Desire for Greener Land

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Problem A list of the main problems addressed by the approach, in order of importance: from QA 2.1.3.1, intended to indicate what gaps the approach was intended to fill, so that the associated technologies could be effectively implemented. Problem, objectives and constraints Problems: The main problems addressed by the approach Objectives are low income and low productivity of farmers in rural areas, subsequent land abandonment, and erosion and land degradation processes causing on-site and off-site damage. Description of the main objectives of the approach: text taken directly or summarised from Aims / Objectives: 1) improve the socio-economic QA 2.1.4.1 situation of rural areas; 2) prevent land abandonment; and 3) prevent on-site and off-site damage caused by land degradation and erosion. Constraints addressed Constraints Treatments Financial Many technologies require an investment and maintenance, or even reduce productivity because they occupy land A subsidy equal to the loss of productivity and implementation and maintenance costs. Constraints addressed This is a list of the Social specific / cultural constraints / religious ‘hindering The problem theis implementation not always recognised of the by everyone SWC technology’ Information and an training by the regional extension and certain practices are cultural services and the farmers organisations. indication of ‘the treatment offered by the approach’ to overcome these. These are grouped under Technical Some technologies require establishment of Advice about which vegetation types to use and ‘major’ and ‘minor’ categories, such as ‘social’, vegetation ‘financial’ cover, which and is ‘legal’: difficult under fromarid QA 2.1.3.2. subsidy The inten- to cover the implementation costs. tion here was to highlight those problemsconditions that arose, especially after the approach was put into practice, and how these were tackled. Participation and decision making Target groups Stakeholders / target groups Approach costs met by: International 41% Government 10% local government (district, county, municipality, village, etc.) 49% or estimates Total 100% SLM specialists, agricultural advisors land users, groups politicians, decision makers Meaning those identified to be addressed through the approach – from QA 2.2.1.1. For definition of pictograms refer to page 272. Total budget US$> 1,000,000 Decisions on choice of the Technology(ies): mainly by SLM specialists Decisions on method of implementing the Technology(ies): by politicians / leaders Approach designed by: national specialists, international specialists Implementing bodies: international, government, Decisions local on government choice (district, of the county, technology: municipality, Categories village, etc.), here land are users specified in QA 2.1.5.1, and comments allowed Decisions on method of implementing the technology: Categories here are specified in Land user involvement QA 2.1.5.2, and comments allowed Phase Involvement Activities Approach designed by: Taken from QA 2.1.6.1: where the four options of ‘national specialists’, Petitions towards policy makers and farmers organizations to pay attention for production Initiation/motivation Self-mobilisation ‘international under difficult environmental specialist’, conditions ‘land users’ and ‘others’ are specified Land users were sporadically consulted through farmers organizations, and participated in Planning Interactive protest meetings against initial versions of the RDP that they considered insufficient regarding payments for the agricultural sector Land users implemented SLM technologies themselves with help from technicians of regional Implementation Interactive government and farmers organisations Monitoring/evaluation None Research None Land user involvement This table below is based on a mix of answers to questions QA 2.2.2.1 and QA 2.2.3.2 phase / Involvement* / activities * either ‘none’ ‘passive’ ‘payment/ incentives’ ‘interactive’ or ‘self-mobilisation’ Differences between participation of men and women: Yes, moderate. Traditionally land users and agricultural activities are dominated by men. Involvement of disadvantaged groups: Yes, little. The focus of the approach is on the socio-economic situation of farmers with a relatively low income and under marginal conditions. Annex DESIRE – WOCAT 2012 Approach costs met by The various donors/ contributors listed in QA 2.3.1.1, based on figures Differences in participation between men and women: Taken from question QA 2.2.2.2 this is a summary of the different roles played by women and men under the approach, with reasons for these differences explained where possible. Involvement of disadvantaged groups: from QA 2.2.2.3 275
Here appears an organogram – if available from the answer to QA 2.1.2: where this is not the case, for example in an approach which is basically a tradition, a drawing or a photograph is included in its place Technical support Organogram To be fit for purpose, since 2007 the RDPs are designed at the regional level using advice from scientific institutes. The boundary conditions regarding the overall environmental and economic objectives and available finances are received from the European and national level. Caption The regional extension services have a role in the dissemination of information and control of correct implementation of measures by farmers. Training / awareness raising: Training provided for field staff/agricultural advisor. Training was on-the-job through site visits and Technical support farmer to farmer. Training focused on technical assistance for implementation of technologies by technicians of farmers’ organisations and from the extension services. Training: A short piece of text, formulated from the answers to QA 2.4.1.2 and QA 2.4.1.3 Advisory service: Name: agricultural extension (the subjects services and (Oficina form/ Comarcal method Agraria, of training) OCA) and from QA 3.2.4.1 where the effectiveness of training Key elements: 1. Control 2. advice (‘poor’, ‘fair’, ‘good’ ‘excellent’) on different specified target groups is rated. Currently, the extension system is strongly focused on control rather than advice and training activities. There is more information and awareness building required for land users. Advisory Information service: is often Aonly similar available piece at political/research of text here, level formulated and to some fromextent QA at 2.4.2.1 the level which asks for the of the farmers organisations but not at farm ‘name level. of extension approach’ and its ‘key elements’ and a description of the adequacy of extension Research: Yes, moderate research. Topics covered include economics / marketing, ecology, technology, geography. services to continue SWC activities in the future (QA 2.4.2.5) supplemented by a rating of effective- Results from national and international research projects of recent decades were used as well as experimental results from regional and national research institutes such as the ‘Instituto ness ofMurciano extension de Investigación (‘poor’, ‘fair’, y Desarrollo ‘good’ ‘excellent’) Agrario y Alimentario’(IMIDA) on different target and the groups Spanish with an explanation national research council (CSIC). – from QA 3.2.4.2 Research: Was applied research part of approach? QA 2.4.3.2 asks this basic question and requires External material support / subsidies an overall rating of ‘not’, ‘low’, ‘moderate’ or ‘great’. It further asks for a list of topics researched. Contribution per area (state/private sector): The text Yes. here Subsidies goesare onprovided to describe by the regional and explain ministry, impact state and of EU theprogrammes. applied research on the effectiveness Labour: Land users implement measures ofthemselves the approach on a voluntary – takenbasis from QA 3.2.4.3 Input: - Agricultural (seeds, fertilizers, etc.): seeds, partly financed; fertilizer and biocides, fully financed - Construction material (stone, wood, etc.): stones, fully financed - Productivity loss: Fully financed Credit: Credit was not available. Support to local institutions: Yes, little support with training. Information to agricultural cooperatives. Monitoring and evaluation Monitored aspects Methods and indicators Incentives Labour: This section answers the question of whether labour for implementation was voluntary, or rewarded with incentives. If it was rewarded, specifications of those incentives for land user’s labour bio-physical Ad hoc measurements by government through farm visits and sampling of soils for chemical parameters (for example to control for ecological farming practices) technical Ad hoc measurements input are given. by government It is taken through fromfarm QAvisits 2.5.1.1 to control the actual implementation of SLM measures economic / production Ad hoc measurements by land users by comparing production between years Inputs: Under this heading there is the answer to QA 2.5.1.2 which seeks to find out whether inputs were provided, and if so, what inputs and whether financed. And if financed, under what conditions and what terms? Credit: The answer to QA 2.5.2.1 forms the basis for this information: whether credit was provided for activities under the approach, and if so whether the interest rate was equal to, or lower than, the commercial market rate. Support to local institutions: Here is a sentence or two, taken from the answer from QA 2.5.3 which asks whether local institutions were specifically supported under the approach, to what extent and in what way. Naturally some projects or programmes focus strongly on institution-building, other not so. area treated Regular observations by government by farm visits and mapping with GIS tools no. of land users involved Regular observations by government by documentation of all farmers who participate in the subsidy programme Changes as result of monitoring and evaluation: There were several changes in the approach and the associated technologies. RDP's are evaluated and redefined every 7 years. 276 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:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Classification Land use problems: L
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Classification Land use problems: s
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Classification Land use problems: R
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Classification Land use problems: S
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Classification Land use problems: W
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Classification Land use problems: O
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Classification Land use problems: L
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Classification Land use problems: D
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Classification Land use problems: l
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Classification Land use problems: S
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
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: Impacts of the Approach Improved su
Page 241 and 242: Problem, objectives and constraints
Page 243 and 244: Impacts of the Approach Improved su
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 285 and 286: Explanation pages of case studies:
Page 287 and 288: Cropland (or grazing land, mixed la
Page 289: Explanation pages of case studies:
Page 293 and 294: Pictograms SLM technology Land use
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?