Desire for Greener Land

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Human Environment Cropland per household (ha) 10,000 Implementation activities, inputs and costs Establishment activities 1. Holes dug for tree plantation 2. Manure application 3. Plantation 4. Soil preparation by tillage Maintenance/recurrent activities Olive tree strips: 1. Early tillage for soil preparation (September) 2. Manure spreading around the olive tree plants (autumn) 3. Pruning of olive trees (January) 4. Treatment of olive tree against disease (if necessary) 5. Olive harvest (October – November) Cropping strips: 1. Early tillage for breaking up the soil 2. Sowing of beans 3. Harrowing for aeration of the soil and weeding 4. Treatment against bean parasites 5. Harvest and collection of grains Land user: Individual / household, small scale land users, common / average land users, men and women Population density: 10-50 persons/km 2 Annual population growth: negative Land ownership: individual, titled Land use rights: individual (small properties due to heritage) Water use rights: open access (unorganised) Relative level of wealth: average, which represents 12% of the land users; 25 % of the total land area is owned by average land users SLM Technology: Olive tree plantations with intercropping, Morocco DESIRE – WOCAT 2012 Importance of off-farm income: less than 10% of all income Access to service and infrastructure: health : low education : moderate technical assistance : low roads and transport: moderate drinking water and sanitation: low Market orientation: mixed (subsistence and commercial) Mechanization: manual labour, animal traction Livestock grazing on cropland: no Technical drawing Establishment inputs and costs per ha The spatial arrangement of olive trees planted symmetrically (at 6m intervals) with intercropping. The beans grow in the stripes, and there is a barbed wire fence and cactus hedge to prevent livestock intrusion. (Larbi Elktaibi) Inputs Costs (US$ / local currency) % met by land user Labour 568 52 Equipment - machine use - animal traction - tools Other Agricultural - seedlings - compost/manure 25 15 96 307 80 TOTAL 1091 36 Maintenance/recurrent inputs and costs per ha per year Inputs Costs (US$ / local currency) 2 1 9 28 8 % met by land user Labour 64 22 Equipment - machine use - animal traction Agricultural - seedlings - biocides - compost/manure 50 35 40 18 80 TOTAL 287 19 Remarks: Labour and seedlings are the most determining factors affecting the costs. The local wage rate is 5 US$/day. Costs are calculated on the basis of initial expenses for buying tillage tools and seedlings, and maintenance expenses for tillage, seedlings buying and fertilizers. 17 12 14 6 28 155
Assessment Impacts of the Technology Production and socio-economic benefits Production and socio-economic disadvantages increased crop yield increased farm income reduced fodder production grazing land reduction Socio-cultural benefits Socio-cultural disadvantages improved conservation / erosion knowledge socio cultural conflicts Ecological benefits Ecological disadvantages reduced surface runoff reduced wind velocity increased soil organic matter / below ground C reduced soil loss higher soil fertility increased soil moisture reduced soil crusting / sealing Off-site benefits reduction of overland flow and flooding reduction of siltation in the dam reservoir Contribution to human well-being/livelihoods Increase habitat for birds that invade crops (negligible) Off-site disadvantages Incomes from the implemented technology are still low because of the low olive and oil production. They are expected to increase 7 years after plantation. Benefits/costs according to land user Over the long term, increase in olive production creates great financial resources Acceptance/adoption: Benefits compared with costs short-term: long-term: Establishment negative positive Maintenance/recurrent slightly negative positive Seventy per cent of land user families have implemented the technology with external material support. Thirty per cent of land user families have implemented the technology voluntarily. This technology is a new agricultural practice which becomes more and more interesting for land users. There is a strong (growing) trend towards spontaneous adoption of the technology. This technology is rapidly growing because it is a promising alternative to combat climatic irregularities and rural poverty. Concluding statements Strengths and how to sustain/improve Weaknesses and how to overcome Ecological balance: olive tree plantations allow soil conservation through reduction of the erosion risks. It also provides benefits on water resources due to infiltration improvement. Intensification of olive tree plantations and support of individual plantation projects, manure and fertilizers buying and technical supervision Improvement in socio-economic conditions: olive tree plantations provide more financial resources for land users, and provide high added value activities. By promoting awareness-raising and technical supervision Over the long term, this cultivation activity is more profitable than cereals Promotion of olive tree plantation by subsidies Olive tree plantations are a less sensitive to irregular rainfalls than other cultivations search for drought-resistant species Decrease in breeding activities because of protected areas and grazing land reduction Additional fodder supply and promotion of fodder cultivation and stalling Insignificant economic benefits and low profitability provided by the technology over the short term Promotion of intercropping to overcome the period before production begins, and give land users subsidies for fodder, seeds and fertilizers Owing to limited water resources, irrigation can be difficult during a dry year Support in localized irrigation implementation (drip system) Conflicts occur because of protected areas Allowing access for livestock Key reference(s): DPA (2001): Projet de mise en valeur des terres en bour de Sehoul. Direction Provinciale de l’Agriculture, Rabat Contact person(s): Abdellah Elhazziti, Centre des travaux agricoles Bouknadel, Route de Kénetra Bouknadel (CT221) Salé, Tél +212041274340 156 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:
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:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120: Assessment Impacts of the Technolog
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 133 and 134: Classification Land use problems: T
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 169: 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:
Problem, objectives and constraints
Page 223 and 224:
Input: - Equipment (machinery, tool
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Impacts of the Approach Improved su
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?