Location of the Horsetail Beefwood Windbreak along seaside in Xiahu town.

Planting Horsetail Beefwood (Casuarina) As Windbreak Along Seaside (China)

Description

Planting Horsetail Beefwood along seaside to protect cropland from sea wind erosion and typhoon destroy.

Planting Horsetail Beefwood as shelter belts along seaside to prevent Strong wind and water erosion/destroy on the cropland. Horsetail Beefwood is a perennial tree growing in sub-tropic and tropic climate. Its timber can be used in industry and fuel timber. It is easy to maintain and accepted by land users.

Location

Location: Fujian, China

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 119.6, 26.66

Initiation date: 1992

Year of termination: 2002

Type of Approach
Outline of Planting Horsetail Beefwood along Seaside to protect cropland from Wind erosion.

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Strong sea wind and typhoon destroy the farmland and the serious erosion makes soil layer thin. The crops are often blown away and yield is decreasing gradually.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Lack of fund to buy tree species and pay labour fee Treatment through the SLM Approach: Raising money through variable ways and subsidy from government
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights hindered a little the approach implementation The land ownership belongs to state and land user can only lease the land for a period of time, land users would worry about their land could be transferred to others.
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Poor knowledge in SWC Treatment through the SLM Approach: Enhancing trainning

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities Working land users were mainly men (Men are the main labor for the SWC implementation.)
national government (planners, decision-makers)
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
planning
implementation
responsibility for major steps
monitoring/ evaluation
interviews/questionnaires;
Research
Flow chart

Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
  • farm visits
Subjects covered

Demonstration in the field.

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Name of method used for advisory service: Demonstration of planting horsetail beefwood; Key elements: Size between trees, maintain; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents 2) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: Demonstration

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Propaganda, soil conservation, extension and SWC benefits can lure land users to participate in the project.
Monitoring and evaluation
economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national): 80.0%; other (-): 20.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments
Financial/ material support provided to land users
partly financed
fully financed
agricultural: seeds

seedlings

Labour by land users was

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

The local farmers change their traditional food crops to economic crops and/or fruit trees.

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

National or local government can deal with this issue. The problem is likely to be overcome in the near future. Through giving some subsidy and other favorable policies.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
  • n.a.
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Reducing wind erosion and improving soil fertility so that increasing production and gaining better benefits. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: It is unnecessary to spend much labor & money to maintain since it can produce better benefits and improve environment.)
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • improving the ecological environment and economic benefits (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Forbidding disafforest.)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Input from the government is too little, and some land users do not really realize the importance of SWC. strengthening propaganda of the importance of SWC, to get more funds from different channels.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • no

References

Compiler
  • Unknown User
Editors
Reviewer
  • Laura Ebneter
Date of documentation: Des. 31, 2008
Last update: Julie 12, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International