Desire for Greener Land

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The costs of a technology are difficult to assess, especially in cases where the costs are actually less than for the normal or conventional practice (e.g. with no tillage). Low-cost technologies (mostly below 100 US$/ha) are primarily found within the cropping management and grazing land management group, although their maintenance costs can be considerable. The water management technologies are the most expensive (2000 – 10,000 US$/ha), but this group also has the highest potential of increasing the profits, thus making the investments very worthwhile. Furthermore, the maintenance costs are usually rather low, i.e. below 300 US$ / ha / year. The cost-benefit analysis showed that nearly half of the land users earn most of their income outside of their farm. It was also found that, for the most part, technologies are profitable in the long run, but less, and in some cases not at all, profitable in the short run. Furthermore, land users themselves were found to pay around a third of the implementation costs (often in the form of labour), but usually all of the maintenance costs. This suggests that providing funding to implement technologies, e.g. through revolving funds or payments for ecosystem services, can be an effective way to enhance adoption, as the implementation costs are what makes measures unprofitable in the short run. This is especially the case for the more expensive cross-slope barriers and water management technologies. However, despite the constraints due to investment costs, there was a growing spontaneous adoption trend for more than half of the technologies. SLM Approaches Eight SLM approaches were studied within DESIRE and are discussed in detail in this book. In at least half of these cases, the local community was involved right from the very beginning. The decision to implement certain measures was still often taken by SLM specialists, but always in consultation with land users. All approaches work with an existing advisory service system, which ensures the long-term continuation of the approach activities. In many countries, agricultural advisory services have been reduced due to economic pressure. However, these services have proven to be a key for up-scaling SLM and should, as a result, be strengthened to enable promotion, further development and adaptation of SLM to changing environments and needs. Approaches were perceived to have moderate to great impacts on SLM, and most approaches were found to contribute to improved livelihoods, decreased poverty and improved situations for socially and economically disadvantaged groups. The main reasons that land users choose to implement SLM Conclusions and policy points DESIRE – WOCAT 2012 Turkey, Erik van den Elsen measures were found to be increased production, profitability, and/or payments or subsidies. Environmental consciousness played a minor role. Thus, the challenge is to devise policies that are beneficial to environmental, economic and social concerns, i.e. decreasing degradation and improving ecosystems, while at the same time enhancing agricultural productivity and the livelihoods of land users. Research is needed to show and quantify these desired impacts of SLM practices. Making land users more aware of environmental issues and short- and long-term advantages, such as increased profitability, as well as including them in assessing the benefits of SLM – by being part of the research – will increase their motivation to implement SLM measures. Policy points This final section summarises the main conclusions arising from the DESIRE project that are of relevance to policy makers: K SLM options need to be developed and evaluated by capitalising on close collaboration of scientists with stakeholders, and tailoring options to local needs and priorities. K It is important to consider local knowledge and traditional approaches to land management alongside the latest technologies emerging from the research community and work to combine insights from both of these sources. K A structured process where stakeholders work together at a local level to identify, evaluate and select SLM options for field testing has proven to be effective. The implementation and monitoring phase needs to take into account the criteria for success, as identified by the stakeholders during the participatory planning process. K Standardized assessment and documentation, with the help of the WOCAT tools, enables the evaluation of current practices, the comparison of implemented SLM technologies and approaches across sites, and the mutual sharing of experiences through a variety of formats. 4 K Rigorous impact assessment is required to evaluate whether the expected bio-physical and socio-economic benefits have been realised. K SLM has multiple ecological, economic and social benefits, which go beyond the potential to reduce land degradation and desertification, e.g. addressing global concerns of water scarcity, resource use efficiency, energy supply, food security, poverty alleviation, climate change and biodiversity conservation. K When taking into account the multiple benefits, investments in SLM are completely justified and may require funding schemes from private and public sectors, especially when involving small-scale land users and marginalized people. 3 IAASTD, 2009. Summary for Decision Makers of the Global Report. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Island Press, 46 pp. 4 Accessible at www.wocat.net and through the DESIRE Harmonised Information System at www.desire-his.eu 67
Part 2 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: Concerning SLM, the most widely app
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 125 and 126: Classification Land use problems: L
Page 129 and 130: Classification Land use problems: s
Page 133 and 134:
Classification Land use problems: T
Page 135 and 136:
Assessment Impacts of the Technolog
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?