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)

SOWAP (SOWAP) - Hungary

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

Individual farmer seeking information and experimenting with machinery to maintain economic viability

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Maintenance of economic viability; seeking not to replace employee.

Methods: Seeking information from open days, agricultural shows, machinery manufacturers, demonstrations, other farmers in UK and overseas; experimented with drill on own farm before purchase.

Stages of implementation: Stages of implementation: information seeking over 6 months, trialled drill in one crop, hired drill for following crop on sale and return, purchase of new drill in 2002.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (economic viability)

To find appropriate machinery to maintain economic viability

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Loss of ploughman and desire not to replace him but retain economic viability.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

Single land user

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). Single land user

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Subjects covered:

Not structured training but rather through the land manager's attended at workshops and opendays.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

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

• voluntary

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
Bottom-up approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Self-starter (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Provision fo expert advice and knowledge to aid decision making)

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?
Dependent on individual attitude	more on-farm research and demonstartion to instill confidence; farmer-to-farmer training

7.1 Methods/ sources of information