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

Nom du projet qui a facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

Preventing and Remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care (EU-RECARE )

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

University of Bern, Institute of Geography (GIUB) - Suisse

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

Quand les données ont-elles été compilées (sur le terrain)?

23/06/2015

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

Oui

2.1 Courte description de l'Approche

Financial aid of the government to land users to compensate for loss of financial output of crops.

2.2 Description détaillée de l'Approche

Description détaillée de l'Approche:

Aims / objectives: The main aim is to maintain agriculture and its production of goods. Because of the small amount of financial output for a land user and its products in Switzerland, there are direct payments to the land user paid per area size. These payments are substantial for every land user but especially in mountain regions of Switzerland to compensate land users for their work for nature and environment. Another goal is to keep the nutrient security of Switzerland alive. This goal can only be reached by supplementary payments in order to produce agricultural goods competitively.

Methods: Direct payments mean financial sums paid to a land user per area size. They differ from position of the field. A land user must apply for the direct payments in autumn. During winter the land user must mark his fields and their use online. Payments are reached three times during the following year: in June, autumn and winter.

Stages of implementation: The beginning of direct payments is in the 1980s when there were payments for livestock owners. Before there were never direct financial payments to land users but the agricultural products were financed by the government itself and land users got a fixed price for their products. 1989 land users got direct payments for the first time under the programs IP Suisse and ÖLN. Today payments are calculated by area size.

Role of stakeholders: The direct payment system is mainly a political issue. Politicians make budgets for the total amount of direct payments each year. Moreover, they can make new rules and obligations for land users. The land user must always adopt himself and his technology and crop rotation to these changes. This can be very difficult. Land users are represented by their unions but there is no space for individual opinions or direct participation in the 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 mainly on SLM with other activities (Maintenance of a good financial situation for Swiss land users)

The system wants to support Swiss Agriculture on a financial basis. Because agricultural products are produced under swiss conditions regarding wages, soil prices etc. the products can not compete against other products from abroad. The direct payments close the gap between the theoretical value of a product and its end price in stores.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The system of direct payments gives wrong appeals to the land users. Because payments are made by area size land users want to expand their farm size even more. But there is also more work to do if a farm is bigger. The system also provokes cultivation of fields that are at risk for erosion or other consequences because it does not differ from fields that are at risk and fields that are not. It is only the size that matters.

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	passive
planification	passive
mise en œuvre	soutien extérieur
suivi/ évaluation	interactive
Research	aucun

3.3 Diagramme/ organigramme (si disponible)

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 exploitants des terres soutenus par des spécialistes de la GDT

Expliquez:

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

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

Formats de la formation:

• sur le tas
• zones de démonstration

Thèmes abordés:

There was also an overthinking on the side of land users. Some of them did not change environmentally good technologies after there were less payments for this technology because they saw the advantages of their technology. However, without a financial support at the beginning they would not have implemented new technologies.

4.2 Service de conseils

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

Oui

Spécifiez si le service de conseils est fourni:

• dans les champs des exploitants?
• dans des centres permanents

Décrivez/ commentez:

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

4.3 Renforcement des institutions (développement organisationnel)

Des institutions ont elles été mises en place ou renforcées par le biais de l'Approche?

• non

4.4 Suivi et évaluation

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

Oui

Commentaires:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through observations; indicators: None

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through measurements; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by None through observations; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

4.5 Recherche

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

Oui

Spécifiez les thèmes:

• économie/ marketing

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

Research was carried out on station

5.1 Budget annuel de la composante GDT de l'Approche

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

• > 1 000 000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (projects): 50.0%; national non-government (soil support program): 10.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc): 40.0%

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?

Oui

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

• intrants agricoles

• autre

5.4 Crédits

Des crédits ont-ils été alloués à travers l'Approche pour les activités de GDT?

Non

6.1 Impacts de l'Approche

6.2 Principale motivation des exploitants des terres pour mettre en œuvre la GDT

6.3 Durabilité des activités de l'Approche

Les exploitants des terres peuvent-ils poursuivre ce qui a été mis en œuvre par le biais de l'Approche (sans soutien extérieur)?

• non

Si non ou incertain, spécifiez et commentez:

The current agricultural system in Switzerland can not run without direct payments and financial support of the land users.

6.4 Points forts/ avantages de l'Approche

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue de l'exploitant des terres
The payments are a security of income for the land users. Therefore he continues his production of agricultural products. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The payment must be enough high so that it is accurate for the labour and work of a land user on the fields. This must also be a point regarding future payments.)

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
It is a fair system: a land user only gets paid for his work on a field. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: A good life for a land user and his family is possible through the financial aid of the direct payment system. This must be maintained.)

6.5 Faiblesses/ inconvénients de l'Approche et moyens de les surmonter

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue de l’exploitant des terres	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
A fixed product price would be the solution to higher payments. The situation from the beginning of the system was much better.	Product prices must be on a similar level. However, this is not possible.

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
The system provides some dependence for the land user. He can not produce competitively without supplementary payments.	Fair product prices and competitiveness would be the solution, but this is impossible to reach.
There are many differences during short time regarding the sum and conditions of direct payments. A land user has thereby no chance of adopting himself to the new conditions.	Payments must be stable during a longer time. Only then a land user is able to change his cultivation system.
The system leads to wrong cultivation of fields because a land user wants as much area size as possible. This endangers soil and can lead to erosion.	The system should be reduced to only not-endangered fields and provide payments for the non-cultivation of endangered fields.

7.1 Méthodes/ sources d'information