This is an outdated, inactive version of this case. Go to the current version.
Technologies
Inactive

Conversion de zones cultivées en forêt régionale [Senegal]

Tool bi (wolof)

technologies_1434 - Senegal

Completeness: 63%

1. General information

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

20/05/2010

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

Yes

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Conversion d'une zone agricole en forêt régonale dans le cadre d'un programme national de reforestation.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

En 2004, l’Etat sénégalais a entrepris un programme de mise en place de forêts communautaires d’une superficie de 200 ha chacune dans neuf régions du Sénégal. Dans le village de Nguith (zone sylvopastorale), toutes les catégories sociales se sont alors mobilisées pour aménager d’un commun accord avec le service des Eaux et Forêts une parcelle de 500 ha. Cet espace fut clôturé pour prévenir la divagation du bétail et cerné d’un pare-feu périmétral de protection contre les feux bien que leur occurrence soit en baisse depuis quelques années.

Purpose of the Technology: La création de cette forêt obéissait à la nécessité de restaurer une zone agricole fortement dégradée par la sécheresse, le surpâturage et l’érosion éolienne dont les effets étaient favorisés par les coupes abusives et la mécanisation agricole.

La mise en défens de la parcelle reboisée avec 6250 plants de Acacia senegal a permis de limiter la transhumance. Par ailleurs, les populations de Nguith, celles des villages environnants et même les habitants de la ville voisine de Linguère ont pu bénéficier d’une importante réserve fourragère. Auparavant, il arrivait à ces populations de devoir louer un camion pour aller chercher le fourrage à une distance de vingt kilomètres.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Aujourd’hui, cette forêt régionale est gérée par les populations de Nguith, avec l’appui du service des Eaux et Forêts. Pour prélever la charge d’une charrette de paille, il faut s’acquitter de redevances d’un montant d’environ 3 US$. Ces revenus permettent de payer le gardiennage. A partir de l’année 2011, ces revenus s’accroîtront avec l’exploitation de la gomme arabique. A la périphérie de la forêt, quelques parcelles sont mises en culture sous pluie (arachide, niébé, melon).

Natural / human environment: Dans des terroirs où la gratuité de l’accès aux ressources avait fini de fragiliser les écosystèmes et de compromettre les biens et services qui en sont tirés pour le bien-être des populations, la mise en place de forêts régionales permet de sécuriser les activités de production et d’instaurer ou de renforcer l’entente sociale autour d’un espace où les intérêts sont communs.

Les seuls inconvénients liés à cette technologie sont les frais de mis en place de la clôture (fil de fer barbelé) et l’ouverture du pare-feu qui exige l’achat de matériel lourd et une consommation en carburant élevée. En plus, les populations auront toujours besoin de ressources financières pour assurer la pérennité des retombées de l’exploitation à travers le gardiennage continu de la forêt.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

Country:

Senegal

Region/ State/ Province:

Linguère

Further specification of location:

Nguith

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

  • Introduit par l'Etat à travers un programme national
Comments (type of project, etc.):

2004

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Mixed (crops/ grazing/ trees), incl. agroforestry

Mixed (crops/ grazing/ trees), incl. agroforestry

Comments:

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Conflits entre agriculteurs et éleveurs

Plantation forestry: (reboisement)

Other type of forest: Fauchage

Other type of forest: Saignée: à venir

Forest products and services: bois de feu, conservation de la nature / protection

Other forest products and services: Fauchage

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Mixed: Mf: Agroforestry

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

Mixed: Ma: Agro-silvopastoralism

3.3 Further information about land use

Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 90

Longest growing period from month to month: juillet à septembre

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 5 m2.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

structural measures

structural measures

  • S11: Others
vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V1: Tree and shrub cover
management measures

management measures

  • M1: Change of land use type
Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures, structural measures, management measures

Type of vegetative measures: en bloc

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by wind

soil erosion by wind

  • Et: loss of topsoil
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
  • Bf: detrimental effects of fires
  • Bh: loss of habitats
  • Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Et: perte du sol de surface, Bc: réduction de la couverture végétale, Bh: perte d’habitat, Bq: baisse de la quantité / biomasse, Bf: effets nuisibles des feux, Bs: baisse de la qualité et de la composition / diversité des espèces

Main causes of degradation: déforestation / disparition de la végétation naturelle (inclus les feux de forêts) (déffrichement), surpâturage, tempêtes de vent / de poussière, sécheresses, pression de la population

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
Comments:

Main goals: rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: faible

Technical knowledge required for land users: faible

Main technical functions: amélioration de la couverture du sol, stabilisation du sol (par ex. par des racines d’arbres contre les glissements de terrain), augmentation de la matière organique, augmentation de la disponibilité des nutriments (réserve, recyclage, …), augmentation de l'infiltration, réduction de la vitesse du vent, augmentation de la biomasse (quantité), développement des espèces végétales et de la variété (qualité, ex: fourrage appétent), contrôle des feux, diversification et arrangement spatiaux pour l’utilisation des terres

In blocks
Vegetative material: T: arbres/ arbustes
Number of plants per (ha): 125
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 10
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 8

Trees/ shrubs species: Acacia senegal (plantée)

Structural measure: Pare-feu

Construction material (other): fil de fer barbelé

Change of land use type: de l'agro-sylvo-pastoralisme vers l'agro-foresterie

Change of land use practices / intensity level: d'un accès aléatoire vers un accès contrôlé

Control / change of species composition

4.4 Establishment activities

Activity Type of measure Timing
1. Mise en place de la pépinière Vegetative 5 mois (avril-août)
2. Reboisement Vegetative août
3. Pare-feu Structural
4. Confection et pose de la clôture Structural
5. Réunion de concertation (élaboration de charte) Management
6. Sensibilisation Management

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Type of measure Timing/ frequency
1. Arrosage Vegetative
2. Désherbage Vegetative
3. Entretien du pare-feu (désherbage) Structural annuel
4. Gardiennage Management

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

Annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

Précipitations annuelles: 251-500 mm (350-400mm, classé 1) et 500-750 mm (classé 2, maximun : 700 mm en 2009)

Agro-climatic zone
  • semi-arid

Thermal climate class: tropics

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Drainage des sols / infiltration: Faible (positif pour la technologie)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

> 50 m

Availability of surface water:

medium

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial
Off-farm income:
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • rich
Individuals or groups:
  • groups/ community
Gender:
  • women
  • men
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Les utilisateurs de terres utilisant la technologie sont
Population density: 10-50 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 1% - 2%

90% of the land users are rich.
10% of the land users are poor.

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • medium-scale

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

Land ownership:
  • state
Land use rights:
  • communal (organized)
Water use rights:
  • leased

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

fodder production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Maraîchage

wood production

decreased
increased

product diversity

decreased
increased
Income and costs

farm income

decreased
increased

diversity of income sources

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Maraîchage, pisciculture, élevage

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved

health situation

worsened
improved
Comments/ specify:

Bilharziose, paludisme

national institutions

weakened
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

conflict mitigation

worsened
improved

Risque de noyade

augmenté
en baisse

Les moyens de subsistance et le bien-être humain

en baisse
augmenté

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quantity

decreased
increased

water quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

élevage

excess water drainage

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Canaux d'amenée d'eau

groundwater table/ aquifer

lowered
recharge

evaporation

increased
decreased
Soil

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased

plant diversity

decreased
increased

animal diversity

decreased
increased

beneficial species

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Poissons prédateurs de moustiques

habitat diversity

decreased
increased

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Moustiques, parasites

Climate and disaster risk reduction

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased

fire risk

increased
decreased

wind velocity

increased
decreased

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

water availability

decreased
increased

downstream siltation

increased
decreased

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 Type of climatic change/ extreme How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature increase well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm well
local windstorm well
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
drought not well
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences
How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

very positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

neutral/ balanced

Long-term returns:

very positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Forte demande de création de ce type de forêt dans tout le département

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Sécurisation des activités autorisées

How can they be sustained / enhanced? Soutenir les populations dans le gardiennage
Mobilisation de la communauté

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
Coûts de la clôture et du pare-feu élevés

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules