Desire for Greener Land

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Human Environment Cropland per household (ha) 10,000 Implementation activities, inputs and costs Establishment activities 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 (most land is privately owned). The streams are not privately owned. Therefore permits are required to construct a water harvesting structure. Some shrubland or forest is state-owned. Water use rights: individual. Water rights are provided and controlled by the water authority of the Segura river basin (CHS).) 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 do not. 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: health, education, technical assistance, market, roads & transport, drinking water and sanitation, financial services Market orientation: commercial / market Mechanization: mechanised Livestock grazing on cropland: yes Technical drawing Establishment inputs and costs per ha Sketch of a water harvesting structure consisting of an earthen- or stone- built bund that diverts water into cultivated fields. Several terraces are present in the fields in order to reduce slope gradient and retain water longer within the fields to allow maximum infiltration. Depending on the expected inflow of water several spillways can be made per terrace to prevent excessive concentration of flow in each spillway. (Joris de Vente) 1. Construction of a bund (dam) Inputs Costs (US$) % met by land user Maintenance/recurrent activities Labour Equipment 150 100 - machine use Construction material 350 100 - concrete 400 100 TOTAL 900 100 Maintenance/recurrent inputs and costs per ha per year 1. Restoration of the bund Inputs Costs (US$) % met by land user Labour Equipment 4 100 - machine use Construction material 12 100 - concrete 25 100 TOTAL 41 100 Remarks: Labour costs and price of concrete are the most determinate factors affecting the costs. The costs were indicated assuming a length of the bund dimensions of 5*1*1 metres. Maintenance is required once every 5 years, so yearly costs are the total costs divided by 5. The local wage rate is 79 US$/day (Prices are for spring 2008). SLM Technology: Water harvesting from concentrated runoff for irrigation purposes, Spain DESIRE – WOCAT 2012 119
Assessment Impacts of the Technology Production and socio-economic benefits Production and socio-economic disadvantages increased crop yield increased farm income increased irrigation water availability / quality reduced risk of production failure increased expenses on agricultural inputs Socio-cultural benefits Socio-cultural disadvantages improved conservation / erosion knowledge increased conflict over downstream effects Ecological benefits Ecological disadvantages improved harvesting / collection of water increased water quantity increased soil moisture reduced surface runoff improved excess water drainage recharge of groundwater table aquifer Off-site benefits Off-site disadvantages reduced downstream flooding reduced damage on public / private infrastructure Contribution to human well-being/livelihoods during Roman and Arab times when most structures were operative they increased significantly the production. Nowadays, most of them are abandoned. However, those that are operational do cause increased crop yields. Benefits/costs according to land user Benefits compared with costs short-term: long-term: Establishment negative positive Maintenance/recurrent positive positive Implementation of the technology is relatively expensive. Once installed, maintenance is not expensive and pays off because of higher productivity. Acceptance/adoption: One hundred per cent of land user families have implemented the technology voluntarily. There is no (growing) trend towards spontaneous adoption of the technology. Much of this knowledge is forgotten and not applied or maintained anymore Concluding statements Strengths and how to sustain/improve Weaknesses and how to overcome This technology is very effective at increasing water available for crop production and so increasing crop yield and farm income Temporarily store the harvested water in a cistern to be used for irrigation using drip irrigation when most needed. The technology takes advantage of floodwater that is otherwise lost because of the erratic character and short duration of flow Finding the optimal location for the water harvesting structures using a modelling approach The implementation costs are relatively high when the bunds are made of concrete Use of cheap materials that are freely available (stones from the fields). However, it is important to make the structure as resistant as possible against flood events. The water provided by these techniques is mostly interesting for small- and medium- scale rainfed farming. Intensively irrigated farming requires more water and a guarantee for water independently of flood events Intensively irrigated farming might use this technology as an additional source of water and may store the harvested water in a cistern for use when needed. Farmers consider it relatively expensive to implement and there is no guarantee for water as this depends on the rainfall events. Subsidies might help to install these structures where feasible. Therefore, good assessments of expected water inflow volumes are required before construction Key reference(s): Frot, E., van Wesemael, B., Benet, A.S. and House, M.A., 2008. Water harvesting potential in function of hillslope characteristics: A case study from the Sierra de Gador (Almeria province, south-east Spain). Journal of Arid Environments, 72(7): 1213-1231 Contact person(s): Joris de Vente, EEZA-CSIC, Joris@sustainable-ecosystems.org 120 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 and 106: Class sification Land use problemss
Page 109 and 110: Classification Land use problems: I
Page 113 and 114: Classification Land use problems: D
Page 125 and 126: Classification Land use problems: L
Page 129 and 130: Classification Land use problems: s
Page 133: Classification Land use problems: T
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 173 and 174: Classification Land use problems: L
Page 181 and 182: Classification Land use problems: D
Page 185 and 186:
Classification Land use problems: l
Page 187 and 188:
Assessment Impacts of the Technolog
Page 189 and 190:
Classification Land use problems: T
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Classification Land use problems: S
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Classification Land use problems: O
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Class sification Land use problemss
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Classification Land use problems: T
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Classification Land use problems: O
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?