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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 911, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Soil Conservation Service of Iceland (Soil Conservation Service of Iceland) - Iceland', '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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Collaboration between farmers and a governmental institute on rangeland restoration and improved land management

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: FHL is a governmental cost-sharing programme operated by the SCSI and run at national level. The FHL programme has been ongoing since 1990. It started as an experimental programme in Northeast Iceland, but couple of years later it was extended nationwide. It builds on voluntary participation of farmers who want to restore damaged rangelands in the lowland. The programme was established foremost to ease cooperation and strengthen social bonds between the SCSI and sheep farmers. Nevertheless, increased rangeland restoration and improved grazing management were also key targets underpinning the establishment of the FHL initiative, and formed the backbone of its prime policy.

Methods: The FHL programme is run by the Soil Conservation Service of Iceland (SCSI) and targets large-scale rangeland restoration, primarily among sheep farmers. The programme builds on voluntary approaches and uses direct and indirect incentives to motivate its participants. Farmers who want to participate apply for membership of the SCSI. The SCSI evaluates the condition of potential restoration areas and decides if they meet requirements. Each participant receives, annually, a fixed subsidy to purchase fertilizer and if needed, commercial grass seeds. Participants in the FHL project are visited approximately biannually by a regional SCSI advisor that estimates the restoration progress, discusses next steps and consults the participants on rangeland management related issues. Usually, each restoration area is treated for a couple of years before it is considered to have passed the first level of the restoration process. The restoration areas are mapped, and based on the maps participants asked to make a 3-5 year long implementation plan.

Role of stakeholders: As land stewardship plays a vital role in this programme, the role of the primary stakeholders (the farmers) is fundamental. They indeed drive the programme, although they get professional guidance and support from the extension offices of the SCSI. They are responsible for all implementation and land management on a local scale, within their own holdings.

Other important information: no further information

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

• recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (rangeland restoration, sustainable land management, participatory approaches, stakeholder involvement)

To improve the ecological condition of the degraded rangelands for future generations. To facilitate behavioral changes toward more sustainable rangeland management.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The main problems to be addressed by the approach were severe soil and vegetation degradation that substantially reduced biomass productivity, lack of financial support and local advisory system

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	interactive
implementation	self-mobilization
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:

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

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• Researchers

Form of training:

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

Form of training:

• local advisors that visit/contact all participants

Subjects covered:

E.g. the role of ecosystem services for human well-being, ecosystem resilience and natural hazards, the importance of proper grazing management and the importance of merging local and external knowledge to secure more effective long-term social-ecological progress.

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

4.4 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: visual estimation

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through measurements; indicators: Researchers of the SCSI

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Researchers in collaboration with the SCSI

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through measurements; indicators: Researchers in collaboration with the SCSI

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through observations

area treated aspects were monitored by project staff through observations

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

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Reduced amount of fertilizer and seed when restoration areas are treated

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• ecology

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:

• 100,000-1,000,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government: 78.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc): 2.0%; local community / land user(s): 20.0%

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)

• agricultural

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Voluntary but also subsidies for purchasing inorganic fertilizer

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 compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Builds up trust between farmers and governmental officials. Awareness raising and can facilitate discussions on improved rangeland management

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?
governement pays the most	awareness rising farmers to restore the land
government has to trust that the farmer is doing the job	checking in the field (but number of used material difficult to count afterwards und the right time in the spring)

7.1 Methods/ sources of information