Desire for Greener Land
Desire for Greener Land
Desire for Greener Land
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Assessment<br />
Impacts of the Technology<br />
Production and socio-economic benefits Production and socio-economic disadvantages<br />
reduced risk of production failure<br />
increased farm income<br />
increased labour constraints<br />
Socio-cultural benefits Socio-cultural disadvantages<br />
improved conservation / erosion knowledge<br />
Ecological benefits Ecological disadvantages<br />
reduced hazard towards adverse events<br />
improved soil cover<br />
increased biomass above ground C<br />
reduced soil loss<br />
Off-site benefits Off-site disadvantages<br />
reduced damage on public / private infrastructure<br />
reduced downstream flooding<br />
reduced downstream siltation<br />
Contribution to human well-being/livelihoods<br />
The technology can contribute to education of young farmers.<br />
Benefits/costs according to land user<br />
risk of overgrazing in the woodland if grazing is not well<br />
controlled<br />
Benefits compared with costs short-term: long-term:<br />
Establishment slightly positive positive<br />
Maintenance/recurrent positive positive<br />
It is very cheap to maintain the measure. In the surrounding areas, where land should be less degraded due to reduced grazing, more<br />
trees can be planted and allowed to grow in future.<br />
Acceptance/adoption:<br />
50% of land user families have implemented the technology with external material support.<br />
50% of land user families have implemented the technology voluntarily.<br />
There is no trend towards any increase in spontaneous adoption of the technology.<br />
Concluding statements<br />
Strengths and how to sustain/improve Weaknesses and how to overcome<br />
Good impact with low cost facilitate access to public <strong>for</strong>est land<br />
Good animal production the general quality of the products of the<br />
grazing (milk, beef and cheese) is improved due to the availability<br />
of more grass and water in the driest periods of the year.<br />
Limited wooded areas are available <strong>for</strong> public access creation of<br />
managed enclosures in order to increase natural re<strong>for</strong>estation or<br />
af<strong>for</strong>estation.<br />
Rights of access to public lands and <strong>for</strong>est management rules <br />
the regional legislative process should define better the<br />
management of the access of farmers to public lands and in<br />
general the whole controlled grazing process.<br />
Risk of overgrazing of the woodland area, if the area is not well<br />
controlled ensure control mechanisms<br />
Key reference(s): Official Bulletin of the Basilicata region (Italy): N. 29 – 29/04/2002; N. 22 – 16/06/2008.<br />
Cocca C. & Campanile G. (2005). Pascolo in bosco solo se controllato. Agrifoglio, N. 7, pages 20-21.<br />
Contact person(s): Lorenzo Borselli, Instituto de Geologia / Fac. De Ingegneria, Universitad Autonoma de San Luis Potosì (UASLP), Mexico. borselli@gmail.com<br />
176 DESIRE – WOCAT <strong>Desire</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Greener</strong> <strong>Land</strong>