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

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Soil & Water Conservation Office of Putian - China

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

Using contour principle, constructing terraces with the front bank and back ditch in order to control soil & water erosion.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

In the area with sufficient rainfall, overflow and runoff often destroy the existing terraces causing much cost for maintaining. Sluice system of terraces is important when building a terrace. The technology of the Front Bank and Back Ditch on Terrace is to solve this problem. The approach is that building front bank on a terrace edge and digging a ditch on the back terrace as well as digging a ditch upright the terrace along a relatively low rill to induct overflow out.

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

Controlling the soil erosion and raising farmers' consciousness of soil conservation.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The poor quality of fruit trees and seedlings and Disafforestation of the natural vegetation by the man-made factors resulted in the soil erosion and low agricultural production and hindered the local socio-economic development. In addition, the local farmers lack fund.

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	external support
planning	none
implementation	none	responsibility for major steps
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	interviews/questionnaires;
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

• SWC specialists, Planners(3)

Form of training:

• demonstration areas
• courses

Form of training:

• farm visits

Subjects covered:

Teaching them how to control pests and diseases and new techniques on management of orchards.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Soil Conservation in Orchard; Key elements: Setup a demonstration area, field visit, organizing; 1) Mainly: projects own extension structure and agents, Partly: government's existing extension system 2) Mainly: projects own extension structure and agents, Partly: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: Mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: Land users, SWC specialists; Activities: demonstration of the field; extend the techniques.

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

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements
socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by through observations
economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements
area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements
land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements
management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations
There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Through in situ observation and demonstration

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Studying on engineering and vegetative measures. 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: international: 30.0%; national non-government: 15.0%; local community / land user(s): 55.0%

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)

• equipment

• agricultural

• infrastructure

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

• voluntary

Comments:

and paid in cash

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

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
Increasing yield (fruit trees and crops), and income. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: introducing new species in.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Harvesting or inducing excrescent rainfall and runoff. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Maintaining timely)
Making fully use of the mountain and hilly areas with SWC and developing local economy. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Introducing new species in.)

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?
Cost much and liitle fund available.	Raising money and trying to use mechanic tools in stead of manual labor.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Cost much for the construction.	subsidy from government, and planting cash crops and fruit trees etc. to increase the return.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information