1.2 Coordonnées des personnes-ressources et des institutions impliquées dans l'évaluation et la documentation de l'Approche

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

Institut de recherche pour le développement IRD (Institut de recherche pour le développement IRD) - France

1.3 Conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées

Le compilateur et la(les) personne(s) ressource(s) acceptent les conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées:

Oui

1.4 Références au(x) questionnaire(s) sur les Technologies de GDT

2.1 Courte description de l'Approche

Maize residue management with high input of crop residues and annual crop instead of year one crop and fallow in year 2

2.2 Description détaillée de l'Approche

Description détaillée de l'Approche:

Aims / objectives: The objetive is to evaluate the influence of different agronomic systems including conventional system (one year tillage and one year fallow), conservation system (high input of crop residues) with mineral fertilizers every year, conservation system (high input of crop residues) with organic fertilizer every year on: water run-off (quantity and quality), soil sediment transports, soil water content, soil cover, carbon capture, soils characteristics and their interactions with the production of the maize/bean crop association on Acrisol

Methods: Primary tillage for maize/beans it consisted in moldboard ploughing and furrowing, and one post-emergence weeding was done manually. Depth of tillage for moldboard plow was about 0.20m and for rototill, about 0.15 m. 3 seeds of corn or beans are planted and covered by foot. Fertilizer is put on the depression just after seeding and one month later during the post emergence weeding. This experiment have been done on Acrisol

Stages of implementation: The experiment is finished. Dissemination to the stakeholders and policy makers has been done. Policy makers took the results and are disseminating it to the other stakeholders

Role of stakeholders: Active. Visit to the field experiment site during the experimentation, workshops, etc...but the adoption of the technologies can be effective only if the system is deeply change. Farmers need thei fallow year for their animals. This proposal is just one element of the whole system to change.

Other important information: Important results to understand and measure the soil erosion and run-off with this kind of soil (Acrisol) with the traditionnal and improaved cultural system

2.3 Photos de l'approche

2.5 Pays/ région/ lieux où l'Approche a été appliquée

2.6 Dates de début et de fin de l'Approche

2.7 Type d'Approche

• fondé sur un projet/ programme

2.8 Principaux objectifs de l'Approche

The Approach focused on SLM only (Soil conservation, water conservation, crop residue management, organic fertilizers, maize/bean association)

The area is strongly eroded and it was necessary to understand which factors could explain this situation and try agronomic alternatives to proposed to farmers to reduce it. In fact soil erosion is mainly due to the cattle free grazing in the field during the fodder and in commune land use for other part. The elimination of fodder year reduce presence of animals and increase production/productivity which can be given to the cattle. But this means to have less animals, more works and normally, more beneficits!

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Culivating every year means less space for the cattle which are the base of the agricultural system. the adoption of the technologies can be effective only if the system is deeply change. Farmers need the fallow year for their animals. This proposal is just one element of the whole system to change. New practice generates psychological resistance

2.9 Conditions favorisant ou entravant la mise en œuvre de la(des) Technologie(s) appliquée(s) sous l'Approche

3.1 Parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche et rôles

3.2 Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales aux différentes phases de l'Approche

	Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales	Spécifiez qui était impliqué et décrivez les activités
initiation/ motivation	soutien extérieur
planification	soutien extérieur
mise en œuvre	soutien extérieur
suivi/ évaluation	interactive
Research	interactive

3.4 Prises de décision pour la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies

Indiquez qui a décidé de la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies à mettre en œuvre:

• principalement les spécialistes de la GDT, après consultation des exploitants des terres

Expliquez:

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

4.1 Renforcement des capacités/ formation

Une formation a-t-elle été dispensée aux exploitants des terres/ autres parties prenantes?

Oui

Spécifiez qui a été formé:

• exploitants des terres
• personnels/ conseillers de terrain

• Institutions

Formats de la formation:

• sur le tas
• entre agriculteurs (d'exploitants à exploitants)
• zones de démonstration
• réunions publiques

4.2 Service de conseils

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils accès à un service de conseils?

Oui

Décrivez/ commentez:

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.4 Suivi et évaluation

Le suivi et l'évaluation font ils partie de l'Approche? :

Oui

Commentaires:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations
technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations

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 Recherche

La recherche a-t-elle fait partie intégrante de l’Approche?

Oui

Spécifiez les thèmes:

• écologie
• technologie

• Agronomy, hydrology, soil sciences

Donnez plus de détails et indiquez qui a mené ces recherches:

Measures water run-off (quantity and quality), soil sediment transports, soil water content, soil cover, soils characteristics, carbone capture, production of maize and beans by INIFAP, IRD (France), COLPOS, UNAM-CIEco and CSIC (Spain)

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5.1 Budget annuel de la composante GDT de l'Approche

Si le budget annuel précis n'est pas connu, indiquez une fourchette:

• < 2 000

Commentez (par ex. principales sources de financement/ principaux bailleurs de fonds):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (Atecuaro communities): 5.0%; government (INIFAP, COLPOS, UNAM-CIEco, SEMARNAT): 30.0%; international (UE project (REVOLSO, then DESIRE), IRD, CSIC): 65.0%

5.2 Soutiens financiers/ matériels fournis aux exploitants des terres

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils reçu un soutien financier/ matériel pour la mise en œuvre de la Technologie/ des Technologies?

Non

5.3 Subventions pour des intrants spécifiques (incluant la main d'œuvre)

• aucun

6.1 Impacts de l'Approche

7.1 Méthodes/ sources d'information