Desire for Greener Land

More documents

Recommendations

Info

medium to high impacts, both grazing land practices have medium impacts, and three of the five forest management practices have been attributed with little to high impacts. Benefits on neighbours’ fields and public or private infrastructure (see Figure 27) have been particularly attributed to cross-slope barriers and forest and cropping management, and less to the direct water management. Still, all groups showed some reduction of damage off-site, demonstrating that damage caused by excessive water is a land management, rather than a purely water engineering, issue. Costs In compiling the cost of a technology it is often difficult to separate normal agricultural inputs from additional expenses. In some cases, e.g. reduced or no tillage, the costs are actually less than for the normal or conventional practice. Thus it is relatively difficult to determine the incremental (or alternative) costs (and benefits) for SLM 11 . Establishment costs are defined as those specific one-off, initial costs which are incurred during the setting up of a SLM technology 12 . These investments are made over a period of time that can last anything from a few weeks to two or three years. These costs typically include extra labour, purchase or hire of machinery and equipment, and seedlings. In general, No. of case studies Establishment costs 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Cropping management Water management Cross-slope barriers Grazing land management SLM technology groups Forest management US$ / ha >10,000 2000–10,000 500–2000 100–500 0–100 DESIRE - WOCAT 2012 Figure 28: Establishment costs in relation to the SLM technology groups. Portugal, Gudrun Schwilch there is no establishment phase involved in agronomic measures, but investments into specialised machinery like directseeding tractors can be considerable. The “cheapest” SLM practices are within the cropping management group, where the majority of technologies require no extra costs compared to the more conventional land management practices. Grazing land practices are not expensive either but with these practices, the potential of production increase is smaller. Cross slope barriers range from cheap to expensive. The most expensive group is the water management. Compared with the potential benefits (see e.g. Figure 16), this group also has the highest potential of increasing the benefits / profits, thus making the investments worthwhile. Maintenance costs are those that relate to maintaining a functioning system. They are regularly incurred and are accounted for on an annual basis 13 . In general, these are made up of labour, equipment, and agricultural inputs. Compared to the establishment cost, the maintenance of the cropping management group can be quite high (over 300 $/ha). The reason for this is that this group of practices require annual inputs, such as renting machines and purchasing seeds, herbicides and fertilizer. As with the establishment costs, the water management group also has high 10 Alkemade et al., 2009 11 WOCAT, 2007 12 WOCAT, 2007 13 WOCAT, 2007 Analysis of assessed SLM technologies and approaches across DESIRE sites DESIRE – WOCAT 2012 No. of case studies Maintenance costs 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Cropping management Water management Cross-slope barriers Grazing land management SLM technology groups Forest management US$ / ha / year >1000 600–1000 300–600 100–300 50–100 0–50 DESIRE - WOCAT 2012 Figure 29: Maintenance costs in relation to the SLM technology groups. 55
No. of case studies No. of case studies Short-term benefits in relation to establishment costs 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Cropping management Water management Cross-slope barriers Grazing land management SLM technology groups very neg. - neg. slightly neg. neutral - slightly pos. pos. - very pos. Figure 30: Perceived benefits of SLM technologies in the short and long term and related to establishment and maintenance costs. maintenance costs. In contrast to this, cross-slope barriers are obviously rather cheap to maintain, even after heavy investments for their establishment, unless they happen to become damaged in extreme events. In the current analysis, grazing land and forest land management practices seem to incur low maintenance costs. Forest management Long-term benefits in relation to establishment costs 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Cropping management Water management Cross-slope barriers Grazing land management SLM technology groups Forest management DESIRE - WOCAT 2012 very neg. - neg. slightly neg. neutral - slightly pos. pos. - very pos. DESIRE - WOCAT 2012 Short-term benefits in relation to maintenance costs 9 n.a. very neg. - neg. slightly neg. neutral - slightly pos. pos. - very pos. Land users do not always have to pay the full establishment and maintenance costs. In the studied cases, land users either paid almost all establishment costs (11 cases with contributions of 90-100%) or almost nothing (9 cases with contributions of 0-10%). Five case studies were somewhere between these two extremes and another five did not have 56 DESIRE – WOCAT Desire for Greener Land No. of case studies No. of case studies 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Cropping management Cropping management Water management Cross-slope barriers Grazing land management SLM technology groups Water management Cross-slope barriers Forest management Long-term benefits in relation to maintenance costs 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Grazing land management SLM technology groups Forest management DESIRE - WOCAT 2012 n.a. very neg. - neg. slightly neg. neutral - slightly pos. pos. - very pos. DESIRE - WOCAT 2012 Morocco, Gudrun Schwilch Cape Verde, Gudrun Schwilch
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: No. of case studies Increased plant
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 105 and 106: Class sification Land use problemss
Page 109 and 110: Classification Land use problems: I
Page 113 and 114: Classification Land use problems: D
Page 121 and 122:
Classification Land use problems: I
Page 123 and 124:
Assessment Impacts of the Technolog
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:
Classification Land use problems: T
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Class sification Land use problemss
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:
Classification Land use problems: I
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?