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)

University of Selcuk, Faculty of Agriculture (University of Selcuk, Faculty of Agriculture) - Türkiye

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

Instead of flow irrigation that requires high water consumption and causes excessive evaporation, water can be transported in pipes till crop's body and can be given slowly under controlled conditions. The approach is brought to farmers by state institutions as well as banks, and education for the scientific background, installation and usage of the technology is provided by state-owned companies

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: To inform the farmers who use water in their crops about minimum water use, effective water use, in order to conserve underground water resources in semi-arid regions. The basic stress of the approach is to demonstrate the advantages of drip irrigation in terms of croping, soil preservation and particularly the water preservation.

Methods: To convey water by means of pipes until the crop roote zone and distribute water in a controlled manner by using valves. This method facilitates also the use of chemical fertilisers.

Stages of implementation: The methods of drip irrigation system will be tought in detail to land users. Measure addresses to the benefits of minimum water use by field demonstrations. Information is delivered to the farmers in winter and the other studies are caried out in spring and summer.

Role of stakeholders: Actually drip irrigation plans are done by private companies and there is significant financial support from state companies. The role of stakeholders are limited with the eagerness to follow approach and to use suitable crop types.

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 mainly on SLM with other activities (Drip irrigation system, irrigation, minimum water.)

To conserve the underground water, inform the farmers about the mechanisms of saving water by minimum irrigation, showing them advantage of this irrigation and then create a demand among farmers towards drip irrigation and build a robust structure between controlling authorities, knowlegde supplying units (such as universities) and financial sector.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Drought and decreasing level of underground water. Lack of technical knowledge on drip irrigation tecniques and lack of existing budget to promote these techniques.

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	none
planning	passive	Planning is done by authorised private companies.
implementation	interactive	Implementation is done in colloboration with private companies and individual land owners. There is significant credit supports from the state for implementation of approach.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Monitoring and evaluation is done by land owners themselves.
Research	none

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

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:

Decision is taken from top to bottom, mainly fueled with favorable agricultural credits organised by the state. Some large scale agricultural farms can build the minimum water use system by themselves without any technical and financial help from the state.

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:

• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

They watched minimum irrigation water use technique with demonstrations.

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

Give further details:

Local state experts control the installation to be sure that it is done accordingly the plan, and universities and local state institutions help in education of farmers on the benefits and way of installation of the approach.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government, other through observations; indicators: extension experts and universities made the observations.

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations

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

There were many changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: As the advantages (technical as well as financial) of the approach become clear by monitoring activites though discontinous, the new irrigation teqniques is adopted by increasingly more farmers.

There were many changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Technology does not change too much but its adoption rate increases.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was carried out on station

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: 90.0%; other: 10.0%

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

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

• food-for-work

Comments:

Normally, installation of the irrigation system is done by the specialised componies with speciel equipments. Farmers only help them voluntarily.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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 land user’s view
Drip irrigation system is very easy and energy costs are low. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More long term credit will increase the application of approach.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Minimum water use conserve water sources. It positively affects crop yields and quality. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Training, demonstration and giving credit to farmers while begining to set up drip irrigation. )

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?
Drip irrigation system is expensive. They have no enough techniqual knowledge on the sytem in drought regions.	By receiving bank credit at the begining and crop market values must be high.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
First investment expenses are high in drip irrigation system. Farmers do not know completely water use techniques.	By the training and demonstrations

7.1 Methods/ sources of information