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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 13, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'SOWAP (SOWAP) - Hungary', 'template': 'raw'}

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

Provision of expert knowledge in appropriating equipment and setting up small scale on farm trials in collaboration with the land manager

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: To enable farmer to improve economic viability of his operations and maintaining rural employment by increasing area under cultivation; to improve soil management and reduce erosion.

Methods: Presentation of technical and economic case to farmer; frequent discussions and field visits.

Stages of implementation: Purchase of appropriate cultivator drill enabled trials to begin.

Role of stakeholders: Farmer initiative in setting up a joint venture with neighbouring farm to enable purchse of equipment; SWC specialist using industry contacts to appropriate cultivator and using experience to solve problems and set up appropriate trials.

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

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (speed and cost of crop establishment)

To overcome the financial, social and technical constraints listed in 2.1.3.3

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Technical problems: weed control, low work rate. Social problems: insufficient awareness of environmental benefits of SWC and incoming regulation, low level of confidence to try new techniques, getting farmer to won his own (erosion) problem

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	none
implementation	none
monitoring/ evaluation	none
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 land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

Input by specialist and farm management company

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Land manager needed to be comfortable with the decisions made

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

soil management, impacts on water and biodiversity

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 regular monitored through measurements

technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements
no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• economics / marketing
• ecology
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Yields and gross margins; effects on biodiversity especially birds; rate of technology uptake

Research was carried out on-farm

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)

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

• 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)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Technical difficulties that may arise e.g. weed management, soil compaction, will require expert input and expertise from different areas

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
opportunity to expand knowledge and transfer that to other farmers
greater confidence

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
improved motivation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continued support, technical advice and recognition of farmer's achievement)
improved education and awareness (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continued support, technical advice and recognition of farmer's achievement)
greater confidence
improved problem solving capabilities

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 personalities i.e. with a more conservative farmer, this approach would be unsuccessful

7.1 Methods/ sources of information