Desire for Greener Land

Impacts of the technology: This information is asked of the specialist under questions
QT 3.1.2 – QT 3.1.5. Categories are then ranked (+=little, ++=medium, +++=high), listed
according to rank and additional comments/specifications given in brackets where available
e.g. crop yield increase (maize +200%; beans +150%).
Assessment
Impacts of the Technology
Production and socio-economic benefits Production and socio-economic disadvantages
increased crop yield
increased farm income
decreased workload
Acceptance / Adoption
The information below relates to the spread of the technology.
improved conservation / erosion knowledge
Within the area covered by the case study (the ‘technology area’:
see box on page one) we are considering only those people who
have applied the technology reduced soil (though loss often this means all/ nearly
reduced surface runoff
all the households). The infomation below refers to how the spread
improved soil cover
has occured/ is still occuring improved – harvesting with a special / collection focus of water on the role
of incentives. The following increased details soil moisture are given:
- % land users / number increased of families nutrient cycling who recharge accepted the technology
reduced emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
with incentives; from QT 3.3.1.1
reduced soil crusting / sealing and compaction
- % land users / number of families who accepted the technology
without incentives (spontaneous adoption); from QT 3.3.2.1
reduced damage on neighbours fields
- which groups accepted with/ without incentives? What were
reduced downstream flooding
these incentives and reduced what downstream were their siltation reasons for adoption?
From QT 3.3.1.2 and reduced QT 3.3.2.2 wind transported sediments
- is there a trend towards reduced growing damage on spontaneous public / private adoption?
infrastructure
comments here Contribution from QT to 3.3.2.2 human well-being/livelihoods
increased expenses on agricultural inputs
Socio-cultural benefits Socio-cultural disadvantages
Ecological benefits Ecological disadvantages
Off-site benefits Off-site disadvantages
Farm income may increase with up to12%. There is no known effect on education, health etc. The subsidies applied for cereal
production in a rotation system of fallow & for contour ploughing contribute to improved livelihood of most farmers.
Benefits/costs according to land user
for establishment: QT 3.2.1
Benefits compared with costs short-term: long-term:
Establishment slightly negative slightly positive
Maintenance/recurrent slightly positive slightly positive
When a disc-plough was not already used in normal farming operations, this implies a slightly negative influence on farm income during
establishment.
Acceptance/adoption:
There are no subsidies for reduced tillage. Nevertheless, 100% of land user families have implemented the technology with external
material support since there are subsidies for parts of the technology such as contour ploughing and rotational farming allowing a fallow
period (1-2 years) after harvest. Practically 100 % of farmers use these subsidies; still reduced tillage is implemented 100% voluntary.
There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the technology. There seems to be a growing public awareness of the fact that
frequent deep rotational ploughing is not always necessary and results in higher production costs.
Concluding statements
Concluding statements:
Strengths and how to sustain/improve Weaknesses and how to overcome
The answers to QT 3.4.1 and 3.4.2
This is a low-cost technology that requires limited initial investments in The most important weakness of this technology is that it does
equipment and potentially results in a slightly increased summarise farm income, the technology’s not significantly strong improve farm income and so may not be
as well as a decrease in land degradation and an increase in soil stimulating enough for farmers to apply Provide information
and weak points and how these could
quality and water-holding capacity In some higher areas with on all the advantages of good soil management that include
sufficient rainfall, the technology might be adapted be, to conservation respectively, sustained/ many costs improved for society (including floods, reservoir siltation, etc.)
tillage with direct sowing, reducing the tillage operations even more. and stress the fact that reduced tillage will lead to less work for
However, this implies an important investment in machinery or overcome. and a high The questions the same or were slightly higher profit.
level of organisation at the agricultural cooperation divided level. into two: the author’s opinion
In order to apply for subsidies for cereal cultivation in a rotation
An increased soil surface cover throughout autumn and and the winter land user’s’ system viewpoints. with fallow, The farmers are obliged to plough after each
provides a good protection against soil erosion reducing answers rill and (which gully often fallow coincided period to control and weeds, even when two consecutive
formation Sometimes a field is left fallow for two consecutive years, years of fallow are applied. This is considered unnecessary It
but it is still ploughed between them. This ploughing were might seldom be avoided contradictory) might be worthwhile have been to test the need for this and look for
as well.
alternatives without ploughing.
Annex DESIRE – WOCAT 2012
combined in this table.
for maintenance/ recurrent: QT 3.2.2
Key reference(s): López-Fando, C., Dorado, J. and Pardo, M.T., 2007. Effects of zone-tillage in rotation with no-tillage on soil properties and crop yields in a semiarid
soil from central Spain. Soil and Tillage Research, 95(1-2): 266-276; Ozpinar, S., 2006. Effects of tillage systems on weed population and economics for winter
wheat production under the Mediterranean dryland conditions. Soil and Tillage Research, 87(1): 1-8; 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
Key reference(s)
References to literature are specified here: not just taken from the questionnaire annex 1, but in some
cases added to by the editors. Many technologies have not been documented before.
Contact person(s)
The name and contacts of the author(s) so that specific interests/ question from readers can be followed
up, taken from annex 1.
Benefits/costs according land user
Short-term / long-term categories: the land
users’ view of how beneficial the technology
is with respect to establishment and to maintenance
activities, and in the short- term and
the longterm for each. Note: this is essentially
a qualitative question, having seven possible
answers ranging from ‘very negative’ through
‘neutral/ balanced’ to ‘very positive’. Another
consideration is that when incentives are used
for establishment, land users may view the
benefits for establishment as ‘positive’ relating
the benefits to the incentives rather than the
impact of the SWC technology.
273