Desire for Greener Land

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Human Environment Cropland per household (ha) 10,000 Implementation activities, inputs and costs Initial investment No initial investment Land user: Individual and common small scale land users, mainly men Population density: 10-50 persons/km 2 Annual population growth: < 0.5% Land ownership: individual, titled Land use rights: individual (all cropland is privately owned). Water use rights: individual. Water use is organised by permits to water extraction from aquifers on individual basis. Water rights are provided and controlled by the Water authority of the Segura river basin. Relative level of wealth: average, which represents 80% of land users; 75% of the total land area is owned by average land users Importance of off-farm income: > 50% of all income: There is no difference in the ones who apply the technology and those who don’t. Most farmers do have an off-farm income for example from hunting, work in a factory, or office. Access to service and infrastructure: moderate: employment, energy; high: education, technical assistance, market, roads & transport, drinking water and sanitation, financial services Market orientation: commercial / market Mechanization: mechanized Livestock grazing on cropland: yes Technical drawing Autumn ploughing of an almond orchard with reduced tillage (Photo: Joris de Vente) Maintenance/recurrent activities Maintenance/recurrent inputs and costs per ha per year compared to conventional ploughing 1. Ploughing twice a year instead of 3-5 times (resulting in a reduction of the costs compared to the conventional tillage practice) Inputs Costs (US$) % met by land user Labour Equipment - 25 100 - machine use - 72 100 TOTAL - 97 100 Remarks: Costs were assessed comparing conventional land management with reduced tillage, which needs less inputs thus meaning a saving compared to conventional practice. Fuel price is the most determining factor affecting the costs. The local wage rate is 79 US$/day. Prices are for spring 2008. SLM Technology: Reduced tillage of almonds and olives, Spain DESIRE – WOCAT 2012 91
Assessment Impacts of the Technology Production and socio-economic benefits Production and socio-economic disadvantages decreased workload increased farm income Socio-cultural benefits Socio-cultural disadvantages improved conservation / erosion knowledge increased recreational opportunities Ecological benefits Ecological disadvantages reduced surface runoff reduced soil loss improved soil cover increased soil organic matter / below ground C reduced emission of carbon and greenhouse gases increased soil moisture reduced soil crusting / sealing increased plant diversity Off-site benefits Off-site disadvantages reduced damage on neighbours fields reduced downstream siltation Contribution to human well-being/livelihoods farm income of most farmers has increased due to lower production costs Benefits/costs according to land user Benefits compared with costs short-term: long-term: Establishment slightly positive slightly positive Maintenance/recurrent slightly positive slightly positive Acceptance/adoption: One hundred per cent of land user families have implemented the technology voluntarily. There is currently no support for reduced tillage of almond orchards. There is moderate trend towards (growing) spontaneous adoption of the technology. Concluding statements Strengths and how to sustain/improve Weaknesses and how to overcome Reduced tillage has a very positive effect on the reduction of erosion and runoff, on soil quality and biodiversity If maintained it will lead potentially to higher yields after several years. Production costs are reduced Yield and farm income may be increased by combining this technology with green manure under ecological agriculture (QT SPA05) On the short term no increase in yield is obtained Combine the technique with green manure or ecological agriculture as described in QT SPA05 Key reference(s): Holland, J.M., 2004. The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 103(1): 1-25. Contact person(s): Joris de Vente, EEZA-CSIC, Spain, Joris@sustainable-ecosystems.org 92 DESIRE – WOCAT Desire for Greener Land
Page 1 and 2:
Desire for Greener Land Options for
Page 3 and 4:
DESIRE - WOCAT Desire for Greener L
Page 5 and 6:
Co-published by University of Bern,
Page 7 and 8:
Cross-slope barriers Progressive be
Page 9 and 10:
The present DESIRE publication desc
Page 11 and 12:
Contributing authors and DESIRE con
Page 13 and 14:
Desire for Greener Land - Options f
Page 15 and 16:
XIV DESIRE - WOCAT Desire for Green
Page 17 and 18:
Figure 1: Desertification vulnerabi
Page 19 and 20:
In DESIRE, WOCAT methods and tools
Page 21 and 22:
Part 1
Page 23 and 24:
8 DESIRE - WOCAT Desire for Greener
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 1: Methodological framework
Page 27 and 28:
to Russia and China (see Table 1).
Page 29 and 30:
DRI = 5.4 Very high desertification
Page 31 and 32:
Table 2 provides a more detailed de
Page 33 and 34:
decision. This leads to solutions b
Page 35 and 36:
Aims and objectives This penultimat
Page 37 and 38:
Figure 7: The DESIRE Project has fo
Page 39 and 40:
References: n EEA-European Environm
Page 41 and 42:
Area (x1000 Ha) Major land use type
Page 43 and 44:
Major land degradation types per st
Page 45 and 46:
Rate of degradation per study site
Page 47 and 48:
Production services were affected o
Page 49 and 50:
% of area under conservation measur
Page 51 and 52:
Figure 16: Effectiveness of conserv
Page 53 and 54:
Conservation impact on ecosystem se
Page 55 and 56: Analysis of SLM technologies Introd
Page 57 and 58: Table 2: WOCAT categories of SLM me
Page 59 and 60: Origin of technology SLM technologi
Page 61 and 62: Table 3: Sensitivity of and toleran
Page 63 and 64: No. of case studies Land Ownership
Page 65 and 66: No. of case studies Increased farm
Page 67 and 68: No. of case studies Improved harves
Page 69 and 70: No. of case studies Increased plant
Page 71 and 72: No. of case studies No. of case stu
Page 73 and 74: Analysis of SLM approaches Introduc
Page 75 and 76: system is focused on control rather
Page 77 and 78: References: n Alkemade, J. R. M., v
Page 79 and 80: actually implemented in the field.
Page 81 and 82: Concerning SLM, the most widely app
Page 83 and 84: Part 2 DESIRE - WOCAT Desire for Gr
Page 85 and 86: Desire for Greener Land Mexico Land
Page 87 and 88: 2.1 SLM case studies Case studies -
Page 89 and 90: Case studies - titles and short des
Page 91 and 92: 76 DESIRE - WOCAT Desire for Greene
Page 93 and 94: Classification Land use problems: T
Page 95 and 96: Assessment Impacts of the Technolog
Page 97 and 98: Class sification Land d use problem
Page 105: Class sification Land use problemss
Page 109 and 110: Classification Land use problems: I
Page 113 and 114: Classification Land use problems: D
Page 121 and 122: Classification Land use problems: I
Page 125 and 126: Classification Land use problems: L
Page 129 and 130: Classification Land use problems: s
Page 137 and 138: Class sification Land use problemss
Page 141 and 142: Classification Land use problems: R
Page 149 and 150: Classification Land use problems: S
Page 153 and 154: Classification Land use problems: W
Page 157 and 158:
Classification Land use problems: O
Page 159 and 160:
Assessment Impacts of the Technolog
Page 161 and 162:
Classification Land use problems: T
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Class sification Land use problemss
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Classification Land use problems: I
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Classification Land use problems: L
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Classification Land use problems: D
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Classification Land use problems: l
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Classification Land use problems: S
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Problem, objectives and constraints
Page 215 and 216:
Impacts of the Approach Improved su
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Input: - Equipment (machinery, tool
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Problems, objectives, and constrain
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Desire for Greener Land Opopejo Qui
Page 247 and 248:
2.2 Mapping case studies This secti
Page 249 and 250:
Land recommendation Land conservati
Page 251 and 252:
Portugal - Maçao The Maçao area h
Page 253 and 254:
Italy - Rendina The Rendina area ex
Page 255 and 256:
Greece - Nestos This area has chemi
Page 257 and 258:
Turkey - Eskişehir The Eskeheşir
Page 259 and 260:
Tunisia - Koutine The Koutine area
Page 261 and 262:
Russia - Novy Land use in the Novy
Page 263 and 264:
Botswana - Boteti The main land use
Page 265 and 266:
Chile - Cauquenes The Cauquenes are
Page 267 and 268:
252 DESIRE - WOCAT Desire for Green
Page 269 and 270:
Status of land degradation, sustain
Page 271 and 272:
Examples of potential SLM technolog
Page 273 and 274:
IV Up-scaling SLM strategies Actual
Page 275 and 276:
Case study of the DESIRE methodolog
Page 277 and 278:
II Identifying, evaluating and sele
Page 279 and 280:
The results showed that the best op
Page 281 and 282:
IV Up-scaling SLM strategies Some r
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Explanation pages of case studies:
Page 287 and 288:
Cropland (or grazing land, mixed la
Page 289 and 290:
Explanation pages of case studies:
Page 291 and 292:
Here appears an organogram - if ava
Page 293 and 294:
Pictograms SLM technology Land use
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Logos of partners 282 DESIRE - WOCA
show all

Desire for Greener Land

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?