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 experimenting with machinery to maintain economic viability and reduce time spent on land preparation.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Maintain economic viability; to reduce the time spent working the soil; set up business with a neighbouring farmer.

Methods: Experimentation with different machinery, seeking information from various sources (agricultural shows, demonstrations, discussions).

Stages of implementation: Experimentation with machinery and collection of information over 3-4years; merger of farm business with neighbour having taken agronomic and financial advice; joint venture set up in 2002 and new machinery bought.

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, farming system and business model for economic viability

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: 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

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

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 ad hoc monitored through observations

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

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

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
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 of external advice and knowledge to continue progress)

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?
Too much trial and error	Better provision of advice and knowledge

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Dependent on the individual	Encourage farmers to work together. Farmer to farmer training

7.1 Methods/ sources of information