1.2 ຂໍ້ມູນ ການຕິດຕໍ່ພົວພັນ ຂອງບຸກຄົນທີ່ສໍາຄັນ ແລະ ສະຖາບັນ ທີ່ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນການປະເມີນເອກກະສານ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ຊື່ໂຄງການ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ/ປະເມີນ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

ICARDA Institutional Knowledge Management Initiative

ຊື່ສະຖາບັນ (ຫຼາຍສະຖາບັນ) ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ / ປະເມີນ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) - ລີບານອນ

1.3 ເງື່ອນໄຂ ກ່ຽວກັບ ການນໍາໃຊ້ຂໍ້ມູນເອກະສານ ທີ່ສ້າງຂື້ນ ໂດຍຜ່ານ ອົງການພາບລວມຂອງໂລກ ທາງດ້ານແນວທາງ ແລະ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ຂອງການອານຸລັກ ທໍາມະຊາດ (WOCAT)

ຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ແລະ ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ ທີ່ໃຫ້ຂໍ້ມູນ (ຫຼາຍ) ຍິນຍອມ ຕາມເງື່ອນໄຂ ໃນການນຳໃຊ້ຂໍ້ມູນ ເພື່ອສ້າງເປັນເອກກະສານຂອງ WOCAT:

ແມ່ນ

1.4 ແຈ້ງການວ່າ ດ້ວຍຄວາມຍືນຍົງຂອງ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ດັ່ງກ່າວໄດ້ອະທິບາຍ ເຖິງບັນຫາ ກ່ຽວກັບ ການເຊື່ອມໂຊມຂອງດິນບໍ? ຖ້າບໍ່ດັ່ງນັ້ນ ມັນບໍ່ສາມາດ ຢັ້ງຢືນໄດ້ວ່າ ເປັນເຕັກໂນໂລຊີ ໃນການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ? :

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

2.1 ຄໍາອະທິບາຍສັ້ນຂອງ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ການກຳໜົດຄວາມໝາຍ ຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ:

Conservation Agriculture (CA) is a "ready-to-scale concept" in agriculture that allows a sustainable agricultural production and mitigation of climate change. The documented CA focuses on a dryland mixed system, including a biennial rotation of legume and cereals with integrated livestock management. CA has positive benefits on soil health and significantly reduces the needed inputs (e.g. fuel, labour) and workload for farmers.

2.2 ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ການພັນລະນາ:

Land degradation leading to desertification is an increasingly important problem in the dry land regions of the globe. This does not only affect the bio-physical aspects such as carbon storage, but also the lives of local land users. Land degradation is often initiated by the lack of vegetation cover as is often a consequence of overgrazing and over-ploughing (i.e mismanagement). Furthermore, climate change leads to droughts, intensified rainfall events, increased temperature, and more extreme weather events. These compromised climatic conditions enhance land degradation. This leads to less fertile soils, reducing yields and consequently deteriorates the income and lives of local farmers. Taking the consequence and scale of degradation into account, natural resource conservation interventions are urgently required.

As the lack of soil cover is an, if not the, essential initiating factor in the desertification process, it should be maximally addressed. In the light of this, CA has been developed, based on three leading principles: i) minimizing soil disturbances or no-tillage, ii) maintaining a permanent soil cover with mulch, and iii) adequate crop rotations. Overall, the three principles prevent land degradation and can also rehabilitate the land. This is because soil organic matter is maintained in/on the soil and the erosive power of raindrops are broken by the soil cover. Therefore, CA aims for more sustainable resource use (land and water use) and to optimize climate-resilient and integrated crop-livestock systems to sustainably intensify production in fragile dry areas.

Tunisia is a country that experiences the previously described pattern and results of desertification and where smallholder farmers are largely dependent on livestock for income generation. However, the livestock competes with the concept of CA as plant residues (stubble) are normally grazed by the livestock. Conservation agriculture propagates no or minimum soil disturbance/ tillage. However, the purchase of a zero-tillage seeder machine appears to be a bottleneck due to high costs since they are hardly produced locally. Nevertheless, there are farmers in the semi -arid areas of Tunisia, who adopted the technology and experience significant benefits such as increased soil fertility and over time increasing yields. In addition, as erosion rates are high in this rainfed area of 300 to 600 mm annual precipitation, a well-covered soil will reduce runoff and loss of top soil. Since ploughing is restricted, the workload and the demanded fuel is reduced, resulting in decreased costs and labour with respect to the conventional practices. Furthermore, integrated crop-livestock is practiced by limiting livestock to graze only the freshly harvested fields while producing manure to enhance soil health (organic fertilization and increase in soil organic matter).
Additionally, according to the third principle of CA, legumes were introduced in the agricultural system (crop rotation), besides the conventional cereal (e.g. durum wheat or barley). Specifically, faba bean is promising, as it has nitrogen fixing effects, enhancing soil health, and increasing and diversifying farm income. Vetch and other forage mixtures have also been successfully introduced to provide farmers with nutritious feed for livestock within the CA concept. In irrigated areas (e.g. parts in Algeria), the practice of CA has an additional benefit as it increases the irrigation water use efficiency due to less evaporation and better infiltration.

The previous agro-pastoral farming practices changed under CA to an integrated crop-livestock system where soil cover is permanent. This mixed system consist of firstly weed control. Secondly, zero-tillage seeding is done directly into the soil even if covered with e.g. mulch/stubble. Faba bean and/or wheat are seeded and rotated yearly. This is beneficial as legumes fix nitrogen in the soil, lowering the amount of nitrogenous fertilizer needed. Thirdly, required fertilizers (for wheat additional nitrogenous fertilizer) is applied with a spreader. Fourthly, herbicides, pesticides, insecticides and fungicides are applied with a sprayer for disease control. Fifthly, the field is harvested with a combine. The stubble is then partly grazed by the sheep and goats until there remains a 1-2 cm residue layer i.e. mulch. For one hectare this accounts for a thirty day grazing period for thirty goats or sheep. This results in an integrated Crop-Livestock system under CA (CLCA), as the stubble provides feed for livestock while the livestock provides the soil with manure.

The land users that have adopted CA have indicated that they extremely appreciate the reduction in work, also the cost of labour and fuel, etc. In addition, they saw increased yields due to improved soil health. However, this beneficial impact could only be observed in the long-term since yields take time to increase, which can be considered as a weakness as the small holder farmer tends to prioritize short term profits. Another weakness is that the livestock is constrained since residues ought to remain on the field.

In conclusion, even though there are bottlenecks, the technology of conservation agriculture is a solution to combat desertification while improving the lives of local land users through the process.

Information and data presented is partly made available through the project “Use of conservation agriculture in crop-livestock systems (CLCA) in the drylands for enhanced water use efficiency, soil fertility and productivity in NEN and LAC countries” funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), managed by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) and implemented in Tunisia by the National Agricultural Research Institute (INRAT).

2.3 ຮູບພາບຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

2.5 ປະເທດ / ເຂດ / ສະຖານທີ່ບ່ອນທີ່ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ໄດ້ຮັບການນໍາໃຊ້ ແລະ ທີ່ຖືກປົກຄຸມດ້ວຍການປະເມີນຜົນ

2.6 ວັນທີໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸປີ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ:

1999

2.7 ການນໍາສະເໜີ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ໄດ້ຖືກຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດຄືແນວໃດ?

• ໃນໄລຍະການທົດລອງ / ການຄົ້ນຄວ້າ
• ໂດຍຜ່ານໂຄງການ / ການຊ່ວຍເຫຼືອຈາກພາຍນອກ

3.1 ຈຸດປະສົງຫຼັກ (ຫຼາຍ) ຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

• ປັບປຸງ ການຜະລິດ
• ຫຼຸດຜ່ອນ, ປ້ອງກັນ, ຟື້ນຟູ ການເຊື່ອມໂຊມຂອງດິນ
• ປັບຕົວຕໍ່ກັບການປ່ຽນແປງດິນຟ້າອາກາດ / ທີ່ຮ້າຍແຮງ ແລະ ຜົນກະທົບ
• ສ້າງຜົນກະທົບ ທາງເສດຖະກິດ ທີ່ເປັນປະໂຫຍດ

3.2 ປະເພດການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃນປະຈຸບັນ() ທີ່ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ໄດ້ຖືກນໍາໃຊ້

ການນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ປະສົມພາຍໃນພື້ນທີ່ດຽວກັນ:

ແມ່ນ

ລະບຸການນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນແບບປະສົມ (ຜົນລະປູກ / ທົ່ງຫຍ້າລ້ຽງສັດ / ຕົ້ນໄມ້):

• ກະສິກໍາແບບປະສົມປະສານ (ລວມທັງ ການລ້ຽງສັດ-ປຸກຝັງ)

3.3 ການນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ມີການປ່ຽນແປງຍ້ອນການຈັດຕັ້ງທົດລອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ແມ່ນບໍ່?

ການນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ມີການປ່ຽນແປງຍ້ອນການຈັດຕັ້ງທົດລອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ແມ່ນບໍ່?

• ແມ່ນ (ກະລຸນາຕື່ມໃສ່ ຄຳຖາມຂ້າງລຸ່ມນີ້ກ່ຽວກັບການນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ກ່ອນການທົດລອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ)

ການນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ປະສົມພາຍໃນພື້ນທີ່ດຽວກັນ:

ແມ່ນ

ລະບຸການນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນແບບປະສົມ (ຜົນລະປູກ / ທົ່ງຫຍ້າລ້ຽງສັດ / ຕົ້ນໄມ້):

• ກະສິກໍາແບບປະສົມປະສານ (ລວມທັງ ການລ້ຽງສັດ-ປຸກຝັງ)

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

The land use has not necessarily changed as in the previous agro-pastoral system, livestock was also allowed to graze the field, providing it with manure. The difference is that under CA the livestock is not allowed to fully graze the land, leaving a soil cover.

3.4 ການສະໜອງນ້ຳ

ການສະໜອງນໍ້າ ໃນພື້ນທີ່ ທີ່ໄດ້ນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ:

• ນໍ້າຝົນ

3.5 ການນໍາໃຊ້ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ທີ່ຢູ່ໃນກຸ່ມການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

• ການຄຸ້ມຄອງພືດ ແລະ ລ້ຽງສັດ ແບບປະສົມປະສານ
• ການປັບປຸງດິນ / ພືດຄຸມດິນ
• ການຫຼຸດຜ່ອນ ກິດຈະກໍາ ທີ່ລົບກວນດິນ

3.6 ມາດຕະການ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ ປະກອບດ້ວຍ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

The residues are partly retained and partly grazed.

3.7 ປະເພດດິນເຊື່ອມໂຊມ ຫຼັກທີ່ໄດ້ນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

3.8 ການປ້ອງກັນ, ການຫຼຸດຜ່ອນ, ຫຼືການຟື້ນຟູຂອງການເຊື່ອມໂຊມຂອງດິນ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ເປົ້າໝາຍ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ທີ່ພົວພັນ ກັບຄວາມເຊື່ອມໂຊມຂອງດິນ:

• ປ້ອງກັນການເຊື່ອມໂຊມຂອງດິນ
• ການຟື້ນຟູ / ຟື້ນຟູດິນທີ່ຊຸດໂຊມ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

The technology of CA prevents land degradation as the soil cover prevents erosion because the cover breaks the erosive power of rainfall and wind. Also, CA has the ability to rehabilitate as the content (like organic matter and carbon) of the soil cover (e.g. mulch/stubble) remains in the soil eventually improving the soil quality.

4.1 ເຕັກນິກ ໃນການແຕ້ມແຜນວາດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

4.2 ຂໍ້ມູນທົ່ວໄປກ່ຽວກັບການຄິດໄລ່ປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າໃນການຜະລິດ ແລະ ມູນຄ່າອື່ນໆ

ລະບຸ ວິທີການ ຄຳໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ ແລະ ປັດໄຈນໍາເຂົ້າ ທີ່ໄດ້ຄິດໄລ່:

• ຕໍ່ພື້ນທີ່ ທີ່ໄດ້ຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ລະບຸ ສະກຸນເງິນທີ່ໃຊ້ສໍາລັບ ການຄິດໄລ່ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ:

• USA

4.3 ການສ້າງຕັ້ງກິດຈະກໍາ

	ກິດຈະກໍາ	Timing (season)
1.	Purchase Zero-Tillage Seeder

4.4 ຕົ້ນທຶນ ແລະ ປັດໄຈຂາເຂົ້າທີ່ຈໍາເປັນໃນຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ

	ລະບຸ ປັດໃຈ ນໍາເຂົ້າ ໃນການຜະລີດ	ຫົວໜ່ວຍ	ປະລິມານ	ຕົ້ນທຶນ ຕໍ່ຫົວໜ່ວຍ	ຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ຂອງປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າ ໃນການຜະລິດ	% ຂອງຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ທີ່ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃຊ້ຈ່າຍເອງ
ອຸປະກອນ	Zero-Tillage Seeder	piece	1.0	20000.0	20000.0
ຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ					20000.0
ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍທັງໝົດ ສຳລັບການສ້າງຕັ້ງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ເປັນສະກຸນເງີນໂດລາ					20000.0

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

The Zero-Tillage-Seeder can be bought as a community. This would lower the effective cost per farmer. Also, it is possible to hire Zero-Tillage Seeder.

4.5 ບໍາລຸງຮັກສາ / ແຜນຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ກິດຈະກໍາ

	ກິດຈະກໍາ	ໄລຍະເວລາ / ຄວາມຖີ່
1.	Weeding (Total weed control)	Year 1 Early-October
2.	Seeding Faba Bean	Year 1 Mid-October
3.	Apply Baseline Fertilization	Year 1 Mid-October
4.	Apply Herbicide	Year 1 Mid-October
5.	Apply Fungicide and Insecticide	Year 1 March-Early April
6.	Limited Grazing/Harvesting	Year 1 Late-April/May
7.	Weeding (Total weed control)	Year 2 Early-November
8.	Seeding Wheat	Year 2 Mid-November
9.	Apply Baseline Fertilization	Year 2 Mid-November
10.	Apply Nitrogenous Fertilization	Year 2 December-January-February
11.	Apply Herbicide	Year 2 December
12.	Apply Fungicide	Year 2 March-April
13.	Limited Grazing/Harvesting	Year 2 Late-June/Early-July

4.6 ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ ແລະ ປັດໄຈນໍາເຂົ້າທີ່ຈໍາເປັນສໍາລັບການບໍາລຸງຮັກສາກິດຈະກໍາ / ແຜນປະຕິບັດ (ຕໍ່ປີ)

	ລະບຸ ປັດໃຈ ນໍາເຂົ້າ ໃນການຜະລີດ	ຫົວໜ່ວຍ	ປະລິມານ	ຕົ້ນທຶນ ຕໍ່ຫົວໜ່ວຍ	ຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ຂອງປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າ ໃນການຜະລິດ	% ຂອງຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ທີ່ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃຊ້ຈ່າຍເອງ
ແຮງງານ	Weeding	Person-hour	1.0			100.0
ແຮງງານ	Seeding	Person-hour	2.0			100.0
ແຮງງານ	Fertilizer Application	Person-hour	0.5			100.0
ແຮງງານ	Harvesting	Person-hour	2.0			100.0
ອຸປະກອນ	The Zero-Tillage Seeder (hiring cost)	Machine-hour	2.0	16.5	33.0	100.0
ອຸປະກອນ	Sprayer (hiring cost for disease control)	Machine-hour	4.5	11.0	49.5	100.0
ອຸປະກອນ	Spreader (hiring costs for nitrogenous fertilizer application)	Machine-hour	1.5	11.0	16.5	100.0
ອຸປະກອນ	Combine (hiring cost for harvesting)	Machine-hour	2.0	47.5	95.0	100.0
ວັດສະດຸໃນການປູກ	Seeds Wheat	Kilogram	160.0	0.4	64.0	100.0
ວັດສະດຸໃນການປູກ	Seeds Faba Bean	Kilogram	120.0	0.48	57.6	100.0
ຝຸ່ນ ແລະ ຢາຊີວະພາບ	Baseline Fertilization	Quintal	2.5	19.9	49.75	100.0
ຝຸ່ນ ແລະ ຢາຊີວະພາບ	Nitrogenous Fertilization	Quintal	3.0	15.5	46.5	100.0
ຝຸ່ນ ແລະ ຢາຊີວະພາບ	Pesticide (for total weed control)	Liter	2.0	10.0	20.0	100.0
ຝຸ່ນ ແລະ ຢາຊີວະພາບ	Herbicide for grassy weeds	Liter	1.0	41.2	41.2	100.0
ຝຸ່ນ ແລະ ຢາຊີວະພາບ	Herbicide for broadleaf weeds and sedges	Liter	2.0	29.2	58.4	100.0
ຝຸ່ນ ແລະ ຢາຊີວະພາບ	Fungicide	Liter	1.5	40.0	60.0	100.0
ຝຸ່ນ ແລະ ຢາຊີວະພາບ	Herbicide for annual and perennial grasses	Liter	1.25	25.5	31.88	100.0
ຝຸ່ນ ແລະ ຢາຊີວະພາບ	Insecticide	Liter	0.1	66.8	6.68	100.0
ອື່ນໆ	Casual Labour	Person-day	12.0	5.3	63.6	100.0
ຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ທີ່ໃຊ້ໃນການບໍາລຸງຮັກສາ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ					693.61
ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍທັງໝົດ ສຳລັບການບົວລະບັດຮກສາເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ເປັນສະກຸນເງີນໂດລາ					693.61

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Assuming a biennial rotation (Legume-Cereal), inputs and costs for the establishment of one hectare under the technology are displayed in the table. The costs for solely faba bean is 332.8 USD per hectare.

4.7 ປັດໄຈ ທີ່ສໍາຄັນ ທີ່ສົ່ງຜົນກະທົບ ຕໍ່ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ

ໃຫ້ອະທິບາຍ ປັດໃຈ ທີ່ສົ່ງຜົນກະທົບ ຕໍ່ຕົ້ນທຶນ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ:

The initial purchase of the zero-tillage machine (20 000 USD) is dominantly affecting the costs of the technology. However, it should be taken into account, that this machine serves the long term. Because the area under description is dominated by small-scale farmers, access to zero-tillage machines is ensured through hiring private entrepreneurs or through the purchase of machines by farmers’ associations rather than individual farmers. Also, it is important to note that the additional costs of conservation agriculture mainly consists of the machine, the weeding control and the seeding of the legumes. Other costs are either similar or reduced with respect to conventional agriculture. For example, conventional agriculture requires three hours of ploughing and 1 hour of sowing. While conservation agriculture only needs half an hour for chemical weeding, 1 hour for sowing and does not require ploughing. This relates to reduced inputs such as fuel.

5.1 ອາກາດ

5.2 ພູມິປະເທດ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ທີ່ໄດ້ຖືກນຳໃຊ້:

• ບໍ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ

5.3 ດິນ

ຖ້າເປັນໄປໄດ້ ແມ່ນໃຫ້ຕິດຄັດ ການພັນລະນາດິນ ຫຼື ຂໍ້ມູນສະເພາະຂອງດິນ, ຕົວຢ່າງ, ຄຸນລັກສະນະ ປະເພດຂອງດິນ, ຄ່າຄວາມເປັນກົດ / ເປັນດ່າງຂອງດິນ, ສານອາຫານ,​ ດິນເຄັມ ແລະ ອື່ນໆ.

The top soil organic matter is relatively high as consequence of conservation agriculture.

5.4 ມີນໍ້າ ແລະ ຄຸນນະພາບ

ມີບັນຫາ ກ່ຽວກັບນໍ້າເຄັມບໍ່?

ແມ່ນ

ເກີດມີນໍ້າຖ້ວມ ໃນພື້ນທີ່ບໍ່?

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

5.5 ຊີວະນາໆພັນ

5.6 ຄຸນລັກສະນະ ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ທີ່ໄດ້ນໍາໃຊ້ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

5.7 ເນື້ອທີ່ສະເລ່ຍຂອງດິນ ທີ່ຜູ້ນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃຊ້ເຮັດເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

5.8 ເຈົ້າຂອງທີ່ດິນ, ສິດໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ, ແລະ ສິດທິການນໍາໃຊ້ນໍ້າ

ເຈົ້າຂອງດິນ:

• ບຸກຄົນ, ບໍ່ມີຕໍາແໜ່ງ
• ບຸກຄົນ, ທີ່ມີຕໍາແໜ່ງ

ສິດທິ ໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ:

• ບຸກຄົນ

ສິດທິ ໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ນໍ້າ:

• ຊຸມຊົນ (ທີ່ມີການຈັດຕັ້ງ)
• ບຸກຄົນ

ສິດນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ແມ່ນ ອີງໃສ່ລະບົບກົດໝາຍແບບດັ້ງເດີມບໍ?

ແມ່ນ

ລະບຸ ຊະນິດ:

Land use rights in Tunisia have a long history with religious (e.g. melk) influences and French influences. This resulted in that currently most lands are private owned or state owned,

5.9 ການເຂົ້າເຖິງການບໍລິການ ແລະ ພື້ນຖານໂຄງລ່າງ

6.1 ການສະແດງຜົນກະທົບ ພາຍໃນພື້ນທີ່ ທີ່ໄດ້ຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ຜົນກະທົບທາງເສດຖະກິດສັງຄົມ

ການຜະລິດ

ລາຍໄດ້ ແລະ ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ

ຜົນກະທົບດ້ານວັດທະນາທໍາສັງຄົມ

ຜົນກະທົບຕໍ່ລະບົບນິເວດ

ວົງຈອນນໍ້າ / ນໍ້າ

ດິນ

ຊີວະນານາພັນ: ສັດ, ພືດ

ການຫຼຸດຜ່ອນ ຄວາມສ່ຽງ ຈາກໄພພິບັດ ແລະ ອາກາດປ່ຽນແປງ

6.2 ຜົນກະທົບທາງອ້ອມ ຈາກການນໍາໃຊ້ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

6.3 ການປ້ອງກັນ ແລະ ຄວາມບອບບາງ ຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢິ ໃນການປ່ຽນແປງສະພາບດິນຟ້າອາກາດ ແລະ ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງກັບອາກາດທີ່ມີການປ່ຽນແປງທີ່ຮຸນແຮງ / ໄພພິບັດທາງທໍາມະຊາດ (ຮັບຮູ້ໄດ້ໂດຍຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ)

ການປ່ຽນແປງດິນຟ້າອາກາດ ເທື່ອລະກ້າວ

ການປ່ຽນແປງດິນຟ້າອາກາດ ເທື່ອລະກ້າວ

	ລະດູການ	ເພີ່ມຂື້ນ ຫຼື ຫຼຸດລົງ	ການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ສາມາດ ຮັບມື ໄດ້ຄືແນວໃດ?
ອຸນຫະພູມປະຈໍາປີ		ເພີ່ມຂື້ນ	ດີ
ປະລິມານນໍ້າຝົນປະຈໍາປີ		ຫຼຸດລົງ	ດີ

ອາກາດ ທີ່ກ່ຽວພັນກັບຄວາມຮຸນແຮງ (ໄພພິບັດທາງທໍາມະຊາດ)

ໄພພິບັດທາງພູມອາກາດ

	ການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ສາມາດ ຮັບມື ໄດ້ຄືແນວໃດ?
ໄຟໄໝ້ດິນ	ບໍ່​ດີ

ໄພພິບັດທາງຊີວະພາບ

	ການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ສາມາດ ຮັບມື ໄດ້ຄືແນວໃດ?
ພະຍາດລະບາດ	ບໍ່​ດີ

6.4 ການວິເຄາະຕົ້ນທຶນ ແລະ ຜົນປະໂຫຍດ

ຈະເຮັດປະໂຫຍດເພື່ອປຽບທຽບກັບຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍກັບສິ່ງກໍ່ສ້າງ (ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ) ໄດ້ແນວໃດ?

ຈະໄດ້ຮັບຜົນປະໂຫຍດເມື່ອປຽບທຽບກັບ / ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍໃນການບຳລຸງຮັກສາທີເ່ກີດຂື້ນອິກ (ຈາກທັດສະນະຄະຕິຂອງຜູ້ນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ) ໄດ້ແນວໃດ?

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

The maintenance of conservation agriculture is positively experienced because of the reduced workload and inputs as the additional costs of e.g. weeding and pest control are not larger than the original costs of weeding and ploughing. However, the establishment costs are considered negative due to the significant costs of the zero-tillage machine. In the long term, the improved soil conditions should have maximum benefits.

6.5 ການປັບຕົວຮັບເອົາເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

• 1-10%

ທັງໝົດນັ້ນ ແມ່ນໃຜ ໄດ້ປັບຕົວເຂົ້າ ໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ, ມີຈັກຄົນ ທີ່ສາມາດເຮັດເອງໄດ້, ຕົວຢ່າງ, ປາດສະຈາກ ການຊ່ວຍເຫຼືອ ທາງດ້ານອຸປະກອນ / ການຈ່າຍເປັນເງິນ?

• 11-50%

6.6 ການປັບຕົວ

ໄດ້ມີການດັດປັບ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ເພື່ອໃຫ້ແທດເໝາະກັບເງື່ອນໄຂ ການປ່ຽນແປງບໍ?

ແມ່ນ

ອື່ນໆ (ລະບຸແຈ້ງ):

The demand of the farmers

ລະບຸການຮັບຮອງເອົາ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ (ການອອກແບບ, ອຸປະກອນການ / ຊະນິດພັນ ແລະ ອື່ນໆ):

The farmers demanded different dimensions for the Zero-Tillage-seeder, related to their desired inter rows spaces e.g. a wider seeder so more area is seeded in the same time.

6.7 ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ / ໂອກາດ ໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ / ໂອກາດໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ
Conservation Agriculture (CA) reduces the costs and workload with respects to conventional farming. For example, in conventional agriculture the field was ploughed, which costed machine hours. This cost is cancelled out by conservation agriculture, following the three principles. On top of that, this results in less costs such as depreciation of the plough and less consumed fuel.
CA leads to improved soil conditions and reduced/prevented land degradation which leads to increased biomass-production. This does benefit the land user. However, these benefits are noticeable in the long term. So, conservation agriculture is therefore significantly beneficial and (economically) important for family farms, where the land is passed on to future generations.
In irrigated areas, conservation agriculture leads to improved irrigation water use efficiency because of less water evaporation from the soil surface. Additionally, in flood irrigated areas, the soil is better protected and not flushed away. Farmers that have limited amount of irrigation water consider this a great benefit. In Algeria for example, the impact of CA practices resulted in a 30–40% reduction in the use of irrigation water and a two- to three-fold increase in barley and wheat production without the use of better seeds.

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຈຸດດີ / ໂອກາດ ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ
In Tunisia, it has been proven that CA based on Zero tillage and soil residue retention vs conventional agriculture contributes to make wheat production more resilient to climate change through enhancing wheat yield (15%), improvement of water use efficiency (13% to 18%), increase organic carbon accumulation (0.13 ton/ha/year to 0.18 ton/ha/year-). The reduction of soil loss caused by soil water erosion varies between 1.7 ton/ha/year to 4.6 ton/ha/year of soil loss.
CA prevents desertification. This is important as the desertification is increasing in dry lands. Thereby, it reduces the socio-economic capacity of the rural population, because of deteriorated biomass-production. Hence conservation agriculture is important to develop capacity in the rural areas of the dry lands as it ensures increased yields (i.e. higher income)
Soil microbial activity is an indicator for soil fertility. Preliminary results showed that soil microbial activity was higher under CA than conventional practices for different studied soil layers (0-15 cm, 15-25 cm and 25-45 cm).
Regarding the impact of CA on natural resources, especially soil health and water efficiency. Scientific evidences show that soil loss due to erosion reduced by 14 percent, some 62 kilograms per hectare under CA practices compared to conventional practices.

6.8 ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍ / ຄວາມສ່ຽງ ໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ແລະ ວິທີການແກ້ໄຂບັນຫາ

ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍ / ຄວາມສ່ຽງໃນມຸມມອງຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
The competition between livestock is identified as a major issue in terms of effectiveness and adoptability of conservation agriculture (CA). Livestock grazes the stubble and crop residues, reducing the amount of soil cover on the field, thus lowering the protection and improvement of the soil. And as most farmers rely on livestock, this conflict between livestock and CA lowers the adoption rate of the technology.	This can be addressed through integrated smart livestock management. The approach should aim at minimizing the harm to soil cover, while maximizing the nutrition intake of livestock. The 30/30-model, in which the optimal trade-off between soil cover and grazing period is found, offers such solution. Here 30 sheep or goats may graze one hectare for thirty days. This leaves enough soil cover and meets livestock demand.
The price and availability of the zero-tillage seeder is crucial in the farmer's decision to adopt CA. The purchase of such a machine is namely very high for a farmer. It is unlikely that a farmer is willing to invest this huge amount as the farmer prefers profit in the short term.	Investments (private and government) are needed to boost the manufacturing of national made zero-tillage seeder. This would increase the availability of the machine and decrease the price. Furthermore, farmers may organize themselves into communitiy user groups and cooperations hence, lowering the cost per farmer. However, good governance and planning of machine use is essential, as tension may develop during the short sowing period for the use of the machine.
The risks of pests and weeds increase during first years of the transition from conventional tillage to CA because of the residues left on the field and the change in the weeds flora. These form a good basis for disease development.	In the short term this can be overcome by using herbicides and fungicides. However, this might be paired with other risks. Therefore, there should be research into alternative pest controls measures, such as intercropping or the introduction of natural enemies.

ຈຸດອ່ອນ/ຂໍ້ບົກຜ່ອງ/ຄວາມສ່ຽງ ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
The low capacity of farmers to invest in CA, specifically a zero-tillage seeder, is a weakness. This is due to the lack of government support and due to the small scale of most farms (80% of the Tunisian farmers have less than 10 ha of land).	Iimprove institutional support by for example the government. The government can support farmers by giving subsides to allow the purchase of a zero-tillage seeder machine. The wider scale adoption of CA requires a change in commitment and behavior of all stakeholders. Such changes call for sustained policy and institutional support that provides both incentives and motivations to encourage farmers to adopt components of CA practices and improve them over time.
The increasing use of pesticides for weeding and pest control is a growing concern and risk. Pesticides may have harming effects on the soil, the biodiversity and the public health.	Alternatives to pesticides can overcome this risk. However, research is needed to scrutinize this and if it is cost-effective. Possible alternative approaches are intercropping and the introduction of natural enemies. This would not only mitigate the risk of pests and weeding, but also enhance soil health and biodiversity.

7.1 ວິທີການ / ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນ

7.2 ເອກກະສານອ້າງອີງທີ່ເປັນບົດລາຍງານ

ຫົວຂໍ້, ຜູ້ຂຽນ, ປີ, ISBN:

Amir Souissi, Bahri Haithem, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed, Mohamed Chakroun, Salah Ben Youssef, Aymen Frija, Mohamed Annabi. (7/8/2020). Effect of Tillage, Previous Crop, and N Fertilization on Agronomic and Economic Performances of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf. ) under Rainfed Semi-Arid Environment. Agronomy, 10(8).

ມີຢູ່ໃສ?ມູນຄ່າເທົ່າໃດ?

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/11886

ຫົວຂໍ້, ຜູ້ຂຽນ, ປີ, ISBN:

Amar Rouabhi, Abdelmalek Laouar, Abdelhamid Mekhlouf, Boubaker Dhehibi. (1/3/2019). Socioeconomic assessment of no-till in wheat cropping system: a case study in Algeria. New Medit, 18(1).

ມີຢູ່ໃສ?ມູນຄ່າເທົ່າໃດ?

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/9761

ຫົວຂໍ້, ຜູ້ຂຽນ, ປີ, ISBN:

Bahri Haithem, Mohamed Annabi, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed, Aymen Frija. (1/11/2019). Assessing the long-term impact of conservation agriculture on wheat-based systems in Tunisia using APSIM simulations under a climate change context. Science of the Total Environment, 692, pp. 1223-1233.

ມີຢູ່ໃສ?ມູນຄ່າເທົ່າໃດ?

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10157

ຫົວຂໍ້, ຜູ້ຂຽນ, ປີ, ISBN:

CLCA Project Page

ມີຢູ່ໃສ?ມູນຄ່າເທົ່າໃດ?

https://mel.cgiar.org/projects/clca2

7.3 ເຊື່ອມຕໍ່ກັບຂໍ້ມູນທີ່ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງໂດຍກົງ

ຫົວຂໍ້ / ພັນລະນາ:

Zied Idoudi, Nasreddine Louahdi, Mina Devkota Wasti, Zahra Djender, Aymen Frija, Mourad Rekik. (26/4/2020). Public-Private Partnership for enhanced conservation agriculture practices: the case of Boudour Zero-Till seeder in Algeria. Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/11047

ຫົວຂໍ້ / ພັນລະນາ:

Mourad Rekik, Santiago López Ridaura, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed, Zahra Djender, Boubaker Dhehibi, Aymen Frija, Mina Devkota Wasti, Udo Rudiger, Enrico Bonaiuti, Dina Najjar, Zied Idoudi. (26/11/2019). Use of Conservation Agriculture in Crop-Livestock Systems (CLCA) in the Drylands for Enhanced Water Use Efficiency, Soil Fertility and Productivity in NEN and LAC Countries – Project Progress Report: Year I - April 2018 to March 2019. Jordan: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10444

ຫົວຂໍ້ / ພັນລະນາ:

Udo Rudiger, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed. (1/5/2019). Inspired by Nature - A Tunisian Farmer’s Perspective on Sustainable Integration of Crop and Livestock. (Short version).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10013

ຫົວຂໍ້ / ພັນລະນາ:

Peter Fredenburg, Colin Piggin, Michael Devlin. (30/11/2012). Conservation agriculture: opportunities for intensified farming and environmental conservation in dry areas. Aleppo, Syria: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/5073

ຫົວຂໍ້ / ພັນລະນາ:

Hichem Ben Salem. (15/12/2015). Strategic Practical Options for Integrating Conservation Agriculture Cropping and Livestock Systems. Amman, Jordan: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/4999

ຫົວຂໍ້ / ພັນລະນາ:

Hichem Ben Salem. (4/5/2016). Recent trends in conservation agriculture.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/4771

ຫົວຂໍ້ / ພັນລະນາ:

Aymen Frija. (26/11/2016). Conservation Agriculture: strengthening crop production in marginal areas. URL: https://globalfutures.cgiar.org/2016/11/28/conservation-agriculture-strengthening-crop-production-in-marginal-areas/

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/6120

ຫົວຂໍ້ / ພັນລະນາ:

Hajer Guesmi, Hichem Ben Salem, Nizar Moujahed. (1/9/2019). Integration crop-livestock under conservation agriculture system. Journal of New Science, 65(1), pp. 4061-4065.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/11423

ຫົວຂໍ້ / ພັນລະນາ:

Bahri Haithem, Mohamed Annabi, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed, Aymen Frija. (1/11/2019). Assessing the long-term impact of conservation agriculture on wheat-based systems in Tunisia using APSIM simulations under a climate change context. Science of the Total Environment, 692, pp. 1223-1233.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10157

ຫົວຂໍ້ / ພັນລະນາ:

Ayoub Fouzai, Maroua Smaoui, Aymen Frija, Boubaker Dhehibi. (5/5/2019). Adoption of Conservation Agriculture Technologies by Smallholder Farmers in the semiarid region of Tunisia: Resource constraints and partial adoption. Journal of New Sciences, 6(1), pp. 105-114.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/9988