Desire for Greener Land

Concerning SLM, the most widely applied technologies were
SLM technologies in the groups of ‘Grazing land management’
and ‘Conservation agriculture and mulching’. The technologies
for cultivated land cover a larger total area, but are categorised
in more different conservation groups. SLM measures
appeared to be most effective on cultivated land where over
20% of the land under SLM measures had high to very high
effectiveness, compared to less than 4% of the land under
forest and grazing. For most conservation groups applied in
the DESIRE study sites the effectiveness is moderate to high.
Combinations of two or more conservation measures were
reported for about 40% of the mapping units or approximately
20% of the area under conservation. Sites with single conservation
measures appeared to have a relatively low effectiveness
of conservation. This confirms that combinations of conservation
measures are more effective than single measures.
Conservation measures in the DESIRE study sites have positive
impacts on ecosystem services over the largest part of
the area under conservation. Impacts are most positive on
regulating ecosystem services and were mostly observed in
forest and grazing land. Only 8% of the area under conservation
measures with positive impacts on ecosystem services
was found in cultivated land. Negative impacts of conservation
measures were reported for production services and
socio-cultural services for respectively 20% and 5% of the
area under conservation (but only at a few sites). Obviously
there is scope for improving contributions from SLM to ecosystem
services, especially in cultivated land.
WOCAT questionnaires on SLM technologies
and approaches
SLM technologies
The 30 case studies of technologies discussed in this book
covered five groups of SLM technologies, namely cropping
management, water management, cross-slope barriers, grazing
land management and forest management. Most of them
are applied on cropland, although grazing land is playing a
key role in drylands, at least regarding its spatial dimension
(see mapping results above). They also addressed all six types
of degradation: water degradation, biological degradation,
physical soil deterioration, chemical soil deterioration, wind
erosion and water erosion. Depending on the kind of degradation
addressed, agronomic, vegetative, structural and
management measures were used, or a combination thereof.
Most of the technologies aimed to prevent or mitigate
degradation, and only few were described as rehabilitation
technologies, mostly putting highly degraded forest or grazing
land back into production. This reflected the state of land
degradation in the various study sites, which had not passed
thresholds of extreme loss of productivity or ecosystem service
provisioning and, as such, did not yet require rehabilitation.
Technically, the SLM technologies assessed are mainly functioning
through increasing the infiltration, controlling runoff
and improving ground cover. These actions support each other
and can be considered key functions of SLM technologies in
drylands. Most technologies are applied by small-scale land
users, a group that is often underestimated regarding their
investment and innovation, as well as their role in worldwide
agricultural production 3 . As confirmed by previous studies,
individual, as well as regulated communal land ownership and
land use rights, facilitated the implementation of SLM.
The results show that, for the most part, the SLM technologies
had positive effects on bio-physical processes, relevant
to agricultural production, and on ecological services of the
land, although in varying degrees. For example, organic matter
content did not increase very much, but water availability did
increase and land and water degradation were reduced. An
obvious issue for drylands is the importance of improved water
management. One of the main aims of SLM in rainfed systems
is reducing water losses through runoff, and direct evaporation
loss from unprotected soil surface. On irrigated land water use
efficiency of the irrigation system and water harvesting technologies
show the greatest potential and benefits.
Cropping management technologies and cross-slope barriers
are the ones being most effective in reducing surface runoff
and increasing soil moisture, which are major concerns in
drylands. At the same time this confirms that the desired
technical functions of the SLM technologies (see above) are
achieved. Cropping management measures were found to
be especially sensitive to increased droughts and dry spells,
which is a particular concern in view of current climate
change. However, most of the technologies are tolerant
to the expected climatic variations, and, in some cases, the
technologies are even able to reduce vulnerability to climatic
threats, e.g. due to improved soil water availability.
Half of the technologies also provide off-site benefits, such
as reduced damages on neighbours’ fields, public / private
infrastructure or reduced downstream flooding. This might
be an argument to provide reward schemes to farming communities
for providing ecosystem services. In view of disaster
risk reduction, technologies with additional off-site benefits
need more attention.
Italy, Erik van den Elsen Morocco, Gudrun Schwilch
66 DESIRE – WOCAT Desire for Greener Land