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)

Catastrophic shifts in drylands (EU-CASCADE)

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

Centro de Estudios Ambientales del Mediterraneo (CEAM) - Spain

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:

Yes

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?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Post-fire afforestation with Pinus Halepensis to reduce soil erosion and to enhance forest growth.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

As a consequence of the devastating fire of the year 1979 which destroyed 33’000 ha of forest, strong erosion processes occurred on the bare soil and hindered the vegetation to regrow. Furthermore, this region was already abandoned (rural exodus) and missing management practices increased the problem of erosion. Therefore the government mandated to afforest the burnt areas in 1985.

The main purpose of the afforestation was to reduce the soil erosion (which was severe at that time) by planting trees, which increases soil stability and enables forest growth again. But the state also wanted to ensure wood extraction in the future. Furthermore, the visual impact was an important driver for afforesting this area.

The afforestation was executed in the winter of 1985 (November-February/March) by the regional forest services (Conselleria de agricultura). Forest engineers, who worked for the state and planned the project, collaborated with forest agents whereas the involved forest agents contracted local villagers to help afforesting these areas. The forest agent acted as a link between engineer and forest brigade and controlled if the brigade executed what the engineer proposed. He also provided assistance to the workers. The forest brigade was paid by day-if it was raining, people did not work and did not get any salary.
Nobody could provide direct information on the afforestation process in 1985 but there are not many differences of how they did it in the past and how it works today. The planting holes (60cm x 60cm x 60cm) were created with a machine (Caterpillar) using a “spoon” to open a hole and cover it again. This process loosens the soil (only possible in soils which are free from big stones). It should be noted that they did not use a ripper, they knew that the soil is destroyed using this technique. The seedlings were planted manually by the forest workers and arranged linearly because this facilitated the handling of the machines. Since the soil had a low stone content, it was suitable for the establishment of a forest.
The afforested area covered around 100 ha (not continuously). Today, the costs of an afforestation are around 1500 Euro per ha, but in the past it was less expensive. They only planted Pinus Halepensis. Today, a seedling of this tree species costs between 20 and 60 Cents. If the regional forest services have their own nurseries, they do not need to spend money to buy seedlings.
The success of an afforestation depends on numerous factors such as aspect and humidity (better on north-facing slopes), soil amount/fertility (better conditions on former cultivated fields), origin of the seedlings (adapted to the local climatic conditions), variability/uncertainty of the weather conditions (e.g. droughts, freezing). Usually a plantation is done in October/November and therefore especially the first summer determines the success. If it is too dry the plant will not grow (roots are too short to reach the humidity deeper in the ground). Further, the availability of trained people and the selection of appropriate machines are crucial.
The documented afforestation is one of a few examples of afforestation trials which succeeded. Today there is a forest where young pines are growing naturally ("children" of the planted ones), but also resprouter species (e.g. Quercus) can be found, which regenerated without having been planted and apparently were dispersed by birds.
But there are also some problems related to this afforestation. The forest agent explained that there is a high pest risk since monoplantations are less resilient to diseases (sick or dead plants in turn increase the fire risk). Another problem is that the trees were planted too densely (800-1000 plants per ha with a spacing of 5-10m) which requires recurrent management of the forest. Knowing about this problem, around the year 2003 they managed the area doing a selective clearing to reduce both the continuity and the competition between the species and thus also reduced the fire risk (“ayuda regeneración”). But the forest has become extremely dense again, thus increasing the risk of fires. There is a need to manage this area again and to extract biomass (selective clearing), but unfortunately no management project is planned for the near future.

The region of Ayora is mountainous with a dry subhumid climate (~380 mm annual rainfall). The risk of fire incidence is at its highest from June to September when there are adverse conditions like drought, high temperatures and strong winds (mainly the winds coming from central Spain, called “poniente”).
The population density is very low and there are only few job opportunities (e.g. marginal agriculture, grazing, hunting, beekeeping). The plantation provided jobs for rural people. Also today forest management could be a source for jobs.

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

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The project was designed by the regional forest services of Valencia in 1985 (“Conselleria de agricultura” at that time, today it is called “Conselleria de infraestructura, territorio y medio ambiente”).

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): The past land use resulted in a change of the vegetation composition (e.g. through removal of resprouter species). Due to rural exodus and land abandonment, the natural succession took place and fire-prone early-successional species colonized the abandoned fields. The vegetation grew without any control which seems to have caused the devastating fire of the year 1979 which destroyed 33’000 ha of forest. As a consequence of this fire, strong erosion processes occurred on the bare soil and hindered the vegetation to regrow. Furthermore, people which still lived there lost their properties after the fire and moved away as well. A consequence of the depopulation was a lack of management practices which increased the problem of post-fire erosion.

Number of growing seasons per year:
1

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• forest plantation management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -linear

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (Deforestation in the past (removal of resprouter species), land abandonment, uncontrolled growth of fire-prone vegetation, afforestations. The fire of 1979 destroyed 33'000 ha of forest.), population pressure (Vast areas were deforested in the past for agriculture, important key species were removed. After land abandonment there was a lack of management strategies), land tenure (After the fire, many people lost their properties and had to move away, therefore no management for post-fire erosion was applied.), labour availability (In the past there was outmigration from the region to the big cities and therefore there was a lack of management before and after the fire.), inputs and infrastructure: (roads, markets, distribution of water points, other, …) (The huge fire of 1979 could not be stopped easily because of the lack of fire extinction media like water ponds, streets, transport media (this has been improved now))

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent 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

other/ national currency (specify):

Euro

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

0.74

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Digging holes (60cm x 60cm x 60cm)	Once (1985), between November and February/March
2.	Plantation of the seedlings (pinus halepensis)	Once (1985), between November and February/March

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
Equipment	machine use	ha	1.0	4857.0	4857.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					4857.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					6563.51

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 4 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Selective clearing "ayuda regeneración" (only done once in 2003 but should be done again to decrease the risk of fires and competition between species)	late spring 2003

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
Equipment	machine use	ha	1.0	2428.0	2428.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					2428.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					3281.08

Comments:

The costs were calculated for the application of the technology on one hectare. Furthermore, the total costs of the afforestation were calculated with today’s costs because the costs at the time it was implemented are not known.
The currency rate (Euro-Dollar) was calculated on November 16th, 2013.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The costs of a plantation can be affected by numerous factors, such as slope (if the slope is steep, the work is much more difficult and takes more time, also because machines cannot be used on steep slopes), distance from a street (people can work less in a day if they have to walk far to plant), stone content of the soil (if there are many stones the work is much more difficult for the machines), soil type (plantations work much better on previous cropland because the soil is more fertile), origin of the seedlings (adapted to the local climatic conditions), variability/uncertainty of the weather conditions (e.g. droughts, freezing). If there are adverse climatic conditions or other negative circumstances the afforestation will not work well and this might cause higher costs.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users
Difference in the involvement of women and men: The work was mainly done by men, because it is heavy work and it is not usual that women are working in the forest.
Population density: < 10 persons/km2
Annual population growth: negative

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

Land ownership:

• state
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

• public/open access but organised (e.g. hunting)

• public/open access but organised (e.g. hunting)

Comments:

In the region, there is some public land, controlled by the state. But there is also some private land. The access to the public land is open but organized. Permission is needed from the government to cut trees, to build a house or to hunt. There are some private hunting areas for which the hunting association has to pay a fee.

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local windstorm	not known

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	not well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not known

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	not well
fires	not well

Comments:

The technology was not modified but it is important to add some notes to the above stated reactions to climatic extremes. If the temperature is decreasing to -15°C the pines are sensitive because they freeze. But they are tolerant against temperature increase always when there is water available (Pinus Hal. is more tolerant to temperature increase than Pinus Pinaster). Afforestations are more sensitive to droughts than natural forests because the afforested trees are not used to these hard conditions. If the pines are mature, they are more tolerant than young pines because their roots are longer and reach deeper into the ground. If there is a drought when pines are still young it can increase the risk of a fire. The pines are also sensitive to hail and snow.

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)?

Comments:

Short-term returns are negative because the management practice is expensive and until the trees reach a mature state, there are not many returns (in terms of wood and biomass). In the long-term this management practice shows a positive result because compared to bare soil or shrubland it has ecological benefits such as the reduction of soil erosion, and it also provides wood and biomass which could be extracted. Currently there is no management project because the state does not invest money but it would actually be required in order to maintain the healthy state of this forest patch and to control the fire risk. If there is money invested by the state they can do a selective clearing which will result in short-term returns, e.g. wood (but also in the long-term they will be able to extract wood).

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
In Spain a lot of afforestation trials have been realized in the past but only a few of them succeeded.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
There are also economic benefits for local people. The afforestation provided jobs for rural people. Furthermore, Pinus Halepensis seedlings grow faster and show a higher survival rate than other species, therefore the natural process of forest growth is increased which in turn results in the possibility to use the forest after some years again, e.g. extraction of wood/biomass for bioenergy or timber. But unfortunately this is not done frequently because it is expensive to clear the forest (located in a remote area).
Many stakeholders mentioned the positive visual impact. They prefer to have a forest instead of bare soil or shrubland, and it reminds them of how the state of the forest was before the fire. Trees have a higher value for them than shrubs. They supported the fact that the afforestation helped the environment to regenerate.
Compared to the situation after the fire there is a higher biodiversity due to the afforestation.
The afforestation contributed to rural development

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The afforestation allowed the rehabilitation of an area affected by a devastating wildfire. It is an example out of many afforestation trials which succeeded. The success of this Pinus Halepensis afforestation is not only shown by the occurrence of healthy old pines, but also by the growth of young pines and resprouter species such as Quercus which were not planted.
Through the plantation of pines, the soil cover and stability was improved which in turn led to a decrease of soil erosion. The reduction in soil erosion (less transported sediments) also resulted in a decrease of damages of the infrastructure (such as streets or water ponds for fire extinction).

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?
The area which was afforested is now not available anymore for agriculture. There is therefore a loss of agricultural land, but it is not sure either whether there would be a farmer using this land since it is located in a remote area.	Local hunters are cultivating cereals next to the forest to attract the animals. This is also important for the animals because without these fields, they would probably have to leave this area due to the scarce fodder supply
The area is now less accessible for hunters because of the density of the forest which allows animals to hide themselves	In the opinion of the villagers it would be important to promote the relationship between humans and nature and to find a balance between forest use and natural processes. The consciousness of the patrimonial value of the forest should also be promoted.
Some stakeholders criticized the linear planting. This is not like nature “would do it”.
There are many stakeholder who said that it was an error to do so many afforestations with Pinus Halepensis because in many regions nature would have regenerated by itself. It would have been possible to save a lot of money. A plantation causes high costs.
Due to the lack of management and because there is almost no use of the forest by the local population, there is a high amount of shrubs which increases the fire risk and hinders from walking through the forest

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
It would be necessary to extract biomass from the forest to decrease the continuity of the trees and shrubs. Due to the lack of forest management (the management activities are expensive and labour-intensive) there is an increased risk of fires.	More investments in forest management such as selective forest clearings are required. Managing the forest would not only decrease the risk of fire and the competition between the species but also generate benefits such as timber or biomass for bioenergy production. Furthermore, jobs would be generated. In general, after afforestations, it would be required that people manage the forest. Nowadays, there is only limited use of the forest – in the past people lived of the land, but today this is not the case anymore. E.g. grazing is almost not existing anymore but in fact this would be really important for the reduction of the fire risk.
It is not fully clear whether Pinus Halepensis plantations are a useful tool for restoration and it is also questioned whether it is sustainable to plant only Pinus Halepensis. Monoplantations result in the simplification of the landscape and alterations of habitats. One of the reasons why they used this species is that planting pines is kind of a tradition: it was always used for economic purposes because in earlier times the wood had a higher value. Furthermore, Pinus Halepensis seedlings grow faster and show a higher survival rate than other species, and since the aim of the afforestations was to have forest again in a short period of time, this species seemed to be the most suitable. But often in Pinus Halepensis Monoplantations other species do not grow (which is not the case in the documented afforestation).	Research carried out on this topic showed that it would be good to increase the diversity (e.g. with carrasca, sabina, enebros, madroños), to combine the plantation of pines with the plantation of broad-leaved resprouting species (such as holm oak), in order to take advantage of both the fast-growth features of pines and the high resilience of oaks. This also provides higher diversity and landscape heterogeneity
Monoplantations are more vulnerable to perturbations such as forest fires or pests. If there is a high amount of one specific species the spread of a pest is facilitated. Sick or dead trees in turn increase the fire risk.	It would be good to increase the diversity (e.g. with carrasca, sabina, enebros, madroños), to combine the plantation of pines with the plantation of broad-leaved resprouting species (such as holm oak), in order to take advantage of both the fast-growth features of pines and the high resilience of oaks.
Additional information: The here documented afforestation was successful, but usually many plantations of Pinus Halepensis failed (low seedling survival rate)	Seedling survival can in some cases (has also be questioned) be enhanced through preconditioning, water harvesting techniques (micro-catchments), tree-shelters (protective tubes), fertilisation, application of mulch, using facilitating effects (planting close to a resource island or a nurse plant, to benefit from shade, change in soil properties, retention of soil and nutrients, protection from grazers), perch effect (providing bird perches e.g. dead trees, artificial woody structures, in old fields to accelerate colonisation rates (bird-mediated restoration))

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Fernández-Ondoño, E., Rojo Serrano, L., Jiménez, M. N., Navarro, F. B., Díez, M., Martín, F., … Aguilar, J. (2010). Afforestation improves soil fertility in south-eastern Spain. European Journal of Forest Research, 129(4), 707–717.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Maestre, F. T., & Cortina, J. (2004). Are Pinus halepensis plantations useful as a restoration tool in semiarid Mediterranean areas? Forest Ecology and Management, 198(1-3), 303–317.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Pausas, J. G., Blad, C., Valdecantos, A., Seva, P., Fuentes, D., Alloza, A., … Estudios, C. De. (2004). Pines and oaks in the restoration of Mediterranean landscapes of Spain : New perspectives for an old practice – a review, (Vázquez 1998), 209–220.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Sánchez, J. R., Bonet, a., Bellot, J., & Chirino, E. (2006). Effects of 30-year-old Aleppo pine plantations on runoff, soil erosion, and plant diversity in a semi-arid landscape in south eastern Spain. Catena, 65(1), 19–29.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Valdecantos, a, Baeza, M. J., & Vallejo, V. R. (2009). Vegetation Management for Promoting Ecosystem Resilience in Fire-Prone Mediterranean Shrublands. Restoration Ecology, 17(3), 414–421.