Desire for Greener Land

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Relative distribution of indirect causes of degradation 9% 6% 41% 5% 2% Population pressure Land tenure Labour availability Poverty Education, awareness raising Others Analysis of degradation and SLM maps DESIRE – WOCAT 2012 37% DESIRE - WOCAT 2012 Figure 9: Relative distribution of indirect causes of land degradation in the DESIRE study sites, expressed as the share of the degraded area. cultivation of highly unsuitable or vulnerable soils, the missing or insufficient soil conservation or erosion control measures, or the use of heavy machinery. In contrast, crop or rangeland management refers to the improper management of annual, perennial (e.g. grass) shrub and tree crops, like the reduction of plant cover and residues for burning 7 . In more than 50% of the mapping units (covering almost 70% of the degraded area in the total area of DESIRE study sites), more than one causative factor is responsible for land degradation. In 20% of the degraded area five or more direct causes of land degradation apply. This illustrates the complexity of land degradation, and highlights the need for SLM technologies to address multiple forms of land degradation. Indirect causes of land degradation Indirect causes of land degradation include socio-economic factors. Population pressure and land tenure were reported as the two most important indirect drivers of land degradation in the DESIRE study sites (Figure 9). This is confirmed in the literature 8 . In most study sites a combination of indirect causes of land degradation was reported; with three or more causes accounting for 28% of the degraded area. The most frequent combination of indirect causes included population pressure, land tenure and poverty, combined with governance, institutions and politics (14% of the degraded area). Impact of land degradation on ecosystem services Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits people derive from ecosystems 9 . These include the production of food and Greece, Hanspeter Liniger biomass, water and energy (provisioning services), regulating services like the prevention of soil erosion and the regulation of water flows, cultural services like information for education, and habitat services (e.g. the maintenance of genetic diversity). The same degree of land degradation can have different impacts on ecosystem services in different places. For example, the removal of a 5 cm layer of soil may have a greater impact on the crop or fodder production on a poor shallow soil than on a deep, fertile soil. In WOCAT-LADA-DESIRE Mapping, the impact of land degradation on ecosystem services is compared to situations without land degradation at present (e.g. areas that are already well conserved). The WOCAT-LADA-DESIRE Mapping Method regroups the ecosystem services into the following categories 10 : P Productive services (provisioning services) E Ecological services (regulating and habitat services) S Socio-cultural services (cultural services) Land degradation was reported to have negative impacts on all categories of ecosystem services in the DESIRE study sites (Figure 10). Negative impacts on ecosystem services were reported for 94% of the degraded area, of mostly moderate degree, and referring to more than one category of ecosystem services in 35% of the degraded area. Negative impacts on ecosystem services were most widespread in cultivated land (36% of the degraded area), followed by grazing land and mixed land use (20 and 19%). % of degraded area Impact of degradation on ecosystem services 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 DESIRE - WOCAT 2012 Figure 10: Extent of impact of land degradation on ecosystem services (ES) in all DESIRE study sites. P: production services, E: ecological services, S: socio-cultural services. Negative numbers: negative contributions to changes in ES (-3: >50%, -2: 10-50%; -1: 0-10%); positive numbers: positive contributions to changes in ES (3: >50%, 2: 10-50%; 1: 0-10%). 7 Liniger et al., 2008 P E S 8 e.g. Cotula, 2011; Flintan, 2011; Liniger et al., 2011 9 www.maweb.org; TEEB, 2010 10 TEEB (2010) groups in between brackets Impact +3 +2 +1 -1 -2 -3 31
Production services were affected over the largest part of the degraded area (Figure 10). Degraded land with negative impacts on uniquely production services (not on ecological or socio-cultural services) covers 20% of the total degraded area in the study sites. Of this land, mixed land use was most affected (49%), followed by cultivated land (24%) and grazing land (19%). In forest the largest part of the degraded area experiences negative impacts from land degradation on all categories of ecosystem services. The largest part of the area under high negative impact on ecosystem services (-3) was observed for regulating ecosystem services, indicating that these require specific attention in the process of developing and implementing remediation strategies against land degradation. Negative impacts on regulating ecosystem services were reported for equally large areas in cultivated land, grazing land and forest. Sustainable Land Management: dominant measures and groups, extent, effectiveness and trend Mapping conservation and SLM As shown in Table 1, the land conservation mapping is analogous to the land degradation mapping. The mapping of conservation measures includes the identification of the SLM Major conservation groups per study site 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Botswana Cape Verde Chile China Greece/Crete Greece/Nestos Italy Mexico Morocco Portugal/Gois Portugal/Maçao Russia/Dzhanibek Box 2 Conservation groups in the WOCAT-LADA-DESIRE Mapping Method. Conservation technologies are clustered into groups which have names familiar to most SLM specialists and rural development specialists. The technology groups cover the main types of existing soil and water conservation systems. CA: Conservation agriculture / mulching NM: Manuring / composting / nutrient management RO: Rotational system / shifting cultivation / fallow / slash and burn VS: Vegetative strips / cover AF: Agroforestry AP: Afforestation and forest protection RH: Gully control / rehabilitation TR: Terraces GR: Grazing land management WH: Water harvesting SA: Groundwater / salinity regulation / water use efficiency WQ: Water quality improvements SD: Sand dune stabilization CB: Coastal bank protection PR: Protection against natural hazards SC: Storm water control, road runoff WM: Waste management CO: Conservation of natural biodiversity OT: Other DESIRE - WOCAT 2012 Figure 11: Relative distribution of major Conservation Groups per study site. Legend: see Box 2. Group 1 includes all groups not specified in the legend. 32 DESIRE – WOCAT Desire for Greener Land Russioa/Novy Spain Tunisia Turkey/Karapinar Turkey/Eskisehir WH VS TR SD SA RO OT GR CA AP AF Group1 China, Hanspeter Liniger Greece, Hanspeter Liniger
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: Rate of degradation per study site
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:
Assessment Impacts of the Technolog
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:
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:
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?