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 / household, medium scale land users, common / average land users, mainly men Population density: 10-50 persons/km2 Annual population growth: < 0.5% Land ownership: individual, titled Land use rights: individual (all cropland is privately owned, some shrubland or forest is state property) 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 1. Construction of terraces 2. Plantation of shrubs and cereals or leguminous species (optional) Maintenance/recurrent activities 1. Filling up bank gullies in terraces 2. Replace died shrubs (optional) SLM Technology: Vegetated earth-banked terraces, Spain DESIRE – WOCAT 2012 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 (e.g. off-farm), 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 Quickbird satellite image showing the concentration of terraces along natural drainage lines (thalwegs) where runoff concentrates. Drainage lines are indicated with dotted lines. Establishment inputs and costs per ha Inputs Costs (US$) % met by land user Labour Equipment 270 10 - machine use Other 428 10 - shrub seedlings and seeds 218 10 TOTAL 916 10 Maintenance/recurrent inputs and costs per ha per year Inputs Costs (US$) % met by land user Labour Equipment 28 10 - machine use Other 24 10 - shrub seedlings and seeds 22 10 TOTAL 74 10 Remarks: Price of fuel and labour are the most important determinants of the costs. The local wage rate is 79 US$/day. The costs were indicated assuming a distance between terraces of 50 meter, meaning two terraces of 100 meter long per hectare. Prices are for spring 2008. Subsidies are foreseen for the installation of the vegetated terraces and for maintenance during at least 4 years if all requirements are fulfilled that are described in the regional development programme. 151
Assessment Impacts of the Technology Production and socio-economic benefits Production and socio-economic disadvantages decreased workload (less damage to fields due to less gully formation) increased expenses on agricultural inputs hindered farm operations Socio-cultural benefits Socio-cultural disadvantages improved conservation / erosion knowledge conflict mitigation (less damage to neighbours’ fields) Ecological benefits Ecological disadvantages reduced soil loss reduced hazard towards adverse events reduced surface runoff improved harvesting / collection of water increased soil moisture improved soil cover increased soil organic matter / below ground C increased animal diversity (terraces provide corridors connecting fields and provide shelter) increased plant diversity increased beneficial species increased / maintained habitat diversity Off-site benefits Off-site disadvantages reduced downstream flooding reduced downstream siltation reduced damage on neighbours fields reduced damage on public / private infrastructure improved buffering / filtering capacity Contribution to human well-being/livelihoods There is less damage to fields and to infrastructure due to gully formation and flooding. Benefits/costs according to land user Benefits compared with costs short-term: long-term: Establishment negative neutral / balanced Maintenance/recurrent neutral / balanced slightly positive Implementation of the terraces is relatively expensive. Additionally planting of shrubs is also relatively expensive and requires a subsidy. Once installed, maintenance is not expensive and pays off because of less damage to fields and infrastructure. Acceptance/adoption: Eighty per cent of land user families have implemented the technology with external material support. Terraces are traditionally widespread in the region. Most of them were installed without external support. Nowadays there are subsidies for construction and maintenance of vegetated strips and terraces. Twenty per cent of land user families have implemented the technology voluntary. There is no trend towards (growing) spontaneous adoption of the technology. There is acceptance, but it is not growing. In some parts terraces are removed to make larger fields, and some new ones are also constructed. Recently installed subsidies may change this Concluding statements Strengths and how to sustain/improve Weaknesses and how to overcome This technology is very effective at reducing surface runoff and erosion by reducing slope gradients and connectivity. In addition, it has a water harvesting effect. So it reduces on-site and off-site erosion problems and potentially increases water retention in the fields. The technology can be enhanced by providing more information and publicity so that existing terraces are maintained. The terraces prevent gully formation and damage to the fields and to their neighbours maintenance is needed and should be promoted. The technology does not improve farm income and has a significant implementation cost Provide information on all the advantages that include many costs for society (including floods, reservoir siltation etc.). The subsidy for implementation already solves the problem of implementation costs. It is considered relatively expensive to implement and particularly the optional planting of woody species is considered complicated in dry years Subsidies for terrace construction and planting of woody species as well as cooperation between farmers to reduce costs of maintenance when subsidies stop. Key reference(s): CARM 2008. Programa de Desarrollo Rural de la Región de Murcia 2007-2013 Tomo I. 508pp, http://www.carm.es/neweb2/servlet/integra.servlets.ControlPublico?IDCONTENIDO=4689&IDTIPO=100&RASTRO=c431$m1219 Contact person: Joris de Vente, EEZA-CSIC, Joris@sustainable-ecosystems.com 152 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 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Classification Land use problems: T
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Class sification Land use problemss
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Classification Land use problems: I
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Classification Land use problems: D
Page 115 and 116: Assessment Impacts of the Technolog
Page 117 and 118: Classification Land use problems: T
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 165: Class sification Land use problemss
Page 169 and 170: Classification Land use problems: I
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 193 and 194: Classification Land use problems: S
Page 213 and 214: Problem, objectives and constraints
Page 215 and 216: Impacts of the Approach Improved su
Page 217 and 218:
Problem, objectives and constraints
Page 219 and 220:
Impacts of the Approach Improved su
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?