allow the development of a more sustainable and economic agriculture.
• To improve crop rotations, introduce grain and pasture legumes to diversify production and use of nitrogen inputs for lower nitrogen fertilizer costs.
• To build-up again the production of grain legumes and cereals in the district of Yumbel
• To renew the genetic material of crop species and varieties currently available to farmers in the area, allowing access to improved varieties of higher yield potential and resistance to diseases.


Methods: We used a participatory approach, incorporating small producers in the extension programme from the beginning. Three representative areas were selected. Leader farmers were chosen in each sector who were responsible for field work. No tillage machinery was provided by INIA and acquired by a local farmer. The project directly involved 50 farmers and 250 ha of land. Further 400 farmers are being benefited by training on technologies of soil conservation and crop rotations and management.

Role of stakeholders: Municiplity of Yumbel: financing the project of technology transfer INIA and DESIRE project: human and material resources (machinery, transportation researchers, etc.). Ministry of Agriculture (INDAP, Institute of Agricultural Development): financing of management plans for soil conservation.
Technology transfer companies: technical assistance directly to the small farmers
Farmers: conducting field work and incorporating new technologies.

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 revitalising agriculture in the district of Yumbel, improve traditional crops with a conservation approach, which enables small- and medium-scale farmers to improve their incomes, to create jobs and to improve their quality of life.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: 1. Lack of machinery in the area 2. Few service providers 3. Lack of technical knowledge 4. Lack of cash to invest in SLM
5. Failure to implement a subsidy programme for farmers so that they can be organized around the creation of small company of service providers of machinery for subsoiling and no-tillage sowing.

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	The producers themselves and the municipality of Yumbel demanded the project implementation given the severe problems of rural poverty and the soil degradation
planning	interactive	The technologies are being applied and implementation has been made through interaction with farmers, municipalities, INIA and INDAP
implementation	interactive	The farmers implemented the conservation practice in their lands.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Researchers evaluated this results
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:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

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:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings
• courses

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

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?

• yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Give further details:

The Yumbel project has had permanent participation of INIA (project DESIRE) and INDAP.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Soil fertility (soil nutrient content N, P, K, S), erosion (soil loss, loss of nutrients), quality of soil (compaction, bulk density, structure, aggregate stability)

economic / production aspects were monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Crop production (yield, quality), gross margin, profitability

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

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:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

There are three experimental sites with evaluations to determine the best choice of conservation tillage systems and crop rotations. Different conservation tillage systems were evaluated and compared to conventional tillage. On these experimental sites, several indicators (chemical, physical and biological) were evaluated.

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:

• 10,000-100,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international: 30.0%; government: 70.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

INDAP (Institute of Agricultural Development)

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Between INIA and Municipality of Yumbel a participative project wiht the local farmers was realized, to realize conservation tillage system.
The funding for the implementation of new technologies are 50% from the state (programme of recovery of degraded soils of the Government of Chile for soil conservation practices) and 50% of the producers themselves (materials, labour, etc.).

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Yes

Specify conditions (interest rate, payback, etc.):

repayment conditions: The funding for the implementation of new technologies are 50% from the state (programme of recovery of degraded soils of the Government of Chile for soil conservation practices) and 50% of the producers themselves (materials, labour, etc.).

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

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Assistance programmes from the State oriented towards tackling soil degradation. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: This project has been sustained over time and will remain at least for 3 to 4 years.)
High rural population in this commune, involvement of young farmers (under 40 years)
A strong commitment from the local authorities with the project.
Great interest of farmers to improve their incomes and conditions of life.

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?
Lack of no-tillage machinery	Organization of associative farmers enterprises for the purchase of machinery and agricultural implements.
Insufficient training on soil conservation for the farmers or for technical assistance companies.	Training, field days, demonstrative sowings, explanatory publications, practical work with farmers and technicians.
Delay in allocation of resources of the instruments of the state.	Synchronizing the availability of resources with the needs of the farmers for the execution of the work (supply purchases, rental equipment, etc.)

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

DESIRE site information

URL:

www.desire-his.eu/en/secano-interior-chile