1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

FAOMEX-Protierras ( FAO México - GEF)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

Nee

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

La tecnología consiste en un sistema agrosilvopastoril con árboles de Pinus cembroides (pino piñonero) alineados een bordos ─en un terreno con suelos calizos previamente subsoleado─ conformando melgas (callejones) para con cultivos anuales para grano y forraje, con pastoreo libre eventual por períodos muy breves.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

La tecnología se desarrolla en un sitio denominado “La Joya” en el ejido Hermosillo por un productor que implementó el sistema agrosilvopastoril cuyo terreno no tenia aptitud agrícola por ser un suelo poco profundo, con presencia de calizas y una pendiente de 15%, La tecnología consiste en realizar paso de subsoleo para romper capas denominadas tepetates localmente (duripanes), Posteriormente se realizó cepas de 0.50 m de ancho x 0.50 m de largo y 0.40m de profundidad en forma manual. Se manejan dos diseños de plantación, siendo el primero de 8 m de ancho entre hileras y 2.00 m de distancia entre árboles; y, el segundo de 4.00m x 2.00 m respectivamente. En ambos diseños se plantaron árboles de Pinus cembroides (Pino piñonero), cuya especie es nativa de la micro región (MR). Respecto al diseño cuyas melgas son mas anchas, se siembra frijol para autoconsumo y maíz para forraje. En tanto en el diseño de melgas mas angostas se siembra cereales pequeños para forraje (cebada y avena) sin control químico. El sistema se cierra con el pastoreo libre en periodos cortos (de noviembre a diciembre) lo cual ayuda a tener un control de malezas. El objetivo principal del sistema es obtener ingresos de la producción del piñón como una meta a mediano y largo plazo. También como objetivos específicos; el productor señala beneficios ambientales tales como aire puro, humedad relativa, mejor calidad de suelo para producir y retorno de fauna.
El sistema demanda más mano de obra en épocas específicas en comparación a los sistemas tradicionales de producción agrícolas locales. Asimismo, el costo de la inversión inicial es alto; no obstante que disminuyen los gastos recurrentes en los años subsecuentes, debido a la preparación del suelo y establecimiento de la plantación. Los beneficios observados son el incremento y diversificación de la producción, concentración de actividades productivas en superficies reducidas, percepción de mejoras en los bienes y servicios ambientales (control de la erosión, humedad suelo, recreativos, etc.). Además el usuario tiene intenciones de incorporar a su sistema la sustitución de cultivos anuales por maguey pulquero (Agave salmiana). Se considera que esta tecnología es una innovación con apoyo familiar, sin haber recibido ningún subsidio gubernamental o privado, cuya asistencia técnica es proporcionada por los hijos. Es importante subrayar que los beneficios y costos señalados en esta sistematización son en 8 años desde la plantación, pudiendo tener una producción estable a partir de los 10 años, con eventuales oscilaciones en la producción conocidas como año semillero.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2010

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• create beneficial social impact

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• forest plantation management
• integrated crop-livestock management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

Pesos mexicanos

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

19.36

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	None	None	26.0	150.0	3900.0	100.0
Equipment	None	None	4.0	1500.0	6000.0	50.0
Equipment	None	None	4.0	600.0	2400.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	None	None	525.0	2.5	1312.5	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					13612.5
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					703.13

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	None	None	15.0	150.0	2250.0	100.0
Labour	None	None	14.0	150.0	2100.0	100.0
Labour	None	None	30.0	50.0	1500.0	100.0
Equipment	None	None	1.0	700.0	700.0	100.0
Equipment	None	None	3.0	260.0	780.0	100.0
Equipment	None	None	2.0	260.0	520.0	100.0
Equipment	None	None	2.0	600.0	1200.0	100.0
Plant material	None	None	130.0	6.0	780.0	100.0
Plant material	None	None	2.5	15.0	37.5	100.0
Plant material	None	None	4.5	25.0	112.5	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	None	None	1.0	150.0	150.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					10130.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					523.24

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Nee

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	not known
seasonal temperature	summer	increase	not known
annual rainfall		decrease	not known
seasonal rainfall	summer	decrease	not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
tropical storm	well
extra-tropical cyclone	not known
local rainstorm	not known
local thunderstorm	well
local hailstorm	well
local snowstorm	not known

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 91-100%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Nee

7.1 Methods/ sources of information